Oh sure.. because I always thought that SRAM was intrinsically faster than DRAM, all other factors held constant?
On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 9:16 PM, Brent Hilpert <hilp...@cs.ubc.ca> wrote: > Fewer transistors, hence less die space. > > Same reason DRAM is more dense (hence larger) than SRAM. > > > On 2016-May-28, at 7:12 PM, drlegendre . wrote: > > > So what's the reasoning behind using gate capacitance (or inductance) to > > store the bit state? It would seem obvious that setting a bi-stable hi or > > lo would be a much more reliable method of saving the state. > > > > Is it a matter of power consumption, or switching speed, or both? > > > > On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 8:49 PM, Brent Hilpert <hilp...@cs.ubc.ca> > wrote: > > > >> On 2016-May-28, at 6:22 PM, drlegendre . wrote: > >>> > >>> Could someone also clarify what is meant by "gates" in this sense? Are > we > >>> talking about the gates (G) of a FET, as in Gate, Drain and Source - or > >> are > >>> we referring to the composite logic gates (NAND, etc.), built up of > >>> multiple bipolar - or MOS - transistors? > >> > >> Yes, they're talking FET gates, the internal registers would operate > under > >> the same basic principle as DRAM does. > >> > >> Other early microprocs used dynamic registers, I forget which, perhaps > >> others can list them. > >> > >> Far from the first time a processor had dynamic registers. > >> I've been told that the IBM 709 used inductive (rather than capacitive) > >> storage for the main registers. > >
