On Sun, October 5, 2014 6:34 am, jwyeth.arch@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> ... Ken, please provide links to prove your claims that SRAM is still
> being used as opposed to asking for links for the opposition. I see no
> proof that SRAM is still used at all except for in Xbox One and CPU's L3
> cache, etc. I also see that its much more expensive
Indeed static RAM is [much or not much, still] more expensive. Factors:
more hardware (full blown CMOS flip-flop per cell instead of just one FET
transistor). CMOS chip has more sophisticated manufacturing technology
needing to make two different (complimentary: N-channel and P-channel)
types of MOS transistors (somebody correct me ...). And: dynamic RAM is
manufactured in huge amounts, that always diminishes cost, I've heard.
Valeri
> and when I attempt to
> find a laptop using SRAM.. Imagine that, I can't. You appear to have this
> process down though, so please provide some insight.
>
> â??
> Sent from Mailbox
>
> On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 5:57 AM, ken <gebser@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On 10/05/2014 04:58 AM ken wrote:
>>> On 10/05/2014 04:02 AM John R Pierce wrote:
>>>> On 10/5/2014 12:48 AM, ken wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I sincerely *hope* that it isn't some kind of trend that video cards
>>>>> are using shared memory instead of dedicated memory on the card
>>>>> itself. All machines I've bought or built since the late '90s have
>>>>> had video cards with a .5G of dedicated memory. This is mostly
>>>>> because video memory is physically different, using static RAM rather
>>>>> than dynamic RAM. The former is something like ten times faster than
>>>>> the latter.
>>>>
>>>> NO video card uses static ram, at least not since the early 1980s.
>>>
>>> Perhaps you're intimately familiar with each and every video card
>>> manufactured since the early '80s except for the ones I bought with my
>>> machines, because I've always insisted on video cards with static RAM.
>>> Or perhaps your understanding of static RAM is different from what I'm
>>> talking about.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> the modern CPUs with integrated graphcis controllers such as the Intel
>>>> HD4500 stuff is excellent, at least on MS Windows systems. the main
>>>> memory controller on these CPUs has HUGE bandwidth, the video display
>>>> overhead is lost in the noise unless maybe you're running dual huge
>>>> screens. a dedicated controller might be 2-3X faster or more at 3D
>>>> gaming graphics, but its not usefully faster at normal desktop
>>>> graphics. dedicated controllers use significantly more battery power
>>>> than integrated ones, a consideration on a portable laptop.
>>>
>>> It would be nice to have authoritative sources for these opinions.
>>>
>>> Also, the speed of a video card is going to depend a lot on the
>>> instruction set provided by the particular card and and then also very
>>> much on how well the software/drivers make use of that instruction set.
>>> Those factors are going to vary widely, which is why I spoke only to
>>> the speed of the *memory*. So saying "a dedicated controller might be
>>> 2-3X faster or more at 3D" is meaningless, like saying 'a car with ABC
>>> tires might be faster....'
>>>
>>> Dynamic RAM actually uses *more* electricity than static RAM.
>> Here are some sources which support the statement above that dynamic RAM
>> uses more electricity than static RAM, making static RAM more suitable
>> for use in laptops and other situations where power consumption is an
>> important consideration:
>> <http://computer.howstuffworks.com/question452.htm>
>> <http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-the-difference-between-static-ram-and-dynamic-ram.htm#didyouknowout>
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_random-access_memory>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CentOS mailing list
>> CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
>> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Valeri Galtsev
Sr System Administrator
Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics
Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics
University of Chicago
Phone: 773-702-4247
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
