Peter Alfke wrote:

> Jonathan, why so aggressive?
> I was just pointing out that certain applications naturally perform
> sufficient refresh operations in their normal addressing sequence. I
> can't see why this is "completely ridiculuous"...
> Peter Alfke
>
> On Oct 24, 12:40 am, Jonathan Bromley <jonathan.brom...@MYCOMPANY.com>
> wrote:
>

>>Yes, and it's a completely ridiculous way to do it. The
>>added cost of making frequent additional row accesses is
>>far greater than the cost of the necessary refresh.
>>

>>
And by not having to perform explicit refreshes, the bandwidth is
slightly higher and latency is more predictable. If your application is
one that always addresses all the memory that it uses (no need to
refresh rows you are not using) within the minimum refresh interval,
then this can sometimes be used to simplify the system. There are still
plenty of FPGA applications that, for example, use the DRAM only for a
video frame buffer.