Rambus aims for 1 TeraByte per second memory bandwidth by 2010

On Dec 4, 7:51 am, Didi <d...@tgi-sci.com> wrote:
> On Dec 4, 3:59 pm, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> > David Kanter wrote:
> > >Have you ever heard of copyright infringement?  Because you just
> > >posted my article without attribution, and you have no rights to
> > >reprint or re-use my article.
>
> > The AirRaid/Radeon350/whatever spamming, cross-posting, nym-shifting
> > nitwit has been doing this kind of thing for years.
>
> Well I would not call his postings spamming, although I
> rarely if ever read them.
> As for this "copyright infringed" article, well, I would
> never had read it (I did not read much of it now, either...)

Fair enough.  That's a valid point.

> had he not posted it here.
> AirRaids posts are easily recognizable and are among the
> things to least worry about on the net, I suspect.

He certainly at least is on topic, which I agree is better than a lot
of spam.

> And BTW, getting some news down the throat from time
> to time could be beneficial to those - like me - who are
> not so keen news followers...
>  I'd rather have him around at his current posting
> frequency & topics than not.

You should sign up for our RSS feed:
http://www.realworldtech.com/RWTfeed.xml

That's a fairly good way to keep yourself informed and get content
'pushed' out to you.

David

On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 08:03:36 +0100, Terje Mathisen
<terje.mathisen@hda.hydro.com> wrote:

>daytripper wrote:
>> On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 21:38:28 -0800 (PST), David Kanter <dkanter@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Have you ever heard of copyright infringement?  Because you just
>>> posted my article without attribution, and you have no rights to
>>> reprint or re-use my article.
>>>
>>> DK
>> 
>> Ever hear of the "Fair Use Doctrine"? If not, you really ought to become
>> familiar with it. It clearly covers his ass quite well.
>
>Not "quite well" IMHO.
>
>Posting the link plus a short excerpt would have been fine, as it is 
>David possibly lost a _lot_ of page views which would have generated 
>real income for him.

Ah - I thought this was a legal/ethical issue and not a financial one...

If it helps, I had immediately forwarded - *just the link* - to my buddies on
the Jedec memory subgroup meeting in Hawaii this week.  What with all the rain
keeping them off the golf courses they should have plenty of time to click
through ;-)

Of course, the first question they had was "what about latency?"

/daytripper

On Dec 4, 9:31 pm, daytripper <day_tri...@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 08:03:36 +0100, Terje Mathisen
>
>
>
> <terje.mathi...@hda.hydro.com> wrote:
> >daytripper wrote:
> >> On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 21:38:28 -0800 (PST), David Kanter <dkan...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> Have you ever heard of copyright infringement?  Because you just
> >>> posted my article without attribution, and you have no rights to
> >>> reprint or re-use my article.
>
> >>> DK
>
> >> Ever hear of the "Fair Use Doctrine"? If not, you really ought to become
> >> familiar with it. It clearly covers his ass quite well.
>
> >Not "quite well" IMHO.
>
> >Posting the link plus a short excerpt would have been fine, as it is
> >David possibly lost a _lot_ of page views which would have generated
> >real income for him.
>
> Ah - I thought this was a legal/ethical issue and not a financial one...

> If it helps, I had immediately forwarded - *just the link* - to my buddies on
> the Jedec memory subgroup meeting in Hawaii this week.  What with all the rain
> keeping them off the golf courses they should have plenty of time to click
> through ;-)

Hah, one can hope...

> Of course, the first question they had was "what about latency?"

I think the latency is pretty reasonable.  I don't have an answer in
ns, but I was under the impression that XDR1/2 are comparable to GDDR,
and I regard this as XDR3 (without the official name).

DK

On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 00:31:25 -0500, daytripper
<day_trippr@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 08:03:36 +0100, Terje Mathisen
><terje.mathisen@hda.hydro.com> wrote:
>>Posting the link plus a short excerpt would have been fine, as it is 
>>David possibly lost a _lot_ of page views which would have generated 
>>real income for him.
>
>Ah - I thought this was a legal/ethical issue and not a financial one...

Copyrights, as it is, is essentially a financially motivated legal
issue, isn't? Otherwise, somebody ought to explain to certain large
groups busy harrassing/suing young children and single parents about
having ethics.

-- 
A Lost Angel, fallen from heaven 
Lost in dreams, Lost in aspirations, 
Lost to the world, Lost to myself

On Dec 5, 12:31 am, daytripper <day_tri...@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote
>
> Of course, the first question they had was "what about latency?"
>
> /daytripper

Bandwidth is king.  Said it long ago.  Wider is the only way left to
go.  We will see more and more of same and the only thing to do about
latency is to hide it.

Robert.

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Robert Myers <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote in part:
> On Dec 5, 12:31 am, daytripper <day_tri...@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote
>> Of course, the first question they had was "what about latency?"
> 
> Bandwidth is king.  Said it long ago.  Wider is the only

Uhm, err, for what sorts of problems/tasks?  Had bandwidth
been always and overall governing, Rambus first iteration
would have succeeded.  Their execs obviously thought they
had technical advantages worth the commercial conditions.
The market disagreed.

> way left to go.  We will see more and more of same and the
> only thing to do about latency is to hide it.

This has often been tried with only partial success (video)
Sometimes latency governs and cannot be hidden (databases).
It must be reduced as AMD has done fairly successfully.

