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 104.08+2.4%Dec 8 3:59 PM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Bilow who wrote (74054)6/1/2001 6:19:10 PM
From: wily  Read Replies (1) of 93625
 
Carl, I need a refresher in RDRAM is DEAD, DEAD, DEAD 101. Why is this not an advantage for RDRAM? (From page 9 of the Intel slideshow: developer.intel.com )
----------------------------------------------
 

-- Current Dual Channel RDRAM platforms have cost adders
-- 6 layer boards, memory sockets, termination, etc.
-- Dual Channel RDRAM Platform cost reductions in progress
-- OEMs are already starting to cost reduce 2 channel RDRAM boards


PC133 DDR RDRAM


Peak Memory BW 1 GB/s 1.6 GB/s 3.2 GB/s
# of memory sockets 2 2 2
# chipset pins (mem) ~180 ~200 ~160
est. board layer count 4 4 4

est. board cost over PC133 sys ~$6 ~$7 (includes 10% PCB Zo)


-------------------------------------------
Also, one could look at Intel's plans for DDR P4 support as just a way to keep the RDRAM manufacturers honest -- as it is, they have Intel over a barrel with P4 requiring RDRAM. They also need the DDR chipset for server platforms and for the value segment.

Or, you could look at Intel's continued lip service to RDRAM as necessary for p4 sales, otherwise people would not want to buy a platform that is headed straight for the scrap-pile. How about sorting things out between these two scenarios?

TIA, wily
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext