On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Tim <t...@tcsac.net> wrote: > Of course it does. Competition directly affects the features provided on > everyone in a market segment's products.
The server and workstation market demands ECC. Any die that would be used in the server or workstation market would need to have ECC. > The fact Intel put a memory controller on die is PROOF that AMD has a direct > effect on their product roadmap. Do you think Intel would have willingly > killed off their lucrative northbridge chipset business without AMD forcing > their hand? Please. Intel moved to on-die memory controller because the front side bus architecture was becoming a bottleneck as the number of cores increased. The fact that AMD's chips already have an on-die controller certainly influenced Intel's direction - I'm not disputing that. The fact of the matter is that an on-die MC is an efficient way to to have high bandwidth and low latency access to memory. The IBM POWER 6 has on-die memory controllers as well, which is less likely to be due to any market pressure caused by AMD since the two firms' products don't directly compete. It's just a reasonable engineering decision. -B -- Brandon High : bh...@freaks.com _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
