Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: gnuman who wrote (61708)	6/8/1999 3:27:00 PM
From: Michael Bakunin	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 132070

I think the bear argument against Rambus goes something like this: it costs too much to make (strike low end); royalties => it costs more (strike mid end); it's not outperforming PC133 for most applications (strike all but bandwidth-constrained high end; cf theregister.co.uk ); the stock seems priced for high, mid, and low. Thus, puts. A little less recent is realworldtech.com "While Intel has been claiming that bandwidth is the main memory issue, the reality is that the majority of PCs (including servers on small networks) are not bandwidth constrained. In fact, only a small percentage of systems are suffering from bandwidth issues. For most systems, latency is the main memory bottleneck, which DRDRAM does nothing to address and may even be worse than current SDRAM solutions."

To: gnuman who wrote (61708)	6/8/1999 6:20:00 PM
From: Knighty Tin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 132070

Gene, The pc collapse is revenues, which is all that counts. And server ASPs are declining more than pc ASPs, so they are in deep kimshee. The fact that Rambus creates risk and little in profit opportunity for DRAM producers is obvious from the fact that Intel had to pay them subsidies to produce the dog. Essentially, you are replacing SDRAM with RDRAM. With SDRAM, the DRAM cos. have been very smart in cutting costs. With RDRAM, they are taking on a high cost, very low volume chip. Part of each one they sell goes as royalties to Rambus, which takes none of the losses. IMHO, without Intel bribes, there wouldn't be chip one of these things produced. Now you have the problem of the computer cos. trying to sell more expensive (because Rambus chips are much more expensive) boxes to businesses in an environment where prices have been dropping like a full service broker off a skyscraper. My guess is these things sell the first month, then, the smarter businesses ignore them forever and buy cheaper computers. The main drawback is comments from Intel and Rambus that the first batches will not produce much in the way of extra speed. That is a great selling tool. Higher prices and not much in the way of performance pickup. During a decline in computer prices and possibly a lockdown of IT spending.