Talk:Synchronous dynamic random-access memory
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Synchronous dynamic random-access memory article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | Computing B‑class High‑importance | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Redirect where?
This was originally redirecting to Dynamic random access memory (where the SDRAM is from), but that only has a link to SDR SDRAM, which discusses SDRAM and that SDR SDRAM is considered "normal" SDRAM. That is why I thought the redirect should change. Matejhowell 13:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Move/redirect
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 ATA isn't named "PATA"). -- uberpenguin @ 2006-04-29 03:27Z
Image caption
I changed the image caption to something more accurate since the original version implied that SDRAM necessarily comes in DIMM sticks. That couldn't be farther from the truth since SDRAM is simply synchronous organization of DRAM arrays. In other words, SDRAM is a certain method of pipelining and synchronizing the accesses of DRAM arrays. It is not a particular packaging. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-06-14 20:57Z
I've rewritten
Rewrote the first couple of paragraphs but not toward changing their content. I wanted the complexity of alaphbet soup which a common reader, unitiated in reading motherboard specifications, could read and understand. I tried to, you know, add just one unknown to "DRAM" and explain it, you know, so a person who knows very little could read and understand. Terryeo 16:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Okay... This article is still pretty icky, but almost all the computer storage and solid state memory articles are. I corrected a few of the glaring errors. -- uberpenguin
@ 2006-08-19 18:17Z
ddr and sdram
Is ddr the same or different from sdram? The last sentence could be clearer. 68.16.132.212 21:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Same thing; clocked on two edges instead of one. -- mattb
@ 2006-11-02T23:25Z
Cleanup resources tags
Tags for cleanup, referencing, or other issues in articles are to be placed in the article. This is so those who are looking up information on Wikipedia know what issues an article may have. Ceros 15:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- Forgive me, I just see no utility in tagging articles en masse with these ugly banners. If you see a reference problem I think you should do something about it, not slap a tag on and expect someone else to do the work. -- mattb
@ 2006-12-10T19:24Z
- Placing a tag in the article is doing something and it's a lot better than doing nothing. Yes I could start looking for information about SDRAM or any other article and post the citations for every article I encounter without references. I thought it was best though to tag the articles first and than go to work with correcting the issues with the articles that I find. As I'm working on one, others will notice that tags on the other articles and start correcting them at the same time.
- Also, since you found the tag to be unsightly, there could be others who would feel the same way you do. It gives some motivation to fix the issues and delete the tags. Wouldn't you agree? Ceros 20:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- No, on the contrary I feel that it just assaults one's eyes unnecessarily. Frankly I don't think this tag improves or benefits the article in any way since nobody is likely to respond to it. You didn't take time to read the article and find any contentious claims that should be referenced; you merely noticed that the article doesn't have twenty links to random websites as some trite form of "verification" of the article's assertions. I suspect that if this article merely claimed to have references it wouldn't have been adorned with this banner. Would you honestly have taken the time to check whether any references actually verify the information? There are people very concerned with tagging articles with banners that announce it is unreferenced, but where are the people on a campaign to verify all the references people add? What prevents me from picking some vagely related book titles, throwing them in the article, and removing the ref tag? You make the coy remark that the ugly tag encourages people to add refs, but I think it really encourages people to add sloppy and poorly chosen references which actually hurt the article more than help it. Knowing that there are people patrolling for articles without reference sections but nearly nobody carefully checking the refs that get added as a result, this sort of tagging only encourages exactly the wrong behavior. References should be added to verify contentious information or added while an article is being written. I think it is absolutely incorrect to tag articles en masse just because you don't see a reference section. Sure it's something that should be fixed, so fix it, don't encourage people to do the wrong thing in taking the quickest easiest route to getting the tag removed.
