Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 08:17:31 02/24/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 24, 2000 at 09:02:43, Barry Culp wrote: >If you allocate a large amount of hash tables ...say 128 mb or more ...does that >make RDRAM more efficient than SDRAM ?? No, because hash table entries are usually very small (~16 bytes). RDRAM can transfer data at extremely high speeds, but that doesn't really matter when you're only talking about a few bytes, because the difference can only be a few nanoseconds. What really matters is the "latency," that is, the amount of time it takes to start reading from a random place in memory. RDRAM has a higher latency than SDRAM. Basically, the only programs that benefit from RDRAM are programs that go through a ton of memory sequentially. For example, if you apply a filter to some huge file in Photoshop, RDRAM will be several percent faster than SDRAM. Natural voice recognition is supposed to be a "technology" that benefits from RDRAM, too, but for some reason all the benchmarks still come out in SDRAM's favor. -Tom
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.