Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 13:31:54 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au (Michael Smith) Cc: terry@lambert.org, thorpej@nas.nasa.gov, langfod@dihelix.com, ejs@bfd.com, hasty@rah.star-gate.com, steve@visint.co.uk, louie@transsys.com, michaelh@cet.co.jp, avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 430TX ? Message-ID: <199704142031.NAA19245@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199704122335.JAA16806@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> from "Michael Smith" at Apr 13, 97 09:05:16 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > The real pain is that no one seems to be doing anything about getting
> > SRAM density up... the only benefit DRAM has over SRAM is its density...
**************************************************
> > everything else favors SRAM.
>
> a) bollocks. SRAM density is moving along quite nicely, and it's becoming
> much more cost-effective. We're down from $200 for a 512x16 stick to
> about $60 for two 512Kx8 parts, and we expect to be paying under $10
> each for them with the next generation of parts due soon.
>
> b) DRAM has the massive advantage that a DRAM memory cell is _very_ small.
> SRAM does not have this advantage.
Can you say "low relative density"?
Your point 'b' is a restatement of my claim...
Your point 'a' is referring to some density other than cell density,
and I have no idea what -- it seems to be referring to pricing for some
reason?
Regards,
Terry Lambert
terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199704142031.NAA19245>