Dan3,
Re:"You aren't paying attention - to my posts or to the information available on Rambus. I've posted a number of times that I'm holding Rambus puts and why it is that I'm doing so. It wouldn't make sense for me to be presenting this point of view and then not demonstrate my conviction by shorting the stock.
As to who is posting facts, unclewest (who is, I believe, posting only what he sincerely believes to be the best take on the present status of rambus) has an argument that boils down to: Intel is pushing rambus hard, and they've had considerable success at getting others to go along with them.
I have been posting a number of links and direct inductions, including the basis for the inductions, that boil down to: the performance of rambus has been a major disappointment, the performance of non-rambus ram has proven surprisingly extendable, and that rambus is more costly and difficult to produce than was expected.
Unclewest thinks that, with Intel's backing, the performance will be good enough. I think that due to the unexpected performance of Athlon and the competitive vigor of VIA, Intel is going to have no choice but to reduce its support for Rambus and instead move to PCXXX and DDR."
Dan I tend to agree with your analysis but reach a 180 degree different conclusion.
IMHO if Athlon was same or lower performance than coppermine then Intel would have less use for Rambus. Now Athlon beats even the Xeon pretty much across the board. So I see Intel needing Rambus to show some benchmarks where it is faster than Athlon and they will use these obscure benchmarks to trumpet Coppermine performance (similar to Apples campaign vs Pentium II).
In this environment I see Intel pushing Rambus even harder, JMHO. In the short term this should enable Rambus to beat estimates and for the stock to rocket.
regards,
Kash |
