Talk:Synchronous dynamic random-access memory: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 09:24, 25 April 2021

Latest revision as of 14:15, 15 May 2025

(10 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Talk header}}

{{WikiProject Computingbanner shell|class=B|
{{WikiProject Computing|importance=high|hardware=yes|hardware-importance=high}}

}}

{{Copied|from=Prefetch buffer|from_oldid=679227142|to=Synchronous dynamic random-access memory|to_oldid=691836834|to_diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Synchronous_dynamic_random-access_memory&type=revision&diff=692881471&oldid=691836834|date=28 November 2015}}

== Redirect where? ==

Line 174 ⟶ 177:

:''Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with'' <code><nowiki>*'''Support'''</nowiki></code> ''or'' <code><nowiki>*'''Oppose'''</nowiki></code>'', then sign your comment with'' <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code>''. Since [[Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion|polling is not a substitute for discussion]], please explain your reasons, taking into account [[Wikipedia:Article titles|Wikipedia's policy on article titles]].''

*'''<strikes>Support first, oppose others</strikes>''' Agree with Dekimasu. This shouldn't be done grouped, especially since you aren't proposing what to do with the occupied targets like [[DDR]]. To avoid an inconsistent result for the DDR/GDDR pages, better to leave them in place. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 21:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC) Changing to '''Oppose all'''. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 18:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

* '''Support for SDRAM'''; '''Oppose for all the others'''. At least ''DDR'' and ''DDR2'' are commonly used elsewhere. --[[User:Zac67|Zac67]] ([[User talk:Zac67|talk]]) 21:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

* '''Support for SDRAM'''; '''Oppose for all the others'''. Agree with Netoholic. [[User:Thue|Thue]] ([[User talk:Thue|talk]]) 01:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Line 195 ⟶ 198:

*::: One thing I don't like is the inconsistency seen in [[:GDDR4 SDRAM]] of referring to it as both "SDRAM" and "SGRAM". It seems like that is something to address first. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 21:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

*:I like the naming being consistent across articles. So keep it as it is IMO. [[User:Thue|Thue]] ([[User talk:Thue|talk]]) 21:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a [[WP:RM|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.''</div><!-- Template:RM bottom -->

== Proposed merge & split ==

Line 209 ⟶ 212:

== Disputed edits ==

{{atop|Discussion about MoS should be held at [[WT:MOSNUM]], not on an article talk page far from the eyes of people who would be concerned with this topic. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 16:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)}}

[[WP:COMPUNITS]] is not a licence to introduce ambiguity in any article. I have restored an earlier, stable version of the article so we can discuss the disputed edits since 20 April. Relevant statements include:

* Do not assume that the binary or decimal meaning of prefixes will be obvious to everyone.

Line 214 ⟶ 219:

* The IEC prefixes kibi- (symbol Ki), mebi- (Mi), gibi- (Gi), etc., are generally not to be used

The bottom line is that disambiguation is needed. The only question is how. It's hard to satisfy all three requirements, suggesting [[WP:IAR]] as the only practical guideline, and disambiguation using the most practical method to hand. What do others think? [[User:Dondervogel 2|Dondervogel 2]] ([[User talk:Dondervogel 2|talk]]) 16:46, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

:'''Agree''' – seconding that in full. Ambiguous units don't help anyone and explanations for readers unfamiliar with binary IEC prefixes are available on the linked page. --[[User:Zac67|Zac67]] ([[User talk:Zac67|talk]]) 09:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

:You keep trying to have these whack-a-mole discussions on far-off pages away from [[WT:MOSNUM]]. The correct ___location for this discussion is [[WT:MOSNUM]]. Stop starting forest fires and start the discussion where it makes sense. You're not going to change the wording of [[WP:COMPUNITS]] here. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 16:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

{{abot}}

The discussion was closed prematurely by an involved editor. It has now been moved to [[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Discussion_transferred_from_SDRAM|MOSNUM]]. [[User:Dondervogel 2|Dondervogel 2]] ([[User talk:Dondervogel 2|talk]]) 22:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

== GDDR failed? ==

Hello, I was wonder why GDDR was under the 'Failed Successor.' It doesn't seems like it has failed as it became the standard RAM for all graphics cards for the last decades beside the brief attempt of HBM in consumer cards in the mid 2010s [[Special:Contributions/61.68.245.48|61.68.245.48]] ([[User talk:61.68.245.48|talk]]) 23:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

== DDR5 missing ==

With the upcoming DDR6 the now standard DDR5 should be added to the list -- [[User:LAZA74|LAZA74]] ([[User talk:LAZA74|talk]]) 14:15, 15 May 2025 (UTC)