In article , krw wrote:
In article ,
says...
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?

On a motherboard, about eight inches (a foot in air). Not that that
fact has anything to do with the maximum clock frequency achievable.

You might want to rethink that notion...

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

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