bracecomputerlab wrote on 2025-08-01, 17:13:

Slightly off topic about RDRAM. I have been working on a creating a replica of VIA Technologies VT5228C reference schematic main […]
Show full quote

Slightly off topic about RDRAM.
I have been working on a creating a replica of VIA Technologies VT5228C reference schematic mainboard for KiCad.
VT5228C reference schematic mainboard has Apollo Pro133A (VT82C694X) and VT82C686A "Super South" along with support for 133 MHz Slot 1 processors.
I have read the Apollo Pro133A chipset design guide and Intel 440BX chipset design guide, and both total around 140 to 160 pages, if one counts the OrCAD schematic.
Anyway, the ill fated Intel 820 chipset design guide is roughly double of the page count, and is far more detailed than the aforementioned two other design guides.
Besides that, Intel 820 chip set requires 28 ohm characteristic impedance for RDRAM traces versus 65 ohm for Apollo Pro133A and 440BX.
The recommended materials used in the 28 ohm characteristic impedance 4 layer PCB stack up is also different in terms of material thickness, and perhaps these lower volume, less familiar PCB fabrication methods might be the reason why mainboard and memory modules were so expensive back then.
I am not really an expert in PCB design, but just wanted to bring this up.

Was my stuff useful?

mockingbird wrote on 2025-07-16, 20:00:

Public technology consortiums have run their course and R&D should be returned to the private sector.

[/rant]

What in the world are you talking about? These consortiums are ran by the companies. The government is not deciding what should be in the DDR-6 spec.

A monopoly, which is what intel tried to do with rambus, always hurts consumers and is ANTI free market.

Historically, Intel worked to stymie computer advancement at every turn. Purposefully holding back technology that was already developed in order to soak consumers and biz. If it weren't for AMD we'd still be using netburst cpus. Thinking we'd be in a better alt reality if we'd willfully handed Intel a monopoly on all computer memory is the most insane, wrong, and gleefully ignorant take I've ever read on this forum.

kingcake wrote on 2025-08-18, 05:27:

What in the world are you talking about? These consortiums are ran by the companies. The government is not deciding what should be in the DDR-6 spec.

It's time to go back to competing technologies. When I say competing, I mean ugly, in a very incompatible way with everything else type of competing technologies.

There are a lot of improvements and innovations that can (but sadly won't) be made that can extend the longevity of current hardware in orders of magnitude and reduce e-waste to practically nil.

The Asians, who drive the industry (we allowed Taiwan a practical monopoly, what did this buy us? 40 years of freedom from Chinese occupation?) are never going to do this, their culture doesn't allow for it, and it never will. At first, they produced what they were told to. Then they produced what they thought we wanted. Now, they design and tell us what to buy. Nothing against the Taiwanese, but RGB LED matrices don't actually have any effect on how computers perform.

How much junk will be sold until the next deposit of rare earth is depleted and a new war is fought, who knows?

"we allowed"

Rofl

Are you allowing ASML to make the best chip printers too?
So generous.

myne wrote on 2025-08-18, 12:23:

"we allowed"

I'm not trying to detract from their ingenuity, but technical innovation came from the west, yes. Find me books in Chinese from the 1970s about operating system theory.

Oh, well in that case, the British allowed you do become a great power.

Show me the US navy in 1700

myne wrote on 2025-08-18, 13:26:

Oh, well in that case, the British allowed you do become a great power.

Show me the US navy in 1700

I wasn't aware that "Tanenbaum" and "Silberschatz" were British names.