Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ub!ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu!v053qgzj
From: v053qgzj@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (David M Snyderman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: New DRAMS
Keywords: Dynamic Rams, fast memory, Gilbert Hyatt
Message-ID: <46539@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU>
Date: 15 Nov 90 23:33:54 GMT
Sender: news@acsu.Buffalo.EDU
Reply-To: v053qgzj@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu
Organization: University at Buffalo
Lines: 36
Nntp-Posting-Host: ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4.3

Summarized from the Buffalo News, 11/15/90:

"Gilbert Hyatt, the engeer who was granted a pantent last summer for the 
computer microprocessor after a 20 year battle...  announced Wednesday at the
Comdex Computer show that he recently received a patent for a technology that
triples the speed of... Dynamic Random Access Memory chips."

Any confirmations out there?  Does this mean 20 ns DRAMs?  Will memory boards
with these chips be able to work in a standard ISA bus?  Any idea how soon
these chips will be out on the market?  Costs in comparison to standard
DRAMs and also fast static RAMs?  What are the long term implications?

I see some, providing they are as cheap as standard DRAMs:

1)  The death of cache memory.  If you can have 30 ns DRAMs, these would be fast
enough for even 33 MHz processors.  What does this bode for the 486 (that has
a *albeit small* 8K internal cache)?  (I know, probably nothing.  But will this
affect INTEL's future desings?)

2)  *ANY* advancement in RAM technology would seem to raise the "minimum" RAM
required to run the "topline" applications.

3)  Computer prices WILL NOT be very affected by this.  A (now standard)
configuration of 4 megs of memory is only costing (ballpark) $300 on 
a machine that costs 6 to 12 times that much.

4)  Development of some "hard disk replacement" memory cards.  Especially
if these chips are capable of higher capacity.  This might be possible--
the article says that Hyatt achieves his speed by eliminating "unnecessary
operations in the chips."  Less hardware support internal to the chip might
imply less space required and less power consumption.

Hope you found this interesting.

David M. Snyderman
V053QGZJ@UBVMS