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: Dan3 who wrote (161350)	3/7/2002 12:14:06 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Dan, I have no idea why on-die memory controllers haven't become widespread already. Surely most processors out there are spending a significant amount of time waiting for data to return from DRAM. Then they'll spend the remainder of their time speeding to the next set of DRAM accesses. "Hurry up and wait" as they call it. Then again, experienced design guys like Scumbria have argued against the idea. His main argument was that memory technologies change too fast relative to processor architectures. Though that argument isn't very strong in itself, I suspect he has other reasons to argue against the idea. Maybe the high pin count of Hammer is a clue. Oh well. Tenchusatsu