Stockalysis, <Look at the performance specs for office applications, RDRAM offers marginal to virtually no improvement in performance>
1) You are linking to Tom's Hardware Guide, a site notorious for being the center of anti-Intel and anti-Rambus FUD.
2) If office applications are all that you care about, then yes, RDRAM is a waste of money. But then again, a Pentium III or an Athlon would also be a waste of money in this case. RDRAM makes a real difference in the high-end. And guess what? The high-end of today will become the mainstream of tomorrow.
3) People buy for the future, not (necessarily) for today. Similar arguments were made about SDRAM offering marginal to virtually no improvement in performance over EDO DRAM. That was about four years ago. Guess which technology won?
4) People are also buying RMBS stock for the future. You think investors would be awarding RMBS with a 1000 P/E ratio if they thought RDRAM would continue to be low volume and high priced?
5) Tell Sony what a huge mistake they made in going with RDRAM for their Playstation 2. Sure, the console acts as a loss leader, but still, you want to minimize that loss as much as possible, both for today and for the future.
6) Tell Intel what a huge mistake they made in going with an RDRAM interface in their upcoming Timna integrated processor. Timna will initially be paired up with SDRAM (via an RDRAM-to-SDRAM translator), but Intel forsees moving Timna to native RDRAM in 2001. And Timna is targeted toward the sub-$600 range of computers. You think that transition to RDRAM will happen if Intel didn't forsee prices dropping?
7) Your posts have been extremely REPETITIVE for the past few days. You've made your point, now move on. Geez, even the old Rambus bears (Bilow Carl, Dan3, KZNerd, etc.) were better debaters than you. I sure don't see those guys around these threads anymore. Maybe it's because they thought RMBS was overpriced at 80.
Tenchusatsu |
