On Sun, October 5, 2014 6:34 am, jwyeth.arch at gmail.com wrote: > ... Ken, please provide links to prove your claims that SRAM is still > being used as opposed to asking for links for the opposition. I see no > proof that SRAM is still used at all except for in Xbox One and CPU's L3 > cache, etc. I also see that its much more expensive Indeed static RAM is [much or not much, still] more expensive. Factors: more hardware (full blown CMOS flip-flop per cell instead of just one FET transistor). CMOS chip has more sophisticated manufacturing technology needing to make two different (complimentary: N-channel and P-channel) types of MOS transistors (somebody correct me ...). And: dynamic RAM is manufactured in huge amounts, that always diminishes cost, I've heard. Valeri > and when I attempt to > find a laptop using SRAM.. Imagine that, I can't. You appear to have this > process down though, so please provide some insight. > > — > Sent from Mailbox > > On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 5:57 AM, ken <gebser at mousecar.com> wrote: > >> On 10/05/2014 04:58 AM ken wrote: >>> On 10/05/2014 04:02 AM John R Pierce wrote: >>>> On 10/5/2014 12:48 AM, ken wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I sincerely *hope* that it isn't some kind of trend that video cards >>>>> are using shared memory instead of dedicated memory on the card >>>>> itself. All machines I've bought or built since the late '90s have >>>>> had video cards with a .5G of dedicated memory. This is mostly >>>>> because video memory is physically different, using static RAM rather >>>>> than dynamic RAM. The former is something like ten times faster than >>>>> the latter. >>>> >>>> NO video card uses static ram, at least not since the early 1980s. >>> >>> Perhaps you're intimately familiar with each and every video card >>> manufactured since the early '80s except for the ones I bought with my >>> machines, because I've always insisted on video cards with static RAM. >>> Or perhaps your understanding of static RAM is different from what I'm >>> talking about. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> the modern CPUs with integrated graphcis controllers such as the Intel >>>> HD4500 stuff is excellent, at least on MS Windows systems. the main >>>> memory controller on these CPUs has HUGE bandwidth, the video display >>>> overhead is lost in the noise unless maybe you're running dual huge >>>> screens. a dedicated controller might be 2-3X faster or more at 3D >>>> gaming graphics, but its not usefully faster at normal desktop >>>> graphics. dedicated controllers use significantly more battery power >>>> than integrated ones, a consideration on a portable laptop. >>> >>> It would be nice to have authoritative sources for these opinions. >>> >>> Also, the speed of a video card is going to depend a lot on the >>> instruction set provided by the particular card and and then also very >>> much on how well the software/drivers make use of that instruction set. >>> Those factors are going to vary widely, which is why I spoke only to >>> the speed of the *memory*. So saying "a dedicated controller might be >>> 2-3X faster or more at 3D" is meaningless, like saying 'a car with ABC >>> tires might be faster....' >>> >>> Dynamic RAM actually uses *more* electricity than static RAM. >> Here are some sources which support the statement above that dynamic RAM >> uses more electricity than static RAM, making static RAM more suitable >> for use in laptops and other situations where power consumption is an >> important consideration: >> <http://computer.howstuffworks.com/question452.htm> >> <http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-the-difference-between-static-ram-and-dynamic-ram.htm#didyouknowout> >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_random-access_memory> >> _______________________________________________ >> CentOS mailing list >> CentOS at centos.org >> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++