Timeline for "Faster" RAM at lower clock speeds?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 12, 2017 at 13:25 | answer | added | inf3rno | timeline score: 1 | |
| Nov 23, 2012 at 23:48 | comment | added | David Schwartz | Short answer: no. Latency is almost never as important as transfer speed. You may wait a tiny bit longer until you get the first bit of data, but you'll more than make it up by getting the last bit sooner. (You are wrong about random access. At this level, RAM cannot be accessed randomly. You can only read chunks.) | |
| Feb 15, 2012 at 22:21 | answer | added | Bigbio2002 | timeline score: 2 | |
| Sep 17, 2009 at 20:03 | answer | added | Racter | timeline score: 1 | |
| Sep 17, 2009 at 19:28 | history | edited | BinaryMisfit | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
deleted 24 characters in body; edited tags; edited title
|
| Sep 17, 2009 at 19:12 | history | edited | Faken | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
deleted 2 characters in body
|
| Sep 10, 2009 at 6:08 | comment | added | alex | Short answer: yes, latency has a big impact on RAM performance :) | |
| Sep 10, 2009 at 4:57 | answer | added | user10547 | timeline score: 0 | |
| Sep 10, 2009 at 4:48 | history | edited | Faken | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 536 characters in body; deleted 4 characters in body
|
| Sep 10, 2009 at 4:42 | history | asked | Faken | CC BY-SA 2.5 |