Talk:SDR SDRAM

What?
Why does this article even exist? This is going absolutely nuts with backronyms. This is tantamount to creating an entirely new article PATA to refer to ATA simply because the former backronym has become fashionable. Personally I've never even heard the term SDR-SDRAM, but it's usage is silly at best. Clocking synchronous systems on one edge is common, so no extra distinction was ever needed when SDRAM was first mass produced. Even since DDR-SDRAM has become popular, I haven't seen anybody find the need to call SDRAM "SDR-SDRAM" to save confusion where there is none. Can anybody show any reputable source referring to "SDR-SDRAM?" Something from academia or the industry would be preferred. -- uberpenguin 02:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 'Tis a bit mad, isn't it. Looks like SDRAM was created as a redirect to DRAM in 2002, so it's not like someone's hacked it around recently. Personally I'd be all for nabbing SDRAM as th correct place for this page to live, with a note early in the page to make the distinction. jmb 18:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I am actually thinking that the DRAM entry is getting too long and that each type of DRAM with a significant amount of info should have its own page. I've found these separate entries of RAM types and integrated them with the data from DRAM. I've done that for this page, DDR SDRAM, and RDRAM.--Swaaye 19:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand and tend to agree with your mentality, but I think you may be going overboard. Per jmb's above comments, I think SDRAM covers enough content to merit its own article, but not every derivative form of SDRAM.  Really, DDR-SDRAM in its various tweaked incarnations is only worth a few paragraphs within an SDRAM article.  My issue here is more with the crazy backronym usage than the actual breaking up of a bulky article. -- uberpenguin 01:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

This is really just dumb. Why don't we just save it as SDRAM, and leave links to the DDR and DDR2?? Dan 00:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. As far as I can see "SDR" can only be a type of SDRAM. Not even the current article specifies whether or not data transfer is happening once or twice per clock pulse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.73.140 (talk) 07:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Reverted move
I moved this article to SDRAM because the differences between older SDRAM and DDR-SDRAM can be described in one paragraph and SDR-SDRAM is a ridiculous backronym. We don't call the ATA article "PATA"; we should not call this article "SDR-SDRAM". The discussion above agrees with this. If you have anything to add, please do so, otherwise this article should be called SDRAM. -- uberpenguin
 * SDR-SDRAM is no backronym, it is a specific name for a specific type of SDRAM, the Single-Data-Rate SDRAM. SDRAM is only the general name for a type of memory. We have the main article Dynamic random access memory for general memory types and specific articles for specific types like SDR, DDR, DDR2 or DDR3-SDRAM (and more). --Denniss 16:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Totally untrue. SDR-SDRAM is an initialism that was NEVER used before DDR-SDRAM came about and some (most memory manufacturers and embedded systems designers still don't) felt a need to make a distinction.  For about a decade of its usage in PCs, the synchronous DRAM was called SDRAM.  Since it's much more common to clock synchronous digital systems on one clock edge rather than both, no distinction was ever conceivably necessary when SDRAM came to market.  The differences between classical SDRAM, DDR-SDRAM, DDR2-SDRAM, and DDR3-SDRAM are all very minor timing issues; not meritous of an entire article.  SDRAM is not, as you assert, a "general" type of memory.  DRAM is a general memory technology, SDRAM is a very specificly clocked and pipelined usage of DRAM.  DDR-SDRAM is just SDRAM whose logic responds on both clock edges and may have slightly deeper pipelining.  DDR2 and DDR3 are even tinier changes on the SDRAM scheme and involve merely form factor, signaling specification, and internal engineering concerns that facilitate shorter clock periods.  That's the reason that all this information was originally in the DRAM article.  There is very little to be said about DDR-SDRAM that isn't already covered by a proper discussion of SDRAM.  Likewise, there is very little to be said about SDRAM that isn't already covered in a discussion of DRAM.  I'm not suggesting (at this point) that this be merged back into DRAM, but it's ridiculous to title this article with a name that was contrived about a decade after SDRAM came into common use and then to claim that it's the "proper" name. -- uberpenguin
 * I think it's also interesting that the first google result for 'SDR SDRAM' is Wikipedia. Meaning that WP is seemingly endorsing this initialism more than most major sites (or more exactly, more links with the term point to the WP article than anywhere else).  Granted, Google tests are asinine, but given the nature of your assertation, I thought I'd bring it up. -- uberpenguin