DDR-2 also nicely fits in with 64-bit memory growth:
o More memory sockets - requiring much bigger VRM
o Lower voltage than DDR to limit wattage - altho high in 1GB form

BTX will allow airflow along the dimms, avoiding shadowing etc which
is common on present 1U/Desktop solutions. Not seen anything to suggest
above 667Mhz yet, but that's pretty quick. Typical figures are 30W for a
server implementation, and 2m/sec airflow for junction temps.
--
Dorothy Bradbury
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/dorothy...ry/panaflo.htm (Direct)

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 14:52:01 -0500, Keith R. Williams
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>> Wow. Getting to be just like RF.
>
>Well, yeah. 500MHz is getting just like RF. ;-)

Erm, is it just me or US radio stations don't use frequencies below
500Mhz? I thought RF begins well below that... like in the single
digit Khz regions no?

Or do you guys play only with military radars? :PppPpp

--
L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me
Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code

a?n?g?e?(E-Mail Removed) (The little lost angel) wrote:

>On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 14:52:01 -0500, Keith R. Williams
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>> Wow. Getting to be just like RF.
>>
>>Well, yeah. 500MHz is getting just like RF. ;-)
>
>Erm, is it just me or US radio stations don't use frequencies below
>500Mhz? I thought RF begins well below that... like in the single
>digit Khz regions no?

Well, technically speaking, I believe any frequency can be transmitted
in free space as an electromagnetic wave. It just gets less efficient
as you drop in frequency. Antenna size is inversely proportional to
frequency, as well.

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, a?n?g?e?
(E-Mail Removed) says...
> On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 14:52:01 -0500, Keith R. Williams
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >> Wow. Getting to be just like RF.
> >
> >Well, yeah. 500MHz is getting just like RF. ;-)
>
> Erm, is it just me or US radio stations don't use frequencies below
> 500Mhz? I thought RF begins well below that... like in the single
> digit Khz regions no?

In the US, AM radio is in the hundreds of kHz to low MHz (530kHz -
1.71MHz, IIRC). FM is in the 88-108MHz region, while VHF television is
in the 30-170MHz region and UHF TV in the several-hundreds of MHz.
Cell phones are in the high hundreds to low GHz. So, modern
microprocessors are right in there with all this other "RF" stuff.
....except they don't (intentionally) radiate.

> Or do you guys play only with military radars? :PppPpp

I could tell ya, but... ;-)

--
Keith

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 07:58:20 -0600, chrisv <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Well, technically speaking, I believe any frequency can be transmitted
>in free space as an electromagnetic wave. It just gets less efficient
>as you drop in frequency. Antenna size is inversely proportional to
>frequency, as well.

Hmm, I was of the understanding that it gets more efficient as the
frequency goes lower. That to get the same range out of a higher
frequency requires more power than a lower frequency.
--
L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me
Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code

a?n?g?e?(E-Mail Removed) (The little lost angel) wrote
:

> Hmm, I was of the understanding that it gets more efficient as the
> frequency goes lower.

Thats just what the man said

> That to get the same range out of a higher
> frequency requires more power than a lower frequency.

yup. But with higher freq you get a better chance to get an
unintentionall antenna out of some schort interconnect (a cable
stickong out of the board just loves to act as one).

Pozdrawiam.
--
RusH //
http://pulse.pdi.net/~rush/qv30/
Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, a?n?g?e?
(E-Mail Removed) says...
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 07:58:20 -0600, chrisv <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
> >Well, technically speaking, I believe any frequency can be transmitted
> >in free space as an electromagnetic wave. It just gets less efficient
> >as you drop in frequency. Antenna size is inversely proportional to
> >frequency, as well.
>
> Hmm, I was of the understanding that it gets more efficient as the
> frequency goes lower. That to get the same range out of a higher
> frequency requires more power than a lower frequency.

Lower frequencies tend to bounce off the ionosphere and the
ground (ground waves), so will carry further. The higher the
frequency the more penetrating the "wave" is so it tends to go
off into space. Jacking up the (effective radiated) power simply
forces the issue. Note that it also takes a hell of a lot more
signal strength at the receiver for TV vs. radio.

--
Keith

"Bradley" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:_pd_b.32094$(E-Mail Removed)...
> My question is the subject of this message. Is DDR-2 the same thing as
> Dual-Channel DDR? If not, what are the differences and which one should I
go
> with? Thank You.

DDR-2, which I believe is correctly written with Roman numerals, is to DDR
as DDR was to SDR. That is to say, it is a different beast.

Dual-Channel is a function of the chipset, being able to combine two DDR (I)
DIMMS, similar to how RAID 0 works. It will double the speed of the RAM,
but you need to install it in pairs, so you need 2 DIMMs or 4 DIMMs, 1 or 3
won't work.

DDR-II would be better, but last I recalled (I've been out of this for a
while now), it isn't made yet. I sure hope that's right. In that case, you
should definetly go for the DDR (I). PC2700 or PC3200 is about as good as
it gets now. That corresponds to a so-called 333MHz & 400MHz RAM speed.
It's actually 166 and 200, but marketing made it 333 and 400 (after all it
is DOUBLE data rate....just people look at the double part and not the DATA
RATE which clearly isnt ACTUAL CLOCK SPEED

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 20:52:45 GMT, "Anonymous Joe" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Dual-Channel is a function of the chipset, being able to combine two DDR (I)
>DIMMS, similar to how RAID 0 works. It will double the speed of the RAM,
>but you need to install it in pairs, so you need 2 DIMMs or 4 DIMMs, 1 or 3
>won't work.

This isn't technically dual channel, but with 3 DIMMs, some boards
will apparently enable dual channel for the 2 DIMM in complementary
slots and the 3rd DIMM works in single channel mode.

--
L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me
Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code

I believe Keith meant that designing digital systems with
500MHz bus signals running around, is beginning to require
the same design techniques as RF designs.

The little lost angel wrote:
>
> Erm, is it just me or US radio stations don't use frequencies below
> 500Mhz? I thought RF begins well below that... like in the single
> digit Khz regions no?
>
> Or do you guys play only with military radars? :PppPpp