Talk:XDR DRAM

Computing Low‑importance

	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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Fast

This is really fast RAM. Why has it been so overlooked by every company but sony? 70.112.86.215 03:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Information on actual module capacities seems rather sparse (I found none with my own admittedly half-assed search) so I can only assume they might actually be too fast- what good is having a 4GB/s transfer rate if the module only holds 1 or 2 GB anyway? Seems these are probably just too much money for too little- if any- benefit. --67.160.118.193 (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably because the memory isn't really any faster, but rather the speed of the bus is increased. Based on Rambus' documents, the memory chips themselves will run at 200MHz, the same speed as the fastest DDR, DDR2, DDR3, and RDRAM chips. Like those other technologies, XDR relies on core prefetch to make up this difference between bus speed and memory speed. Since XDR's memory bus runs at 3.2GT/s while the memory chips run at 200MHz, it's a good guess that the core prefetch is 16n deep. That is twotimes as deep as the prefetch on DDR3, and four times that of DDR2. That means the higher speed comes at the cost of higher latency. Induality (talk) 07:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On top of that Samsung keeps doing heavy research on DDR modules, resulting in incredible lower power consuptions, lower costs and even higher performance. More or less what Intel is doing with its processors, smaller and smaller transistor size, lower power consumption and more and more performance out of every chip. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.102.168.58 (talk) 23:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

xdr hasn't been overlooked, it's bully tactics and licensing paranoia has caused everyone in the industry to despise them they sue anyone who makes DDR2+ and find it strange nobody wants to make xdr! Markthemac (talk) 05:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on XDR DRAM. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]