WiiGeePeeYou (Hollywood) what IS it ?

[StefanS]

The IGN specs sound completely strange. I don't think that the configuration will be that way. Since the NEC press release mentions that their technology is compatible with 1T-SRAM, I guess that NEC is providing the whole of the embedded RAM.

Anyway, I hope that Wii has enough eDRAM to fit 4xAA @ 480p.

 

[darkblu]

i believe the two significant bits of info from the mosys news release are:

The newest 1T-SRAM implementations embedded within the Wii console are fabricated using NEC Electronics' advanced 90nm CMOS-compatible embedded DRAM process technology. These high speed and ultra low latency memories are used as the main embedded memory on the graphics chip and in an additional external memory chip

 

[Rolf N]

http://gear.ign.com/articles/713/713254p1.html

The announcements confirm IGN's previous reports that the Wii would make use of 1T-SRAM both in an embedded and individual application. Our most up-to-date specs promise 16MB of eDRAM (integrated in NEC's LSI chips) and 88MB of 1T-SRAM (the "additional external memory chip"), for a total of 104MB of system RAM, not counting the allegedly accessible 512MB of Flash RAM or the ATI Hollywood GPU's on-board memory, which is said to amount to 3MB.

The first sentence is true. As for the rest ... the press release does not confirm any of their numbers.

They have no shame

 

[_xxx_]

512MB of Flash RAM

Now what, flash or RAM? Because these two are very different things...

 

[Crossbar]

Now what, flash or RAM? Because these two are very different things...

The correct denomination would be Flash memory. If the write sectors of the flash memory were small enough I guess it could qualify as RAM, though a very slow one.

 

[Urian]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/05/12/nintendo_revolution_release_date/

and now the laughing link:

http://cube.ign.com/articles/522/522559p3.html

 

[Type_Raver]

The first sentence is true. As for the rest ... the press release does not confirm any of their numbers.

They have no shame

16MB of eDRAM (integrated in NEC's LSI chips)

I thought previous hearsay was 8MB...

If true, it would be a welcome addition.

And this amusing clip: (from Urians first link)

Meanwhile, according to Chinese-language website Unika.com, Revolution will contain four 2.5GHz G5-class IBM PowerPC processors, each with 128KB of L1 cache and 512KB of L2. ATI's contribution is a dual-core RN520 chip, with 16MB of in-package frame buffer DRAM. ®

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Now what, flash or RAM? Because these two are very different things...

Not really. RAM is random access memory, and covers all types of random access rewriteable chip-based storage (SDRAM, SRAM, Bubble memory, magnetic core memory). Flash is a type of RAM. It's just that the definitions have been a little skewed so RAM is taken to mean the bulk chip-based memory, these days of the SDRAM variety.

 

[Crossbar]

Not really. RAM is random access memory, and covers all types of random access rewriteable chip-based storage (SDRAM, SRAM, Bubble memory, magnetic core memory). Flash is a type of RAM. It's just that the definitions have been a little skewed so RAM is taken to mean the bulk chip-based memory, these days of the SDRAM variety.

I beg to differ. Flash memory is just a further development of EEPROM but with the ability of erasing smaller blocks of memory.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I beg to differ. Flash memory is just a further development of EEPROM but with the ability of erasing smaller blocks of memory.

Doesn't matter where it's derived from or how it's implemented. If you have a storage mechanism that allows for random access reading and writing of data, it's RAM, in the strictest sense. Generally that term is no longer extended to magnetic discs, because everyone knows what they are now and you don't need to advertise the benefits of Magnetic RAM on disc over linear memory on tape, yet even there your HDD is a form of RAM. One could argue that the concept of 'random access' is poorly defined, as the different between a tape, HDD and SDRAM regards random access is really a case of access times - all allow data from one part of 'memory' to be accessed, but with varying degrees of delay as the right data block is paged. The tape has to wind to the right place, the HDD has to move the head and spin to the right point on the track, the SDRAM only needs point to the right memory address. But the definition of RAM hasn't been changed to mean a particular type of memory chip that works in a certain way.

 

[Crossbar]

Doesn't matter where it's derived from or how it's implemented. If you have a storage mechanism that allows for random access reading and writing of data, it's RAM, in the strictest sense.

I guess the key words are random access. I could argue that Flash don't really provide random access write operations, write operations are quite elaborative and evolve blocks of various sizes depending on memory type. But I can go along your line I and say that the overhead for block write operations are not that significant, but then that could be said about the old type of EEPROM memories, particulary the small ones and suddenly I could argue RAM = ROM.

Maybe we can make a comprimise and say that Flash memory is something half way in between RAM and ROM.

 

[_xxx_]

Not really. RAM is random access memory, and covers all types of random access rewriteable chip-based storage (SDRAM, SRAM, Bubble memory, magnetic core memory). Flash is a type of RAM. It's just that the definitions have been a little skewed so RAM is taken to mean the bulk chip-based memory, these days of the SDRAM variety.

