Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices Message Board

STOCKTALK

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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (123357)	8/31/2000 8:12:01 PM
From: vvga	Read Replies (1) of 1579897

>Sure, vvga. I'm used to Rambusian arithmetic, along will >all the other dubious logic and bogus pronouncements of the >dedicated Rambus flackmeisters, but just for > entertainment: How, exactly, did you calculate >6000 MB/sec for dual PC800 Rambus channels? Even >theoretically? I don't make this stuff up. See other posts. :) > > As for pins, they're cheap, and DRDRAM is >expensive. Intel really blew that calculation, chip area >turned out to be a much bigger factor, in memory cost >anyway. You might > want to check the pin count of the P3 vs. P4 >sometime, I imagine Intel is a lot more worried about the >P4 die being more than twice as big than they are about the >extra pins > in terms of production cost. Yes. I agree with you, but that doesn't change the argument that a dual DDR controller is significantly more expensive. RAMBUS is more expensive for a plethora of reasons : 1) Die penalty for RAMBUS controller on DRAM die (this will go down as densities increase) 2) It runs very hot. Can be mitigated by cheaper/better heat spreaders. 3) Much tighter tolerances on PCB traces. 4) The fact that RAMBUS/Intel are doing it. They like FAT margins... :

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next