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

Revision as of 21:26, 15 February 2019

Latest revision as of 14:15, 15 May 2025

(35 intermediate revisions by 16 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 10 ⟶ 13:

I've moved the contents of [[SDR SDRAM]] to this page and will shortly move [[DDR SDRAM]] here as well. There are not nearly enough major differences (they amount merely to timing issues) between the two common forms of SDRAM to merit separate articles. What's more "SDR SDRAM" is an ugly backronym and is bad practice to use anyway (just as the article on [[Advanced Technology Attachment|ATA]] isn't named "PATA"). -- [[User:Uberpenguin|uberpenguin]] <code>@ 2006-04-29&nbsp;03:27Z</code>

: {{no redirect|AT Attachment}} was moved to [[Parallel ATA]] on 6 April 2009. – [[User:Wbm1058|wbm1058]] ([[User talk:Wbm1058|talk]]) 18:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

== Image caption ==

Line 147 ⟶ 151:

Are there any comments regarding the lead section? [[User:AZ1199|AZ1199]] ([[User talk:AZ1199|talk]]) 11:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

== When did pc66 ram hit the market ==

what year did pc66 ram or any kind of sdr ram hit the market? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/73.211.117.192|73.211.117.192]] ([[User talk:73.211.117.192#top|talk]]) 22:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

what year did pc66 ram or any kind of sdr ram hit the market?

== Requested move 14 February 2019 ==

<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->

{{requested move/dated|multiple=yes

:''The following discussion is an archived discussion 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 the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.''

|current1=Synchronous dynamic random-access memory|new1=SDRAM|current2=DDR SDRAM|new2=DDR|current3=DDR2 SDRAM|new3=DDR2|current4=DDR3 SDRAM|new4=DDR3|current5=DDR4 SDRAM|new5=DDR4|current6=DDR5 SDRAM|new6=DDR5|current7=GDDR SDRAM|new7=GDDR|current8=GDDR3 SDRAM|new8=GDDR3|current9=GDDR4 SDRAM|new9=GDDR4|current10=GDDR5 SDRAM|new10=GDDR5|}}

'''Not moved'''. With respect to the first item, there is a clear trend in the discussion going against the proposal. With respect to the rest, there is a clear consensus against the proposal. [[User:BD2412|<span style="background:gold">'''''bd2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 17:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

* [[:Synchronous dynamic random-access memory]] → {{no redirect|SDRAM}}

Line 171 ⟶ 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]].''

*'''<s>Support first, oppose others</s>''' 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 180 ⟶ 186:

::::{{Reply|Djm-leighpark}} I'll give you a cookie for that if you want to ~ [[User:Arkhandar|<b style="color: #8cc5ff;">''Arkhandar''</b>]] ^{([[User talk:Arkhandar|<b style="color: #b3b3b3;">''message me''</b>]])} 21:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

*'''Oppose all''' - I see no improvement at all and the DDR/GDDR moves are complete nonsense. --[[User:Denniss|Denniss]] ([[User talk:Denniss|talk]]) 11:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

*'''Support first, oppose others''' in case that wasn't clear after my comment was deposited below. [[User:Dekimasu|Dekimasu]]<small>[[User talk:Dekimasu|よ!]]</small> 22:56, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

* '''Oppose''' A slightly longer, more formal name is fine, as long as it doesn't make people ''not'' recognize the subject. [[National Football League]], [[International Olympic Committee]], [[Random-access memory]] and the like are all far more commonly referred to by their initialisms, but the article titles are the full names for, IMHO, good reason. Particularly with a three-letter initialism like "DDR" (which is also used for the video game [[Dance Dance Revolution]]), a redirect to a longer title is preferred. (At ''four'' letters, it becomes more debatable, c.f. [[NASA]], although I would prefer the longer name as an article title.) If you look, all of the examples in [[WP:COMMONNAME]] illustrate cases where the most formal name is different enough from the common name that a reader might think they've arrived in the wrong place. A title that's simply more specific doesn't have this problem. [[Special:Contributions/209.209.238.149|209.209.238.149]] ([[User talk:209.209.238.149|talk]]) 04:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

===Discussion===

Line 188 ⟶ 196:

*: Mostly, I don't see much to gain, so might as well keep them consistent with the SDRAM articles. Redirects are already in place for convenience. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 21:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

*::{{Reply|Netoholic}} The gain is pretty much slashing the article's name in half while keeping precision at the same time. ~ [[User:Arkhandar|<b style="color: #8cc5ff;">''Arkhandar''</b>]] ^{([[User talk:Arkhandar|<b style="color: #b3b3b3;">''message me''</b>]])} 21:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

*::: One thing I don't linklike is the inconsistency seen in [[:GDDRGDDR4 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 ==

Yes, it makes sense to split the material specific to the original "SDRAM" generation, as opposed to information common to the entire family of standards, to {{no redirect|SDR SDRAM}}, and then merge [[PC66]], [[PC100]], and [[PC133]] into the newly split {{no redirect|SDR SDRAM}}. – [[User:Wbm1058|wbm1058]] ([[User talk:Wbm1058|talk]]) 20:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

* '''Support''' --[[User:Zac67|Zac67]] ([[User talk:Zac67|talk]]) 20:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

::{{ping|Wbm1058}} that looks fine to me too. I had a look at doing this myself, but had trouble separating the SDR-SDRAM from the SDRAM material; I wonder if you, or someone closer to this field than me, might given it a go. [[User:Klbrain|Klbrain]] ([[User talk:Klbrain|talk]]) 20:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

== DDR(X) SDRAM, Connectors' numbers of Pins?? ==

Hi All - Wondering: The several sections in the article, e.g. DDR2, DDR3, DDR4, etc; Why do none of these sections make mention of connectors' numbers of pins? e.g. various DDR(X) SDRAM form-factors might be 184 pins, 240 pin (1.5V or 1.8V, two different ones at 240 pins), and/or 288pins.. Info needs to be added, updated? Thanks! -From <b>Peter</b> {a.k.a. [[User:Vid2vid|Vid2vid]] <i>([[User talk:Vid2vid#top|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Vid2vid|contribs]])</i>} 04:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC).

* A-ha!! [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDR_SDRAM#Generations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDR_SDRAM#Generations]. =^) -From <b>Peter</b> {a.k.a. [[User:Vid2vid|Vid2vid]] <i>([[User talk:Vid2vid#top|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Vid2vid|contribs]])</i>} 04:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC).

== 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.

* Disambiguation should be shown in bytes or bits, with clear indication of whether in binary or decimal base. There is no preference in the way to indicate the number of bytes and bits, but the notation style should be consistent within an article.

* 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)