Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uupsi!sunic!nuug!sigyn.idt.unit.no!solan8.solan.unit.no!thoger
From: thoger@solan8.solan.unit.no (Terje Th|gersen)
Newsgroups: sci.electronics
Subject: Re: Refreshing DRAM
Message-ID: <1990Oct31.194436.28242@idt.unit.no>
Date: 31 Oct 90 19:44:36 GMT
References: <1445.272CBD1B@ofa123.fidonet.org>
Sender: news@idt.unit.no (Usenet news admin)
Reply-To: thoger@solan.unit.no
Organization: Norwegian Institue of Technology
Lines: 32

In article <1445.272CBD1B@ofa123.fidonet.org>, rick@ofa123.fidonet.org (Rick Ellis) writes:
|> 
|>  > If one increases the amount of DRAM by a factor of
|>  > 4, say, does this mean that the microprocessor spends 4 times as much time
|>  > refreshing, and hence, less time executing useful instructions? 
|> 
|> No.  Refresh is done in parallel.
|>  
|> 
|> --  
|> Rick Ellis
|> Internet: rick@ofa123.fidonet.org
|> Compuserve: >internet:rick@ofa123.fidonet.org
|> BBS: 714 939-1041
|> --------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hmm..
In an old (autumn 1987) issue of BYTE they were testing 12 exTended memory 
expansion board. They measured and published figures for how much each board
slowed down the system, just by being installed... They even got different
figures for each board... They claimed that this slowdown was due to the extra
time it takes to refresh the extra RAM.

I don't know much about this, but that's what the article said.. ( I read this
a week or so ago, so I'm sure about it..)

	-Terje

____________________________________________________________________________
thoger@solan.unit.no       |                 Institute of Physical Chemistry
THOGER AT NORUNIT.BITNET   | Div. of Computer Assisted Instrumental Analysis
                           |               Norwegian Institute of Technology