3 ms·
I appreciate this might not be the right way to look at it, but from a trivia POV, in terms of raw performance, what era of regular memory would be comparable w
by petercooper 12y ago
I appreciate this might not be the right way to look at it, but from a trivia POV, in terms of raw performance, what era of regular memory would be comparable with it? (i.e. "typical desktop memory in 2004", say.)
- throwaway_yy2Di 12y agoThe read latency is about as slow as the earliest RAM ever used -- tubes of liquid mercury used as acoustic delay lines. (150 us vs. 222 us (microseconds)) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delay_line_memory#Mercury_delay_lines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delay_line_memory#Mercury_dela...
- unwind 12y agoAccording to this table: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAS_latency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAS_latency its read latency of 150 µs is at least 15,000 times worse than 100 MHz "PC100" SDRAM, which is early 2000s-era.