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: unclewest who wrote (27412)	8/23/1999 9:03:00 AM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

Re: controlling emissions, maintaining signal integrity, and meeting timing margins. That was the argument that said 60MHZ memory wasn't practical, and it got quite a bit of acceptance until 60+ started showing up on everything. Remember when it first came out? Many articles about the end of the line for bus speeds. :-) And that argument goes against rambus: why is a 400MHZ path to memory is simpler to implement than 200MHZ one? Much less a 133 or 100 MHZ one? Simpler shielding requirements and timing margins isn't the best pro-rambus argument to make. It can make it easier to fit additional memory buses on a motherboard. But unless Intel gets away from the GTL+ interface, interleaved PC133 can saturate that bus anyway. Interestingly, a multiprocessor Athlon/EV6 system could use multiple rambus (or DDR) channels. But they are going with DDR. Their roadmap has a slot at some unlisted future date for a single processor rambus machine, but only DDR for multiprocessor machines WWW.AMD.COM Dan