- In any case, the tag serves only as a superfluous banner to announce a policy that most proficient editors already know about. That's why I moved it to the talk page; anyone who does watch this article will see it here and get the message, but with the added bonus that it avoids forcing readers to encounter it. Most of this stems from my general discontent at the dogmatic, unproductive, and often downright stupid ways in which WP:V is being applied, so feel free to ignore me. I won't move the tag again because this isn't an article I particularly care about, but I wanted to make it lucid that I see this mass tagging as an annoyance, an encouragement for precisely the wrong behavior, and an excuse for people to loudly announce perceived problems without bothering to try and specifically identify or fix them. -- mattb
@ 2006-12-10T20:31Z
- In any case, the tag serves only as a superfluous banner to announce a policy that most proficient editors already know about. That's why I moved it to the talk page; anyone who does watch this article will see it here and get the message, but with the added bonus that it avoids forcing readers to encounter it. Most of this stems from my general discontent at the dogmatic, unproductive, and often downright stupid ways in which WP:V is being applied, so feel free to ignore me. I won't move the tag again because this isn't an article I particularly care about, but I wanted to make it lucid that I see this mass tagging as an annoyance, an encouragement for precisely the wrong behavior, and an excuse for people to loudly announce perceived problems without bothering to try and specifically identify or fix them. -- mattb
- P.S. - WP:CR (which you referred to) states verbatim: "The following tags should be added to the articles needing cleanup, or to their talk pages. Unless otherwise noted, they should be placed at the tops of articles or at the tops of the articles' talk pages." (emphasis added) My moving the template seems to be in line with currently blessed policy, and I think it's far better to tag talk pages to avoid cluttering up article space. -- mattb
@ 2006-12-10T20:36Z
- P.S. - WP:CR (which you referred to) states verbatim: "The following tags should be added to the articles needing cleanup, or to their talk pages. Unless otherwise noted, they should be placed at the tops of articles or at the tops of the articles' talk pages." (emphasis added) My moving the template seems to be in line with currently blessed policy, and I think it's far better to tag talk pages to avoid cluttering up article space. -- mattb
- Well, WP:CR contradicts itself I suppose. The section above contains the sentence Add the tags to the top of the article. As far as people campaigning to reference articles, there's the fact and reference check WikiProject. There's also the Categoery:Articles lacking sources category for those who are checking references in articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ceros (talk • contribs) 21:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC).
- But use the {{tl:uncat}} instead - if rewuired put it on the articles talk page, or at the end f the article. Rich Farmbrough 21:54 30 December 2006 (UTC).
- In all the time since this tags were added, not much citations were added and i agree to mattb this content is not disputed to require sources. Unless someone comes with more details what needs more referenes i going to clean this tag. :Sterremix (talk) 13:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, WP:CR contradicts itself I suppose. The section above contains the sentence Add the tags to the top of the article. As far as people campaigning to reference articles, there's the fact and reference check WikiProject. There's also the Categoery:Articles lacking sources category for those who are checking references in articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ceros (talk • contribs) 21:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC).
Question
I know the talk page is supposed to be used for discussion of the main article, but I have a question about SDRAM. I bought a Sony Vaio desktop computer with an AMD Athlon 1 Ghz processor back in 2001 and gave it an extra SD RAM chip. My computer smart friend tells me that two can slow a computer down because the processes have to work through both of them. He also told me about the newer 1 gig chips they have now. Would my computer be able to handle it since it is so old? It has a (post purchase) 250 gig harddrive. Would that make a difference?(Ghostexorcist 23:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC))
- As you said, this talk page is for discussing the article. May I suggest posting your question at the computing reference desk? -- mattb
@ 2007-04-14T00:04Z
1st paragraph: asynchronous operated "as quickly as possible"? What about propagating delays?
The 1st paragraph indicates that asynchronous operated "as quickly as possible" because it doesn't have to wait for a clock signal. I could be wrong here (it's been 15 years since then when I jumped to the solar PV industry), but when I was a DRAM integration/yield engineer for Micron while we were migrating from asynchronous to synchronous I understood the asynchronous problem differently.
As I understood it, since asynchronous transistors were not tied to a clock then as data traveled between the data-pins and the cell (as it travels through the periphery) each periphery transistor's latching was controlled by the transistor in front of it, introducing nested propagation delays.
Am I wrong? Wasn't synchronous intended to reduce propagation delays caused by this nested-transistor-operation in the periphery? If so then it seems this first paragraph should be changed from:
Traditionally, dynamic random access memory (DRAM) has an asynchronous interface which means that it responds as quickly as possible to changes in control inputs. SDRAM has a synchronous interface, meaning that it waits for a clock signal before responding to control inputs and is therefore synchronized with the computer's system bus.
to:
Traditionally, dynamic random access memory (DRAM) has an asynchronous interface which means that data propagated through nested gates (transistors) to get the memory cell as quickly as the gates could propagate the data. SDRAM has a synchronous interface, meaning that these gates are synchronized with computer's system bus clock signal, allowing timing optimization to reduce those propagation delays.
Davea0511 (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Pipelining
Is it necessary to explain what pipelining is in this article? Enum (talk) 23:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Merger Proposal for DDR4
I propose that DDR4 SDRAM be merged into this article. It doesn't have much worth keeping, but looks like it has some newer info about clockspeeds and production process. We did this two years ago with an AfD, but now the article's back and the same arguments apply. I don't think we need a separate DDR4 article until the spec hits 1.0 or someone writes a really awesome article about finalized features or something. Alereon (talk) 01:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)