🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1990Sep1.190150.5880@cec1.wustl.edu> amc@ai.wustl.edu (Adam M. Costello) writes:
>In article <1990Sep1.133213.6765@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> leblanc@eecg.toronto.edu (Marcel LeBlanc) writes:
>>much rather pay for an extra 512K of RAM!  The RAM costs less than the ROM,
>>and has much faster access times (especially the SC RAM).  Remember that all

>RAM costs less than ROM?  I'm surprised.  How much less?  RAM is faster than
>ROM?  I'm surprised.  How much faster?  It seems to me that ROM must be simpler
>than RAM, so it should be easier and cheaper to make it faster.  Why isn't it?
>AMC

RAM does cost more than ROM, and it's a bit faster.  However, you're not going
to see the kind of speedups with FASTROM kinds of things on the A3000 as you
would on an A2500; that's 32 bit ROM, and it's a bit faster than the ROM of the
A2000.  You can get 512K (256K x 16) for a couple of dollars or so in large
quantities, while that much memory (four 256K x 4 DRAMs, for example) will
probably run you $25 or more, and RAM has come WAY down this last year (in '88
or so that might have run you $75-$100).

By the way, ROM isn't that much simpler than DRAM -- a DRAM stores a single
bit with a single transistor and capacitor, while ROMs and EPROMs typically 
use one bit, no capacitor.  You CAN get much faster ROMs, but not in these
densities.


-- 
Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests"
   {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh      PLINK: hazy     BIX: hazy
      Get that coffee outta my face, put a Margarita in its place!