SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : Rambus (RMBS) - Eagle or Penguin
RMBS 95.57+0.7%Nov 28 9:30 AM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (27146)8/16/1999 8:10:00 AM
From: Dan3  Read Replies (3) of 93625
 
Re: where do you get that 260% number?

133 x 2 (for double data rate) = 266
Note that this is bandwidth increase, not total performance

>> ignore the standard you apply to Rambus when you say that it will exhibit a 166% ...
Thats from NEC's white paper on VC DRAM - they fully document their test platform (on an intel processor!). On the Intel memtest they achieved a 171% of the performance of PC100. What is the corresponding figure for Rambus?

>> where's the support for VC100 and VC133?
This is at least the 3rd time I've posted this link:
necel.com
Read the white paper and/or the benchmark summary and stop accusing people without reading what they have posted. Sure it's a best case for VC133, but VC266 will be available in the near term and will yield additional improvement.

>>"little additional cost" is misleading
The great majority of complete motherboards, with power components, cardslots, 64 bit memory traces, chipset, serial, parallel, usb ports, cpu socket, etc. sell for $65 to $120 - at retail, not cost. Will reducing the number of memory traces (while requiring that they support 400MHZ instead of 133MHZ) reduce cost by $100 to $150?

>>you're more interested in spreading inaccuracies...
Please review that above. Now show me a performance whitepaper for rambus, and explain why it doesn't matter that 300/600 was dropped for PCs.

I've said before that if Intel sticks with an only rambus strategy, rambus will be very successful (even if the ultimate result from that is serious damage to Intel market share). Now I've said that again too.

Tenchusatsu, I've posted the issue of 300/600's failure periodically, and am either ignored, or get drivel back. Don't you think that 300/600 should have demonstrated the advantages of rambus? 300/600 has the full streaming data benefit and 150% of the burst performance compared to PC100 - if that wasn't enough to overcome rambus's drawbacks for PCs what difference will the jump to 400/800 make when the rest of the memory market has been making such significant strides? Why have we never, ever seen any benchmarks for a rambus equipped PC? Jeez, how hard can it be to at least set up a behind the curtain ringer system for an outfit as big as Intel?

Dan
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext