In article o2EDi.7076$3R5.943@trnddc05, "Paul M. Cook" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
t...
In article , "HeyBub"
wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article ORxDi.12718$sf1.3859@trnddc01, "Paul M. Cook"
wrote:

Nope. It is not. Shortness means nothing, speed means everything.

You think the length of the signal path has nothing to do with speed?

Waves hand!

I do! I do! Pick me!

You are aware, aren't you, that the speed of signal propagation is finite?

First, you have something called a clock in the computer. All computers
have a clock, they cannot run without one. Second, the signals can only be
passed during a clock cycle. The speed of light is far faster than any
clock we can employ

You think so, do you?

1GHz clock rate = 1 nanosecond cycle length. How far do you suppose light
moves in a nanosecond?

therefore we are not dealing with theoretical limits we
are dealing with practical limits i.e. the duration of each clock cycle. So
in the case of a 2 inch wire trace, it would not matter if the trace were 1
inch because you can't get the data into the CPU any faster than it already
is.

I won't argue that the difference between one inch and two doesn't matter at
all -- YET -- but I'll leave it as an exercise for you to compute the
approximate clock speed at which the difference between two inches and three
*does*, and then invite you to explore the availability of existing processors
in that range.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.