I see a W942508DH!

Printable View

08-24-2005, 01:28 PM
largon

I see a W942508DH!

Interesting...

While downloading BH-5's datasheet from Winbond's archive, I wondered what would Google find about "W942508DH"...

To my surprise, it actually gave a result:
http://www.google.com/search?client=...en&q=W942508DH

Altavista can find another online IC dealer listing them.

This is seems to be a new generation of the same die as for example CH-5. If we get lucky, Winbond might one of these days begin pushing these things to module mfgs. :D

Too bad the chip is atm rated only 7.5ns. :rolleyes: I wonder has Winbond even tested what DH could really do...
I guess their engineers really aren't so keen on OC'ing.
08-24-2005, 01:53 PM
craig588

Remember when CH first came out? DH will be just like it.
08-24-2005, 01:55 PM
Vapor

Quote:

Originally Posted by craig588

Remember when CH first came out? DH will be just like it.

For those of us who don't remember when CH first came out....care to explain?
08-24-2005, 02:00 PM
largon

Yes, most of the time CH-5 couldn't do tRCD 2. Only the last samples that reached DIMMs, could do it.

We can hope though.
08-24-2005, 02:05 PM
Vapor

Hmmmm, good to know, thanks. :)

It's amazing how well the new CH is doing then (read: VX, Redline, etc....most UTT), has much changed since Winbond made it?
08-24-2005, 02:12 PM
largon

We don't actually know what happened to CH-die, but it's speculated that Infineon helped Winbond to optimize the die or the process.
CH-UTT was the result.
08-24-2005, 02:28 PM
celemine1Gig

IMHO, it wasn't the CH-chips that were "bad" at te beginning. They were performing the same as they do today. The difference was that anyone expected it to best BH-chips, which did 200MHz 2-2-2-x at unter 2.8V. Well, CH-chips couldn't best it, they couldn't even do 200Mhz at 2-2-2-x, but "only" at 2-3-2-x. Although, it was still good, the dilemma was that noone tested it at above 3V at that time. That's why nobody wanted to have CH-RAM at the beginning and its reputation was kinda bad. But that's only my opinion.

And about DH-chips:

They are available for some time already and some people wrote about having harddrives which had a DH-chip as cache-RAM installed. But I doubt that we'll ever see a DDR-RAM stick with DH-chips, as DDR2 is making its way, thus great investments in DDR-RAM would not be that intelligent, I think.
08-24-2005, 02:32 PM
$ilver

Jo, DH is not that new .. ive seen it last week on some of our SCSI Harddrives in our IBM Netvista Server (36GB HDD ~3Years old) ..

@Cele , i tested some Kingston Hyper X 3500 mit CH5 2years ago with 3,35v , all they did was 245MHZ 5-2-3-2... My 5month old UTT-CH did at that voltage 255 5-2-2-2.. so i dont think its the same chip
08-24-2005, 02:41 PM
high5

Quote:

Originally Posted by celemine1Gig

IMHO, it wasn't the CH-chips that were "bad" at te beginning. They were performing the same as they do today. The difference was that anyone expected it to best BH-chips, which did 200MHz 2-2-2-x at unter 2.8V. Well, CH-chips couldn't best it, they couldn't even do 200Mhz at 2-2-2-x, but "only" at 2-3-2-x. Although, it was still good, the dilemma was that noone tested it at above 3V at that time. That's why nobody wanted to have CH-RAM at the beginning and its reputation was kinda bad. But that's only my opinion.

mine also.

Quote:

Originally Posted by celemine1Gig

And about DH-chips:

They are available for some time already and some people wrote about having harddrives which had a DH-chip as cache-RAM installed. But I doubt that we'll ever see a DDR-RAM stick with DH-chips, as DDR2 is making its way, thus great investments in DDR-RAM would not be that intelligent, I think.

i was just about to post the same. i've personally seen many dh winbond's on various hard drives, vgas etc. i even think my friend still has some ancient vga that utilizes dh75 ic's. not sure whats the entire p/n though...
08-24-2005, 02:41 PM
celemine1Gig

Quote:

Originally Posted by $ilver

Jo, DH is not that new .. ive seen it last week on some of our SCSI Harddrives in our IBM Netvista Server (36GB HDD ~3Years old) ..

@Cele , i tested some Kingston Hyper X 3500 mit CH5 2years ago with 3,35v , all they did was 245MHZ 5-2-3-2... My 5month old UTT-CH did at that voltage 255 5-2-2-2.. so i dont think its the same chip

Remember, the boards have to play nice with the sticks, too. At the time, CH-RAM was released, most boards couldn't even use the full potential of the BH-RAMs. I didn't mean to say that the new CH-UTT chips are exactly the same as the old CH-chips. I meant to say that if you test old CH-RAM today, they will most likely perform as good as new CH-UTTs.
08-24-2005, 02:54 PM
largon

Those HD caches are W986416DH - 8MB chips.
This is W942508DH 32MBs, just like BH-5, CH-5 and UTTs.

They are totally different chips.
08-24-2005, 03:02 PM
largon

It has been an assumption that the first letter of for example "BH-5" means 175nm, really it isn't.
W942508AH- is 175nm too, as is the the BH-flavor.

