Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!sun!amdcad!brahms!phil From: phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) Newsgroups: sci.electronics Subject: Re: Frame Buffers Message-ID: <1990Jul10.071138.26176@amd.com> Date: 10 Jul 90 07:11:38 GMT References: <2229@mindlink.UUCP> <1990Jun26.154640.26941@utzoo.uucp> <1990Jun26.200549.792@amd.com> Sender: usenet@amd.com (NNTP Posting) Reply-To: phil@brahms.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai) Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Sunnyvale CA Lines: 19 In article jem@cs.hut.fi (Johan Myreen) writes: |Aren't you a little optimistic in saying that you can easily get a |bandwidth of 20 MHz * 32 out of regular DRAMs? You will have to write I was talking about display bandwidth and the part of my article you left out did say that VRAMs have an advantage when it comes to updating the display. |And even a realistic assumption of 1.3 million pixels per frame |doesn't give you a very big margin, if you want a display of say 1024 |pixels across. I also said in the part of the article you cut out that I was mainly talking about the PC world, where 640x480 is considered high-res. -- -- Phil Ngai, phil@amd.com {uunet,decwrl,ucbvax}!amdcad!phil PALASM 90: it's not the same old PALASM any more!