By: Kevin G (kevin.delete@this.cubitdesigns.com), October 9, 2012 3:04 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
Michael S (already5chosen.delete@this.yahoo.com) on October 9, 2012 10:33 am wrote:
> Kevin G (kevin.delete@this.cubitdesigns.com) on October 9, 2012 9:48 am
> wrote:
> >
> > If that is the density level, why not just go
> > to an
> SRAM implementation? Shouldn't SRAM density be comparable to RLDRAM?
> >
>
>
> May be it shouldn't. But it isn't.
> According to digikey, the densest SSRAMs
> right now are Cypress 144 Mbit devices. $200 apiece in a lot of 500.
> For
> comparison, 576 Mbit RLDRAM will cost you $40 in a lot of 1,000.
> Also, RLDRAM
> will give you higher bandwidth per pin.
I've found reference to 291 Mbit parts from Intel on their 32 nm process. No indication of die size for a real density comparison.
My main point though is even with a 1/6th reduction in density it would still be good enough. For example, a system supporting 192 GB max going to 32 GB max with better bandwidth and latency would be a good trade off for some applications.
> Kevin G (kevin.delete@this.cubitdesigns.com) on October 9, 2012 9:48 am
> wrote:
> >
> > If that is the density level, why not just go
> > to an
> SRAM implementation? Shouldn't SRAM density be comparable to RLDRAM?
> >
>
>
> May be it shouldn't. But it isn't.
> According to digikey, the densest SSRAMs
> right now are Cypress 144 Mbit devices. $200 apiece in a lot of 500.
> For
> comparison, 576 Mbit RLDRAM will cost you $40 in a lot of 1,000.
> Also, RLDRAM
> will give you higher bandwidth per pin.
I've found reference to 291 Mbit parts from Intel on their 32 nm process. No indication of die size for a real density comparison.
My main point though is even with a 1/6th reduction in density it would still be good enough. For example, a system supporting 192 GB max going to 32 GB max with better bandwidth and latency would be a good trade off for some applications.



