Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 10:24:52 -1000 (HST) From: "David Langford" <langfod@dihelix.com> To: hasty@rah.star-gate.com (Amancio Hasty) Cc: steve@visint.co.uk, louie@TransSys.COM, michaelh@cet.co.jp, avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au, terry@lambert.org, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 430TX ? Message-ID: <199704112024.KAA00588@caliban.dihelix.com> In-Reply-To: <199704111759.KAA04490@rah.star-gate.com> from Amancio Hasty at "Apr 11, 97 10:59:13 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>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. > Amancio What I really dont understand is why HP and ALR(?) seem to be the only folks doing memory busses larger than 64 bits wide. One would think that a 128bit 4-way interleaved motherboard would really help the crappy memory performance of Intel CPU based systems. (That and why mohterboard makers dont put caches on Pentium Pro motherboards to interface the slow main memory and the faster on chip cache.) *sigh -David Langford (awaiting FreeBSD Alpha with glee) langfod@dihelix.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199704112024.KAA00588>