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 : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: nixtox who wrote (18993)	11/14/2000 9:39:27 AM
From: TechieGuy-alt	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

IIRC Another reason is that since the transfer takes half the time and that being when the power consumed by the memory is highest (when memory chips are selected), then it should roughly divide the time of maximum power by two (the time when the memory is not selected of course would remain equal to non DDR). Hence reduced average power. Of course the power used during transfer may be a bit higher that in a regular SDRAM but not twice as much, the net result is still a power reduction. Comments anyone? Nope. DDR does not transfer data in half the time. It (potentially) transfers twice the data in the same amount of time (as SDRAM). Hence, as data lines are switching more rapidly, and all other things being the same (Vcore, process geometry etc.), DDR would take more power- not less- than SDRAM. Most of the DDR power saving comes from the reduced operating voltage. TG