Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jim kelley who wrote (110767)	5/13/2000 8:37:00 PM
From: Eric K.	Respond to of 1578542

Have the AMD longs spread too much love on your thread? I'm not sure how well you'll fare here without the Windsock, Yousef, Engel Trinity of Darkness to assist your crusade.

To: jim kelley who wrote (110767)	5/13/2000 8:43:00 PM
From: Scumbria	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578542

Jim, Bienvenue … bord. Je me demandais quand vous arriveriez. Scumbria

To: jim kelley who wrote (110767)	5/13/2000 9:36:00 PM
From: pgerassi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578542

Dear Jim: The ground pins are necessary to reduce inter-trace noise which is more prevalent at higher data speeds. To get the highest speed, a balanced pair of traces will be needed with the data based on the difference between the two. This has the highest noise immunity short of shielding or optical connections. Many busses like floppy cables, SCSI, ethernet (all three kinds (10M, 100M, 1G)), and communications need a ground between each signal pair. Many of the pins in DDR also are ground. In the long term future, most inter-module data links will be optical. I have seen 70,000 connections in 1 cm square, so this "fetish" about pin count, will be "Passe" in the near future. In the past, a 68 pin IC was HUGE, now it is simply normal. Pin count makes more sense in cables (especially LONG cables) where each "Pin" costs $1.00 or more or when space is a consideration. But on a BGA where the chip is 100mm^2, and 300 to 500 is not atypical, it does not make economic or technical sense. If a "Pin" costs $0.1 each, the savings of 50 or so (64 bit SDRAM vs 16 bit RDRAM) must not result in a module cost more than $5.00 extra or it is unnecessary. RDRAM has it place when only one or two chips are needed for a system. It is stupid when 16 or 32 chips are needed. DDRDRAM makes sense for those system sizes. Anything RDRAM can do with 16 data lines could be duplicated with DDRDRAM only with 64 data lines. Both require about the same number of control wires. A RDRAM system with comparable performance needs 4 channels and those use more pins due to the duplicated control wires. Even processors are multiplying performance by parallelism. You know SIMD, MMX, SSE, and 3D-Now? I think Intel wanted a propriority memory solution so it could "clean up". It seems to have gotten what it deserved, "The Shaft". Pete