Re: Caught by cache?

Article View: demon.tech.pc

Article #68753

#68753

From: Hemal Popat
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 00:00

28 lines
1452 bytes

On Sat, 27 Apr 1996 00:19:07 +0100, John Beardmore
<wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <317bc4ca.802017@news.demon.co.uk>, Hemal Popat
> <hemal@popath.demon.co.uk> writes
> 
> >So the quickest is EDORam+PB Cache, then things get a bit  hazy.
> 
> No. The quickest is probably EDRAM. This is about 10% more expensive and
> much faster. A kind of cache in the simm technology with access times
> down to less than 15 ns for consecutive accesses.
> 
> This is not exactly main stream, but you can buy these systems off the
> shelf.

Where?

There's plenty of adverts for say a 8Meg (non-parity) 70ns DRAM for ~ 90UKP
or 60ns EDORAM for ~ 105UKP, but I haven't seen any EDRAM modules
advertised.

Are special chipsets required on motherboards to support faster ram
technologies?

--- 
Hemal Popat
hemal@popath.demon.co.uk

Technical Details

Message-ID: <3181e7f0.38799797@news.demon.co.uk>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!unknown!not-for-mail

References:

<415183800wnr@draycot.demon.co.uk> <y8Ry$BAgfhexEw5b@jasper.demon.co.uk> <830102878snz@phaedrus.demon.co.uk> <830132235.25952@pstancer.demon.co.uk> <317bc4ca.802017@news.demon.co.uk> <izdk3JArnVgxEwLG@wookie.demon.co.uk>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 1036bc,7858595a79b6a65d
X-Google-Attributes: gid1036bc,public
From: hemal@popath.demon.co.uk (Hemal Popat)
Subject: Re: Caught by cache?
Date: 1996/04/27
Message-ID: <3181e7f0.38799797@news.demon.co.uk>
X-Deja-AN: 151748282
x-nntp-posting-host: popath.demon.co.uk
references: <415183800wnr@draycot.demon.co.uk> <y8Ry$BAgfhexEw5b@jasper.demon.co.uk> <830102878snz@phaedrus.demon.co.uk> <830132235.25952@pstancer.demon.co.uk> <317bc4ca.802017@news.demon.co.uk> <izdk3JArnVgxEwLG@wookie.demon.co.uk>
newsgroups: demon.tech.pc

Reply to Parent Message