By: Kevin G (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 9, 2012 9:48 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
> Second, RLDRAM would be pretty
> bad for capacity, except if your
> opt for some form of fully buffered, which by
> itself adds more latency than
> RLDRAM saves.
> If I am not mistaken, with RLDRAM you can't currently get more
> than 512 MB per 64bit "channel". That's like going almost full decade back.
> With standard unbuffered DDR3 you can easily get 8 GB per channel, with
> registered DDR3 - up to 96 GB/channel.
> On micron.com RLDRAM3 is marked as 576Mbit density vs 8Gbit of commodity DDR3 which is
> kinda disappointing. Is the tradeoff capacity vs latency inevitabile like in caches?
> Maybe switching to a FLASH+RLDRAM (o similar) would be a better compromise?
If that is the density level, why not just go to an SRAM implementation? Shouldn't SRAM density be comparable to RLDRAM?