On Tue, 23 Apr 2002, at 1:02pm, Rich C wrote: >> There is also the latency issue, which I have yet to have confirmed >> or denied to my satisfaction. > > There IS higher latency with RAMBUS ...
I stated that poorly. What I should have said was that I have not seen an analysis of the latency issue that provides sufficient information for me to draw conclusions that satisfy me. > However, RAMBUS is serial and capable of much higher speeds, which can > overcome the latency issue. For example, the above statement is dubious. Simply increasing the data transfer rate does not automatically solve latency concerns. Allow me to illistrate with an extreme example: Say you want to hold a conversation with someone in another star system. Even if you had a data transfer rate of twenty terabytes per second, it would still take years for you to greet each other. > Just because a system has higher latency doesn't necessarily mean it's a > bad design. Likewise, just because a system has higher data transfer rates does not necessarily mean it is a good design. I am not saying that the higher latency of RAMBUS kills it, but rather, that the higher data transfer rate does not automatically make it better. -- Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not | | necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, entity or | | organization. All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | ***************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *****************************************************************
