Talk:Registered memory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing / Hardware (Rated Stub-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Computer hardware task force.
 

If Registered memory has a clock delay, the bandwidth is comparable, but latency is WORSE. So, there is a performance hit... :-? Jcea 19:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It's random-access-memory. There will be a one-clock delay as you "randomly" go out and read or write one word (typically 64 bits). If you are in sequential or burst mode then you only get the performance hit on the first memory cycle. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 03:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible Errors RE Article Factual Information[edit]

The article at present states in part, "Although most server-grade memory modules are both ECC and registered, there are both registered non-ECC modules and non-registered ECC modules."

According to Kingston, a major manufacturer of RAM, "Registered memory includes ECC functionality but not all ECC is registered." [cf: (http://www.kingston.com/us/support/technical/valueram.aspx?questionid=148&afmid=41239) {FAQ: KTM-012711-GEN-03} in RE: "What is the difference between registered, unbuffered, ECC and fully buffered memory?"]

If Kingston's claim is true for all RAM, then the article's claim is false in that there are no registered non-ECC modules; however, Kingston's claim could be construed to apply to only their own products. Please cite at lease one example of registered non-ECC modules.

From http://www.edaboard.com/thread8144.html come the following quotes: [Q]"Do all registered modules come with ECC?" [A]"All Corsair registered modules have ECC. But, strictly speaking, this does not have to be the case. But, since most registered memory configurations have large amounts of mission-critical memory, it only makes sense to use error correction. (Read my bulletin on ECC for more info)."

The current Memory FAQ at Corsair (http://www.corsair.com/support/faq/) does not address the instant issue; therefore, it seems the quote either may have been wrongly attributed to Corsair, or may have been featured in an official blog or similar publication on behalf of Corsair, or may have been the product of independent research; moreover, the information may yet be readily available from Corsair either upon request or as an archived feature or on a web page that I simply didn't visit.

It seems reasonable that registers should be differentiated from ECC hardware; however, despite the independent functioning of these technologies, it is reasonable to imagine that there may in fact be no registered non-ECC modules, if only for the reason identified in the quote attributed to Corsair. In other words, while it may be technically possible to make such a module, the reasons to not make it have thus far outweighed the reasons to make it: if so, then it seems unreasonable and probably inaccurate to state that there are registered non-ECC modules.

If there are in fact registered non-ECC modules, then the article's verbiage should remain unchanged and a citation should be added referencing a source indicating the existence of registered non-ECC modules; else, the article's verbiage should be changed from "Although most server-grade memory modules are both ECC and registered, there are both registered non-ECC modules and non-registered ECC modules" to "Although non-registered ECC modules are possible, most server-grade memory modules are both ECC and registered; additionally, there are registered non-ECC modules."

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.95.41.185 (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Unverified claim[edit]

The line that based upon the previous commenter used to say "Although most server modules are both ECC and registered", now says "Although most memory modules are both ECC and registered". Is there data to support that? I would think there was more non-ECC Desktop memory around than Server memory, but perhaps the balance is changing.

Also note that the description of buffered last paragraph first says it's not the same as registered, then goes on to give the same definition of buffers on the control lines. Mike163 (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)