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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (25895)	7/28/1999 8:30:00 PM
From: Scumbria	Respond to of 93625

Ten, And like I said before, Scumbria, if you have a solution to the latency problem, we'd all like to hear it. None of the alternatives to DRDRAM reduces latency by any significant amount. I'll bet even Intel's management is aware of the latency issue, that there isn't as much "confusion" over the problem as you mention. There are several other reasons why Intel is going gung-ho with DRDRAM, such as low pin count, more efficient use of bandwidth (thereby reducing average latency in a loaded system), viability for Timna platform, performance for the high-end, etc. The confusion I was referring to was with respect to bandwidth. I saw numerous comments from Intel stating that CPU performance had become bandwidth limited, which is not correct for most desktop applications. By the way, why is your company going with DRDRAM for your graphics design? In other words, what are the main advantages with going to DRDRAM over the alternatives, in specific terms? The advantage of DRDRAM for a high end graphics design is that it allows for multiple ports to memory. The narrow datapath makes it practical to have separate buses to texture memory, color buffers, depth buffers, etc. Scumbria