|
|
CT60 and related things BBS
| Re: CL2/CL3 |
|---|
|
Posted by: hencox
|
Nov,11.2003-11:12
|
maybe you're right, there. :)
I just asked my brother, who designs the VHDL for our upcoming supervidel and therefore has a pretty good knowledge of the workings of DDR SDRAM (and the "old" SDRAM). He says that the CAS latency is just measured in clock cycles, which means that a CAS latency of 3 cycles (CL3) for SDRAM at 1000MHz (if it existed) is better than PC133 CL2 (meaning smaller amount of time). :)
For a moment there, I thought that it was just the time that mattered not the clock cycles.
Regards
Henrik
|
[All messages in this thread] [Start new thread]
|
Topic
|
Posted by
|
Date
|
|
100 MHz.. nearly.
|
evil
|
Nov,08.2003-16:02
|
|
Re: 100 MHz.. nearly.
|
Anonymous
|
Nov,08.2003-16:26
|
|
Re: 100 MHz.. nearly.
|
evil
|
Nov,08.2003-18:37
|
|
Re: 100 MHz.. nearly.
|
Didier Méquignon
|
Nov,09.2003-12:48
|
|
Re: 100 MHz.. nearly.
|
evil
|
Nov,09.2003-17:07
|
|
Re: 100 MHz.. nearly.
|
Philipp Donzé
|
Nov,09.2003-18:29
|
|
Re: 100 MHz.. nearly.
|
hencox
|
Nov,10.2003-10:02
|
|
Re: 100 MHz.. nearly.
|
hencox
|
Nov,10.2003-10:04
|
|
Re: CL2/CL3
|
Ragstaff
|
Nov,11.2003-08:00
|
|
Re: CL2/CL3
|
hencox
|
Nov,11.2003-11:12
|
|
Re: CL2/CL3
|
stimpy
|
Nov,14.2003-14:03
|
|
Re: 100 MHz.. nearly.
|
Peter
|
Nov,10.2003-16:19
|
|
Re: 100 MHz.. nearly.
|
evil
|
Nov,10.2003-20:25
|
|
Re: 100 MHz.. nearly.
|
Peter
|
Nov,11.2003-09:56
|
|
Re: 100 MHz.. nearly.
|
SWE
|
Nov,11.2003-21:40
|
|
Re: 100 MHz.. nearly.
|
Didier Méquignon
|
Nov,11.2003-22:04
|
|
Re: 100 MHz.. nearly.
|
Thomas / New Beat
|
Nov,12.2003-12:25
|
|
Re: 100 MHz.. nearly.
|
SWE
|
Nov,12.2003-21:00
|
|
Re: 100 MHz.. nearly.
|
Didier Méquignon
|
Nov,14.2003-22:00
|
What's the anti-troll code?
That's your personal code to be able to add comments and messages on the dhs.nu site.
Don't have a code or forgot it? Fix it here.
|
