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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Scumbria who wrote (34981)	7/22/1998 12:43:00 PM
From: Majic-	Respond to of 1573198

Scumbria, I agree , but there are more reasons. But the actual reason why Sdram took over EDO was not the teeny performance gain, but the busclock. I have worked at on of the biggest computer dealers in the Netherlands, and the only reason why we would promote the (more expansive at that time) sdram ,was because we got a lot of complains that the standard edo's dit not function well at busclocks over 75 MHz, and would couse system instability. That is why you hardly see any EDO memory chips on Video cards, not only because it's slower in terms of bandwidth, but because the clockspeed of edo is limited to 66 MHz (officialy;). And offcourse I agree with your statement about the speed advantages of sdram above edo. What you explain is exactly why sdram is not "double as fast" as edo, only because theoreticaly it has twice the bandwidth as EDO... Cyu, Michael da Kota, .