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 (49093)	2/9/1999 6:52:00 PM
From: Paul Engel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571987

Slick - Re: " A 16 bit DRDRAM bus running at 300 Mhz, will deliver longer latency and lower bandwidth than SDRAM" What is the latency of a 300 MHz Direct RDRAM ? What is the latency of a 100 MHz SDRAM ? Paul

To: Scumbria who wrote (49093)	2/9/1999 7:06:00 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571987

<A 16 bit DRDRAM bus running at 300 Mhz, will deliver longer latency and lower bandwidth than SDRAM, at a significant price premium.> First of all, an RDRAM bus running at 300 MHz transfers data at 600 MHz. That means the data bandwidth is 1.2 GB/sec. Compare that to a PC100 SDRAM port running at 100 MHz across 64-bit channel, whose data bandwidth is 0.8 GB/sec. Where did you get the notion that the bandwidth is lower? And second, on Rambus' web site, Rambus claims that because of the greater number of banks that can be kept open at a time, average latency will be lower than SDRAM. Bret McComas on Tom's Hardware Guide disagrees and claims that the latency of RDRAM is worse than SDRAM. I don't know who is right, mainly because I don't know much about the inners of SDRAM and RDRAM, but it would be incredibly stupid of Intel to invest millions and millions of dollars into a technology that would end up slowing down computers. Or do you know something that the performance guys at Intel don't? Tenchusatsu