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 (56439)	10/3/2000 11:36:28 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Hi Scumbria; I believe that the *registered* DDR DIMMs will have a latency penalty of a full clock. With PC266, that would be what, 7.5ns? That is, apparently, acceptable in the server market. As you well know, it is a general fact of memory design that latency and memory size have to be traded off against each other. RDRAM is no exception to this. After you put 32 RDRAM chips on a channel, you have to add a repeater. I don't know what latency they add, but I would guess that it was comparable. -- Carl

To: Scumbria who wrote (56439)	10/4/2000 5:30:01 AM
From: John Walliker	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 93625

Scumbria, How does the latency of standard PC133 DIMMs compare with registered DDR266 DIMMs? I believe that DDR266 is planned to come with CAS latency 2, 2.5, and 3. PC133 has CAS latency 2 or 3. So the latency should be identical. A system using more than three or four DDR266 DIMMs will almost certainly need to use registered devices, whereas such a system may be possible with conventional PC133 DIMMs. In this situation, the registered DDR266 memory will have a longer latency and according to you will therefore have worse performance than PC133. John