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.

Technology Stocks : Rambus (RMBS) - Eagle or Penguin -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Scumbria who wrote (43157)	5/30/2000 1:52:00 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

Hi Scumbria; Actually that jim kelley post was one of the most informative I've seen him do. My suspicion is that it is copied from somewhere else, perhaps the Yahoo thread, and the inaccuracies you pointed out are not his own. But we should explain exactly what is wrong with each of these statements... (1) The concept of "average latency" is a marketing buzz word created by Intel in an effort to try and move some of the RDRAM peak bandwidth advantage into the latency measurement. The whole idea is to fuzz up the latency definition with bandwidth, and then declare a victory on both latency and bandwidth. (2) When jim kelley posted that "programs sometimes mysteriously work better when the cache is turned off", it was probably because he didn't realize that what Toms was showing was relative performance enhancements, not absolute enhancements. In other words, all the computer programs used ran faster with the cache on, it was just that the SDRAM machines slowed down less than the RDRAM when faced with a loss of L2 cache. (3) And of course a cache line is a lot larger than the single word (i.e. 64-bit access) that he implied. I believe it is still 4x, or 256-bits. -- Carl