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: grok who wrote (29010)	9/8/1999 7:15:00 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

KZNerd and all, re: lower number of banks, According to what I've read so far, it seems that if a new RDRAM design is created that has fewer banks per device, the memory controller may have to be slightly tweaked to support this new design. It depends on how the memory controller is designed. If it's flexible enough, it will instantly recognize the new RDRAM design. But if not (say for example the controller always assumes a minimum of 16 banks per device), then a minor change is necessary. This is definitely not a major overhaul of RDRAM. Such a redesign could just lead to minor headaches, but that's about it. I don't know what the performance impact will be by going with fewer banks per device. It seems that for today's systems, the performance impact will be insignificant considering that an RDRAM system already has many more banks than you can shake a stick at. But for future systems, I think the impact could be more significant. Hopefully by then, RDRAM will have already achieved price parity with SDRAM. Tenchusatsu