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: Dan3 who wrote (27287)	8/20/1999 2:00:00 AM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

<The systems were overclocked only in the sense that the CPU hadn't been certified to run at 133. If it had crashed, you could have blamed it on overclocking. It didn't. It was just faster on PC133. And it demonstrated that, unlike rambus 800, there are advantages to using PC133 over PC100.> Dan, please, give it up. Tom's benchmarks were on a pre-production Camino chipset. OK? Pre-production. Wait for the official benchmarks to come out, and wait for tests to be run on the final version of the motherboard and chipset. OK? By the way, how do you know Tom's platform didn't crash? Tom mentioned nothing about how stable his overclocked system was running. On that uberclocked BX platform, not only do the memory and processor bus overclock to 133 MHz, but AGP also overclocks to 88 MHz and PCI overclocks to 44 MHz. That does two things. First, it abnormally increases system performance. So much for PC133 showing the improvement that you hoped for. But second, stability suffers. I wouldn't trust my AGP and PCI peripherals running at that speed. Would you? One more time, Dan, wait for the final version and the official benchmarks, both from Intel and from the third-party websites like Tom Uberclockermeister. I can assure you that Intel runs a lot of internal performance tests, and they know a lot more about the benefits and drawbacks of DRDRAM than you can ever hope to know. (One of those people happens to be the husband of a fellow coworker on my team.) Tenchusatsu

To: Dan3 who wrote (27287)	8/20/1999 6:23:00 AM
From: unclewest	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

dan, re. performance...just trying to help. magee thinks the numbers you have been posting are wrong. btw fishing trip was tons of fun. thanks for asking. unclewest Posted 19/08/99 8:40am by Mike Magee AMD accused of bending K7 benchmarks Electronic Buyers' News is reporting that an unseemly row has broken out between a Canadian benchmarking firm and AMD over Athlon K7 benchmarks. According to the report, which can be found here, FutureMark Software is accusing AMD of bending its 3DMark 99 Max test suite to produce better results than in reality. The benchmarking firm further claims that AMD "tweaked" its test code to produce results, compared to a Pentium III/600, which were inaccurate. AMD is disputing that it did anything out of order. ©

To: Dan3 who wrote (27287)	8/20/1999 6:30:00 AM
From: unclewest	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

dan, here is another take on intel's plan and rambus performance. unclewest written by rayasa, I am not seeing any signs of intel backing out of rambus. As dell said their workstations with two rambus channel (3.2G bandwidth) will be ready by fall time. Any competition to this by that time? either amd or other? i guess not. Here is little info that shows intel is going after server market with rambus. Recent chipkill news from rambus confirms this (see rambus web page). developer.intel.com then click on "List of sessions" to see rambus info. Popularity of intel linux servers among small/medium isp's may present a strong growth for intel/rambus based servers. In both workstation and server market, people are willing to pay addtional $200 to $500 for rambus based systems. Dell's white paper claims that rambus is a good choice for mobile pc's. overall intel's rambus plan looks good to me; first work-station then server then mobile and finally capture desktop. by the time they capture desktop I think we don't see much price difference between pc100/133 and rambus memory. I guess intel knows by now the performance improvement in using rambus. intel is not foolish enough in talking/presenting rambus at idf if there is little or no performance improvement in using rambus. here is idf schedule, (http://developer.intel.com/design/idf/sch0715.pdf).