Monster 6502

[drlegendre .]

Oh sure.. because I always thought that SRAM was intrinsically faster than
DRAM, all other factors held constant?

On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 9:16 PM, Brent Hilpert <hilpert at cs.ubc.ca> wrote:

> Fewer transistors, hence less die space.
>
> Same reason DRAM is more dense (hence larger) than SRAM.
>
>
> On 2016-May-28, at 7:12 PM, drlegendre . wrote:
>
> > So what's the reasoning behind using gate capacitance (or inductance) to
> > store the bit state? It would seem obvious that setting a bi-stable hi or
> > lo would be a much more reliable method of saving the state.
> >
> > Is it a matter of power consumption, or switching speed, or both?
> >
> > On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 8:49 PM, Brent Hilpert <hilpert at cs.ubc.ca>
> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2016-May-28, at 6:22 PM, drlegendre . wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Could someone also clarify what is meant by "gates" in this sense? Are
> we
> >>> talking about the gates (G) of a FET, as in Gate, Drain and Source - or
> >> are
> >>> we referring to the composite logic gates (NAND, etc.), built up of
> >>> multiple bipolar - or MOS - transistors?
> >>
> >> Yes, they're talking FET gates, the internal registers would operate
> under
> >> the same basic principle as DRAM does.
> >>
> >> Other early microprocs used dynamic registers, I forget which, perhaps
> >> others can list them.
> >>
> >> Far from the first time a processor had dynamic registers.
> >> I've been told that the IBM 709 used inductive (rather than capacitive)
> >> storage for the main registers.
>
>