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: Brian1970 who wrote (29044)	9/9/1999 9:41:00 AM
From: grok	Respond to of 93625

RE: <Some of us don't understand terms of art like "CAS latency." Would you please explain? I also tend to listen to companies like Samsung instead of thread posters. But I'm willing to listen to reason. I speak for myself, but I'm sure others will be interested in your response. Thank you.> If you go look at that Samsung whitepaper you can see that he used PC100 with 222 timng and PC133 with 333 timing. Look at the chart at the bottom. See the dark arrows. The PC100 latency is 4 cycles at 100 MHz = 410 nS = 40 nS. The PC133 latency is 6 cycles at 133 MHz = 67.5 nS = 45 nS. Now his arithmetic is fine but why doesn't he use PC133 with 222 timing and get 4*7.5 nS = 30 nS which is nicely faster than the Rdram latency of 38.75 nS? It is true that most Sdrams built in the past have been the slower ones but it is also true that most Rdrams built in the past have been slower than 38.75 nS. Now Samsung is switching to their new 0.19u technology for Rdram to achieve the 38.75 nS. But they and all the other vendors have no trouble building PC133 at 30 nS with the same technology. So an apples to apples comparison would compare rdram at 38.75 nS vs PC133 at 30 nS. But he didn't do that did he? Can you guess why he didn't do that?