3 ms·
That's actually a couple of interesting ideas. I don't think however that 1) is completely correct? As far as I remember from my classes, RAMs are refreshed all
by s9w 6y ago
That's actually a couple of interesting ideas. I don't think however that 1) is completely correct? As far as I remember from my classes, RAMs are refreshed all the time on very small time scales exactly because they're volatile. Therefore a manual read shouldn't influence things.
Temperatures and clock speed would be very interesting. Not sure I want to even google for radiation sources though :D
- formerly_proven 6y agoDRAM reads are destructive, so reading a row always refreshes it. On the other hand, every row is refreshed every ~64 ms. (This is governed by tREFI, the interval between successive rows being refreshed. For example a module with 8K rows would require a tREFI of 64 ms / 8K = 7.8 us = 12480 clocks (7.8 us / (1600 MHz)^-1)). Increasing tREFI is one of those things people do to improve memory performance, because less time spent refreshing means more time available for useful work. Some memory chips can use very high values, which would be equivalent to ~200 ms, others corrupt data consistently much before that. So while rows are refreshed very often, a specific row is only refreshed ten times per second or so.
- s9w 6y agoInteresting, thanks for the numbers. That would mean that it would probably be feasible to significantly influence the mean refresh times.