sram, not sdram.

Tue Jan 29 16:07:07 PST 2002

On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 06:38:03PM -0500, Mark Hahn wrote:

> personally, 2M seems strangely small for DDR, since it's not 
> either fast or wide.

It's an L3, so that's DDR *sram*, not DDR SDRAM. Another system using
similar srams are recent Alphas. Needless to say they're expensive and
small, because they're much faster than SDRAMs. They aren't as good as
on-CPU caches, though, as their cycle times aren't that good and don't
scale up with the cpu.

g