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.

Technology Stocks : Rambus (RMBS) - Eagle or Penguin -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dave B who wrote (22917)	6/18/1999 1:54:00 PM
From: unclewest	Respond to of 93625

dave, tell us how many thousands of shares of rmbs you bought in the last 60 days. and you are working on it. nevermind i'll tell...many many thousands. unclewest

To: Dave B who wrote (22917)	6/18/1999 2:01:00 PM
From: Richard Habib	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

Dave, you may be following the discussion on the Intel thread but here is a post from P. Engel. It appears Intel is trying to hold to a Nov ship date. That may be a bit too aggressive as it sounds as if Intel is scrambling to come up with a solution to a problem that isn't yet quite quantified. To: andy kelly (83796 ) From: Paul Engel Friday, Jun 18 1999 12:42PM ET Reply # of 83835 Andy - Re: "Is the problem in the 0.18 process or in the CuMine design?" Inherently, the problem is in the Coppermine design, but the Fab guys (actually, Technology Development) are bearing a lot of the brunt - and are now chartered to make some improvements in the front-end (transistor gates) of the process. Meanwhile, the design group is going over their simulations and attempting to find discrepancies - as to why the simulations don't match the actual results - and make appropriate design changes. As per Intel custom, a Task Force encompassing both groups has been convened in Oregon and has been fairly active for almost a month. Re: "When they say a two month delay, does that imply that the problem has already been identified and they know how to fix it? If not, how could they know so precisely how long the delay will be?" Incremental improvements to several process modules have been identified with "Mhz" gains estimated for each module. If these are all implemented as planned and achieve their targets, the Coppermine speed will be improved to meet the initial goals - just with process tweaks. November would give Intel enough time to implement the process changes, fine tune them, and get "first" samples out to customers. 100% Burn-in can be employed to cover reliability issues while the modified process is requalified. Re: "How could they start ramping FOUR fabs without knowing for sure that everything was working? I thought Intel would have tested to the extreme before committing to that extent." Intel has used SRAM test vehicles to debug the process and these have run at 900+ MHz with no problems. The actual Coppermine results have been a show-stopper for Intel and they haven't figured out yet why the part is not meeting performance specifications and targets. Re: "Could this be an indication that some new feature was added to the design at the "last minute"?" No - Intel RARELY adds features at the last minute. Designs are frozen WELL BEFORE the parts are committed to layout . Paul