-- Robert

On Dec 7, 9:47 am, Robert Redelmeier <red...@ev1.net.invalid> wrote:
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Robert Myers <rbmyers...@gmail.com> wrote in part:
>
> > On Dec 5, 12:31 am, daytripper <day_tri...@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote
> >> Of course, the first question they had was "what about latency?"
>
> > Bandwidth is king.  Said it long ago.  Wider is the only
>
> Uhm, err, for what sorts of problems/tasks?  Had bandwidth
> been always and overall governing, Rambus first iteration
> would have succeeded.  Their execs obviously thought they
> had technical advantages worth the commercial conditions.
> The market disagreed.
>
Rambus was hot and expensive.

To turn your argument over, if latency were king, Intel would be out
of business and/or have changed tactics drastically.  Intel has taken
its own sweet time about moving away from its traditional memory
architecture and seems to be doing quite nicely.

> > way left to go.  We will see more and more of same and the
> > only thing to do about latency is to hide it.
>
> This has often been tried with only partial success (video)
> Sometimes latency governs and cannot be hidden (databases).
> It must be reduced as AMD has done fairly successfully.
>
That's a one-time gain that has been known to be available at least
since the last editions of alpha.  For latency, there is nowhere left
to go in terms of completely unpredictable reads from memory (or
disk).  All the tactics that work (prefetch, hide, cache) depend on
the ability to foresee the future, another hobby horse of mine.  Terje
might claim that improvements come from cache management.
Improvements in cache management come from more successfully
exploiting nonrandomness; that is to say, the ability to predict the
future.

Robert.

On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 12:49:09 -0800 (PST), Robert Myers <rbmyersusa@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Dec 7, 9:47 am, Robert Redelmeier <red...@ev1.net.invalid> wrote:
>> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Robert Myers <rbmyers...@gmail.com> wrote in part:
>>
>> > On Dec 5, 12:31 am, daytripper <day_tri...@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote
>> >> Of course, the first question they had was "what about latency?"
>>
>> > Bandwidth is king.  Said it long ago.  Wider is the only
>>
>> Uhm, err, for what sorts of problems/tasks?  Had bandwidth
>> been always and overall governing, Rambus first iteration
>> would have succeeded.  Their execs obviously thought they
>> had technical advantages worth the commercial conditions.
>> The market disagreed.
>>
>Rambus was hot and expensive.
>
>To turn your argument over, if latency were king, Intel would be out
>of business and/or have changed tactics drastically.  Intel has taken
>its own sweet time about moving away from its traditional memory
>architecture and seems to be doing quite nicely.
>
>> > way left to go.  We will see more and more of same and the
>> > only thing to do about latency is to hide it.
>>
>> This has often been tried with only partial success (video)
>> Sometimes latency governs and cannot be hidden (databases).
>> It must be reduced as AMD has done fairly successfully.
>>
>That's a one-time gain that has been known to be available at least
>since the last editions of alpha.  For latency, there is nowhere left
>to go in terms of completely unpredictable reads from memory (or
>disk).  All the tactics that work (prefetch, hide, cache) depend on
>the ability to foresee the future, another hobby horse of mine.  Terje
>might claim that improvements come from cache management.
>Improvements in cache management come from more successfully
>exploiting nonrandomness; that is to say, the ability to predict the
>future.
>
>Robert.

So, in short, you don't think the biggest problem confronting processor design
and performance isn't important because "it's hard"...

/daytripper (well, that's one way to go, I guess ;-)

On Dec 7, 5:51 pm, daytripper <day_tri...@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote:

>
> So, in short, you don't think the biggest problem confronting processor design
> and performance isn't important because "it's hard"...
>
> /daytripper (well, that's one way to go, I guess ;-)- Hide quoted text -
>

If you have a need to make problems go dramatically faster, it isn't
going to happen through reducing latency.  A good processor design is
one that doesn't make the situation worse.  Within a factor of 2,
that's surely the best you can hope to do.

The only big knobs are bandwidth and predictability.  As for latency,
"it takes all the running you can do just to stay in the same place."

Robert.

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Robert Myers <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote in part:
> To turn your argument over, if latency were king, Intel would be
> out of business and/or have changed tactics drastically.  Intel has
> taken its own sweet time about moving away from its traditional
> memory architecture and seems to be doing quite nicely.

Your argument assumes Intel and AMD are identicial with respect
to market success.  They are NOT!  Intel is much larger and can
afford many mistakes.  AMD's production capacity is too small to
be any sort of real threat, at least in the short and medium term.

> That's a one-time gain that has been known to be available at
> least since the last editions of alpha.  

Sure.  But why not grab it?

> For latency, there is nowhere left to go in terms of
> completely unpredictable reads from memory (or disk).

Sure there is -- SRAM and other designs which take more xtors
per cell.  With the continually decreasing marginal cost
of xtors and a shortage of useful things to do with them,
I expect this transition to happen at some point.

> All the tactics that work (prefetch, hide, cache) depend
> on the ability to foresee the future, another hobby horse
> of mine.  Terje might claim that improvements come from
> cache management.  Improvements in cache management come
> from more successfully exploiting nonrandomness; that is
> to say, the ability to predict the future.

I agree with Terje and those things can be done in
addition to debottlenecking the circuit response.

-- Robert