Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 10:59:13 -0700 From: Amancio Hasty <hasty@rah.star-gate.com> To: Stephen Roome <steve@visint.co.uk> Cc: "Louis A. Mamakos" <louie@TransSys.COM>, Michael Hancock <michaelh@cet.co.jp>, Darren Reed <avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au>, Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 430TX ? Message-ID: <199704111759.KAA04490@rah.star-gate.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 11 Apr 1997 17:45:31 BST." <Pine.BSF.3.91.970411174115.12860E-100000@bagpuss.visint.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>From The Desk Of Stephen Roome : > On Fri, 11 Apr 1997, Louis A. Mamakos wrote: > > > > On Fri, 11 Apr 1997, Michael Hancock wrote: > > > > While we're talking about Intel, they claim that they're focusing more on > > > > memory bandwidth these days and the Pentium II has some kind of dual bu s > > > > architecture that makes a significant performance difference. > > > I talked to an Intel representative at WinHEC 97 and politely told him that they are shooting themselves on the foot with the issue of memory bandwith --- Interestingly , he agreed and his response was we are working hard to solve this issue. I believe he was sincere so lets wait and see what happens over the next six months. As far as I can tell , there are two camps to solve the memory bandwith bottleneck, the DRAM folks and the RAMBUS folks. As to who is going to win I don't know. Enjoy, Amancio
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199704111759.KAA04490>