SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Semtech (Nasdaq:SMTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: AreWeThereYet who wrote (666)11/23/1998 12:35:00 PM
From: Dave Hanson  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1225
 
Thanks aC. Consistent with what I heard. I vaguely recall thinking based on what I'd read that while Rambus would clearly allow more throughput, SLDRAM would be "good enough" for most apps given current bottlenecks. Be interesting to see how the respective costs line up. INTC's backing is a huge plus, and my understanding is that once volume ramps up, Rambus manufacturing cost deltas should be quite small. Given the growing % of the chipset market that INTC controls, it may hard for SLDRAM to get much footing.

As you suggest, perhaps more knowledgable folks than us can comment.



To: AreWeThereYet who wrote (666)11/23/1998 4:52:00 PM
From: MileHigh  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1225
 
Andy,

RE latency and your claim that SLDRAM has less of a latency problem......This is what I found in an article- snipped but unadulterated.

So do you still think the latency is better in SLDRAM?

MileHigh
-----------------------------

Even though RDRAM has bigger bandwidth than SDRAM, it
still suffers from a key problem common to all DRAM designs:
latency......<snip>.....

On top of that, is the wait imposed by the system--such as
Direct RDRAM--that transfers that information. Early Direct
RDRAM technology had high latency, but the modern design is
about 10 billionths of a second faster than any other
technology, shipping or planned, Toprani said.