SRAM

[Guest]

Could somebody please tell me why SRAM can't replace DRAM. I know that SRAM is more unstabe, but I think it's faster speeds would warrent reasearch into this memory type.

 

[Guest]

I don't know from a technological point of view. I remember many years ago, problably in the "DOS days," people were looking into this, but the cost was a major factor. During that time I had just purchased my first, very own PC...a blazing 385-25 that blew away all the older machines at work. I think paid an extra $300 for a motherboard with an extra 64K L2 cache.

Mike

 

[PARTYBOY]

SRAM is many times more expensive to manufacture than DRAM.

That's all there is to it.
===

There sure as hell ARE user servicable parts inside!

 

[mpjesse]

Yes, SRAM is EXTREMELY expensive. Nanotechnology is going to replace all transistors soon anyways. Well, not soon, but eventually. In 10 years everyone will have an unlimited amount of computing power- just watch.

-MP Jesse

 

[Guest]

Basically it takes 6 transistors, to make one SRAM bit, whereas it only takes 1 to make a DRAM bit. SRAM costs a hell of a lot more for that very reason.