Talk:Dynamic random-access memory

Removed eDRAM section

I removed this section for a number of reasons. First, historically EDRAM means something very different; usually hybrid chips that use SRAM cells to help decrease the latency of an SDRAM module. Second, after several minutes of searching online I can only find a few references to NEC's eDRAM, all of which lack details and have popped up within the last few days. The articles that do contain details describe eDRAM as a separate LSI chip to be used as high bandwidth video-related RAM (presumably for texture storage), not integrated with the XBox 2's PPC970-derivative CPU (which is designed by IBM anyway). [1] Furthermore, the Playstation 2 uses Rambus RDRAM, the Game Cube doesn't even use DRAM for the main system memory (uses SRAM), and all that is known about the Playstation 3's memory technology is that it will use the Rambus interface. Please cite some sources for your information, since I cannot find anything to support the section, but can find plenty of counter-examples. -- uberpenguin 00:50, 2005 May 3 (UTC)

Suggestion to refer also the RLDRAM

I suggest to mention and refer RLDRAM similary to the mentioning of the other DRAM types. User:elcha, 08 October 2006

Looks like RLDRAM is just a low(-er) latency SDRAM. It seems to me that it's more a brand name than an actual novel DRAM arrangement. -- mattb @ 2006-10-08T16:08Z

SLDRAM

Found this memory being mentioned in a IT magazine edited in October 1997.

According to the article, a consortium called Sync-Link or SLDRAM (made by Mitsubishi, NEC and Siemens) was established to compete against Intel-Rambus.

Memory chips were supposed to appear the next year (1998) and were following the concepts Rambus. As Direct RDRAM, SLDRAM would have worked on a 16bit bus at a high frequency. The consortium estimated the performances would be comparable to SDRAM while some members estimated 3.2GB/s by interconnecting several independent SLDRAM subsystems.

The article mentions two websites as further reference SciZZL and SLDRAM, the later is currently just a parked domain. I don't know if the memory chips were in the end actually made.

If anyone is interested in a copy of the article, I can scan the page from the magazine and publish it somewhere.

Toshiba Invented the DRAM

No one is gonna put it on the article of course but that's what I see if the Farber and Schlig is in reality a static RAM as stated by Avivanov above, in fact it appears that it is if the article of Static random-access memory on this same website is anything to go by. Would be nice if someone that knew about the subject completed the history section a bit because there is always the posibility that the Toshiba calculator might not be the first to use such memory mechanism. I could search for patents but I'm not an expert. Mirad1000 (talk) 16:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Added what I'm sure is the Toshiba patent of the tech used in their calculators. There are earlier patents that describe similar capacitor memory though and the article probably should reflect that but I do not have the knowledge. This "DRAM" was probably used in some devices at the beginning of the end of 50s/ early 60s if we go by patents. Mirad1000 (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Equivalent?

The first image's caption contains "It has a capacity of 1 megabit equivalent to 2^20 bits or 128 KiB." This is untrue. 1 megabit is equal to 125 kilobytes or 125,000 bytes; 128 kiB equals 131,072 bytes or 131.072 kilobytes. --PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

The article is right. It uses the outdated binary megabit that IEC calls more appropriately mebibit, see binary prefix. --Zac67 (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Maybe we should add this information, as it may confuse other users? --PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I've added some disambiguation as per MOS:COMPUNITS. --Zac67 (talk) 09:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if it wouldn't be better/more succinct to state at the top of the article the computer units at play, rather than scattering BINPRE throughout the article - assuming all such entries are uniform? It strikes me as cluttered to have every instance of a unit tagged as if it's being referenced to a source. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

That's how it conforms to the MOS – but let's try a less clumsy hatnote which currently is not at all MOS. --Zac67 (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

That's perfect! Thank you so much. I'm surprised the MOS would recommend the former, but these things are beyond mere mortals such as myself. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, the MOS doesn't recommend inline footnotes but it seems to allow hatnotes for other purposes only. Sadly, it doesn't permit the use of more modern units such as Kibit and Mibit. --Zac67 (talk) 07:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)