From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Apr 11 11:00:38 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA07029 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 11 Apr 1997 11:00:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rah.star-gate.com (rah.star-gate.com [204.188.121.18]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA07010 for ; Fri, 11 Apr 1997 11:00:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rah.star-gate.com (localhost.star-gate.com [127.0.0.1]) by rah.star-gate.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA04490; Fri, 11 Apr 1997 10:59:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199704111759.KAA04490@rah.star-gate.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.9 8/22/96 To: Stephen Roome cc: "Louis A. Mamakos" , Michael Hancock , Darren Reed , Terry Lambert , hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 430TX ? In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 11 Apr 1997 17:45:31 BST." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 10:59:13 -0700 From: Amancio Hasty Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >From The Desk Of Stephen Roome : > On Fri, 11 Apr 1997, Louis A. Mamakos wrote: > > > > On Fri, 11 Apr 1997, Michael Hancock wrote: > > > > While we're talking about Intel, they claim that they're focusing more on > > > > memory bandwidth these days and the Pentium II has some kind of dual bu s > > > > architecture that makes a significant performance difference. > > > I talked to an Intel representative at WinHEC 97 and politely told him that they are shooting themselves on the foot with the issue of memory bandwith --- Interestingly , he agreed and his response was we are working hard to solve this issue. I believe he was sincere so lets wait and see what happens over the next six months. As far as I can tell , there are two camps to solve the memory bandwith bottleneck, the DRAM folks and the RAMBUS folks. As to who is going to win I don't know. Enjoy, Amancio