My guess is that it's just a chip generation prefix just like "F" in Samsung's F-TCCD.

Is there a chip decoder somewhere in Winbond site?
08-24-2005, 03:06 PM
high5

doesn't neccesarily matter. as celemine mentioned, dh's were always used as cache memory and probably will stay that way. the 7.5ns rating of particular dh's you mentioned also suggests that.
08-24-2005, 03:14 PM
largon

Give me a single pic of W942508DH as a cache. :)

btw. Winbond binned 7.5ns W942508BHs too.
08-24-2005, 03:47 PM
high5

give me a single pic of any dh as system memory.

winbond rated bh dies @7.5ns years ago, at the time when 133mhz ram was the state of the art tech. that dh is _presently_ not rated faster than 7.5ns and you expect it to develop into some high-end ram?!? keep it real.
08-24-2005, 04:04 PM
craig588

Quote:

Originally Posted by celemine1Gig

IMHO, it wasn't the CH-chips that were "bad" at te beginning. They were performing the same as they do today. The difference was that anyone expected it to best BH-chips, which did 200MHz 2-2-2-x at unter 2.8V. Well, CH-chips couldn't best it, they couldn't even do 200Mhz at 2-2-2-x, but "only" at 2-3-2-x. Although, it was still good, the dilemma was that noone tested it at above 3V at that time. That's why nobody wanted to have CH-RAM at the beginning and its reputation was kinda bad. But that's only my opinion.

Maybe you didn't, but I was doing the Vdimm=3.3 line mod for a long time, before CH5.
08-24-2005, 04:15 PM
largon

32MB chip is DEFINATELY NOT a HD cache chip.
As you said High5, "keep it real"

It may be, that Winbond doesn't have enough fab to produce this for a full scale use in pc DRAM (yet?). That's one good reason for the lack of higher binnings.

I have not seen any referring to this chip anywhere before.
AFAIK nobody has reported seeing this chip on anything.
It must be a new chip.
08-24-2005, 04:21 PM
high5

aha... okay.
08-24-2005, 04:39 PM
celemine1Gig

Quote:

Originally Posted by craig588

Maybe you didn't, but I was doing the Vdimm=3.3 line mod for a long time, before CH5.

Exceptions prove the rule. ;)
08-25-2005, 11:08 AM
largon

That proverbial HD cache is W986416DH.
http://xtremesystems.org/forums/atta...id=40474&stc=1

8 megabytes, 175nm, 3,3Volts - and it's plain SDRAM.

Edit: what an earth are these datasheets doing in http://www.ortodoxism.ro??
08-25-2005, 11:36 AM
DaWaN

Winbond DH is problably the UTT that is fixed onto VX and AA4T TwinMOS mem. As those are totally different chips as CH-5. I don't if it's DH but that type of UTT isn't defently NOT the same as 2 year old CH-5
08-25-2005, 11:39 AM
largon

DaWaN,
There are representatives of Mushkin, TwinMos, G.Skill and OCZ that all have stated that their UTT-RAM uses only CH- and BH-UTT.
08-25-2005, 12:12 PM
DaWaN

Quote:

Originally Posted by largon

DaWaN,
There are representatives of Mushkin, TwinMos, G.Skill and OCZ that all have stated that their UTT-RAM uses only CH- and BH-UTT.

That's true but as I said, keep in mind that it's possible UTT because those are really different as CH-5, just compare a UTT to a CH-5, UTT can do 2-2-2-5 and much higher clockspeeds :)
08-25-2005, 12:25 PM
largon

There are numerous reports about CH-5 doing 2-2-2-x 250+.

3 possible explanation:

1: Winbond had problems with the C generation of the IC. Before CH-5 was discontinued they managed to fix (most of) them. -> CH-UTT is a resurrected fixed CH-5.
*I prefer this theory*

2: CH-5 = CH-UTT

3: Winbond had some collaboration with Infineon. Result was a fixed CH-5: CH-UTT.
*I like this too*
08-25-2005, 03:20 PM
STEvil

or they just got better at producing ch-x after a while (like how some weeks of bh-x suck).
09-06-2005, 03:59 AM
largon

25 of August I requested a datasheet for W942508DH from Winbond.

Today I received an answer:

Quote:

Originally Posted by cjchang3@winbond.com.tw

Hi Sir, this is a product under development. Sorry datasheet is not available for the time being.

Regards.

It's still in development... :fact:
09-06-2005, 06:03 AM
Jaco

so that means there's still development in old DDR1 technology?
that's hard to believe, everyone is moving to DDR2 nowadays :confused:
09-06-2005, 07:01 AM
largon

That's what Mr. Chang said.
There is still market for DDR1 after AMD goes DDR2. For example Semprons stay on S939.
09-06-2005, 08:11 AM
uwackme

hmmm

Since they'd need DDR2-1000 with 10,4,4,4.0 timings just to TIE BH5's 5,2,2,2.0 250Mhz (DDR500), I'd say DDR2 has a ways to go.
09-06-2005, 09:51 AM
Aleman

4. Or maybe its DDR600 at 2-3-2-5 ;).

just kidding...

I STRONGLY believe that Winbond and Infineon worked lately together and thats why there are UTT's. Period.