Unbelievable. Here was the bet, and your acceptance. You want to back out, it's up to you:
THE BET
siliconinvestor.com
To:Bilow who wrote (69138)
From: The Prophet
Monday, Mar 26, 2001 1:49 AM
View Replies (6) | Respond to of 71088
So, since we're making predictions, let me see if I have this straight. You claim:
RDRAM > 1.5 * SDRAM
DDR = 1.1 * SDRAM
Ergo:
RDRAM > 1.36 DDR
So your prediction is that RMBS will not get cheaper than 36% more than DDR.
Alright, I'll take that bet, too. Hope you're keeping score.
THE ACCEPTANCE:
siliconinvestor.com
To:The Prophet who wrote (69140)
From: Bilow
Monday, Mar 26, 2001 1:56 AM
View Replies (3) | Respond to of 71088
Hi The Prophet; Okay, the only restriction is that RDRAM prices are allowed to briefly dip below that limit due to over production issues, but such gluts will not last longer than 3 months. Prices to be achieved over the next 12 months, agreed?
The anotherr issue is that Rambus longs frequently want the price of the cheapest variety of RDRAM to be compared to the most expensive variety of DDR or SDRAM. To settle that, the versions of DDR, RDRAM and SDRAM are the highest currently more or less common in shipping product. That means PC800, PC133, and PC2100, no particular latency. Agreed?
Also, these are DIMM prices, not the individual chips, and the DIMM size is to be the 256MB, which will be the most common density for SDRAM and DDR one year from now. For RDRAM, you can use either the 256MB or twice the price of the 128MB size, whichever suits your fancy, as RDRAM more frequently comes with a split bus. Agreed?
How's about average of lowest 5 prices on PriceWatch, subject to the above constraints. The reason for this that with all three memory types, there is a tendency for certain subtypes to be extraordinarily expensive. But the cheapest types are more likely to be what is natural for a PC with a relatively small size memory (i.e. not gigabytes). Agreed?
-- Carl |
