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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: wanna_bmw who wrote (157013)	1/27/2002 7:51:23 AM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

"So, basically, what you're saying is that the industry doesn't need it because AMD doesn't have it. Right?" Well, no. Just that it is difficult to design around something for which the specifications don't exist. But you probably know that too. Are you saying that AMD should have delayed the Hammer tapeout so that DDRII could be incorporated? I suspect, but obviously don't know for a fact, that AMD will incorporate DDRII when the specs are solidified for modules. True, it might mean that if they chose to use an external memory controller they might be able to do this quicker, but the lower latency was thought to be more important I guess. Does the industry need the higher bandwidth? For processors, it isn't as useful as lower latency. Look at the P4, an i845D system is almost as fast as an i850 system despite the 1/3 lower bandwidth. Ok, those benchmarks that are very STREAM-like are better on the i850, but even then, it is close. And this is despite things like speculative pre-fetch which tries to trade off memory bandwidth for lower latency.