No. Flash keeps the data when you turn off the power, RAM doesn't. BIOS is on a flash usually, for example.

EDIT: flash is an EEPROM

 

[fearsomepirate]

So in other words, if you go by the dictionary definition of the words in the acronym, you could consider flash memory to be RAM, but if you go by the common usage of the term, it's not. I'm gonna take a gamble that IGN isn't doing the first and being clever and subtle with their technical dictionary accuracy. Call it a hunch.

 

[_xxx_]

It's not RAM nor can it be used as such.

It becomes unusable after the rather limited number of write cycles. Used as a RAM, you'd have to switch it every couple of weeks, which would be totally senseless. There are some with longer life, but with much higher prices and I doubt they'll use these for obvious reasons.

EDIT: usually a modern EEPROM can make some 100,000 write cycles. They could as well use (very fast and very expensive) FRAM in place, which can do one billion write cycles, but I think that would cost way too much.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

No. Flash keeps the data when you turn off the power, RAM doesn't. BIOS is on a flash usually, for example.

No, that's the difference between Volatile and Non-Volatile. Wikipedia's right on this stuff
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAM

RAM is typically erased when a computer is shut down, though some RAM chips maintain data indefinitely without electrical power. Technically, RAM devices are not limited to memory chips, and random-access memory as a storage format is not limited to use as working memory. In a broad sense, modern storage devices for long-term or secondary storage, including magnetic media and laser-readable CDs and DVDs, are forms of random-access memory.
Most RAM can be both written to and read from, so "RAM" is often used interchangeably with "read-write memory." In this sense, RAM is the opposite of read-only memory (ROM). Strictly speaking, however, "RAM" and "ROM" are not mutually exclusive designations because "RAM" refers only to the method of accessing stored data, not whether data can be written.

I guess it depends on where your coming from. If you studied computer science including it's history, you're more likely to go with the official definitions, whereas if you use the terms in the vernacular, you'll likely be 'mixing them up.' In the case of Flash RAM, it's a two part description of a technology, the first describing the implemenation being that of the Flash type technology developed by Dr. Fujio Masuoka, and the second describing it as read/write random-access memory. The term Flash on it's own to describe the memory could mean either Flash RAM (for user working space) or Flash ROM (for a system BIOS), for example, so the qualifier of RAM is necessary if you're wanting to be clear what the memory is going to be used for.

 

[_xxx_]

I guess it depends on where your coming from.

I studied electronics, I'm developing electronics and software, so I use the "official" definitions from the books and datasheets.

EDIT: and there is still no non-volatile RAM out there I know of. Even if there should be some in the meantime, it'll cost a fortune until it's a mass product. But if you find some, let me know since I could need it for a couple of projects

EDIT2: there is no such thing as "Flash RAM", whoever posted that in Wiki is wrong.

 

[Crossbar]

I guess it depends on where your coming from.

In some sense yes, but I would say it depends on the level of abstraction you are applying. If a software engineer asks the hardware engineer to supply some read/write non-volatile storage at the end of a bus, the engineer could put a hard drive, some flash memory or some battery backuped SRAM etc.etc. at the end of the bus.

From the perspective of the sw engineer it's just somekind of RAM (though I would never call it that and I have a MSc CS ), from the perspective of the hw engineer it's some very specific electronics that may very well be called re-programmable ROM.

 

[_xxx_]

OK, just had a look at the differences between pure Flash and EEPROM. This is what AtmelCorp. say:

EEPROMs are truly byte writeable. With Flash devices, like the 29 series, a sector of data has to be rewritten every time a byte needs to be changed. With the 49 series, a byte can only be changed if bits within the byte are being changed from a "1" to a "0". However, if a bit needs to be changed from a "0" to a "1", an entire sector or even the entire chip must first be erased.

Here's a nice summary of different memory types:
http://www.netrino.com/Publications/Glossary/MemoryTypes.html

From there:

From a software viewpoint, flash and EEPROM technologies are very similar. The major difference is that flash devices can only be erased one sector at a time, not byte-by-byte.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I studied electronics, I'm developing electronics and software, so I use the "official" definitions from the books and datasheets.

Perhaps they're different to what Comp Sci students like me read? I'd like to see their definitions and how they correlate to the Acronyms. What is Flash if not RAM? Flash ROM? How is ti read only...?

EDIT: and there is still no non-volatile RAM out there I know of. But if you find some, let me know since I could need it for a couple of projects

Magnetic core memory. Random access, read-write, and keeps it's contents without power, no?

 

[see colon]

:What is Flash if not RAM? Flash ROM? How is ti read only...?

RAS (Random Access Storage) obviously.

i woke up this mourning and got all excited about the number of posts added to this thread. imagine my disapointment when i found all this pointless bickering about what is RAM and what's not RAM.

16MB of on package ram would be overkill for 480p. i'm doubtfull nintendo would ever put that much memory on the GPU, unless recent rumors of physics accelleration are true, and they are doing physics on the GPU.