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 : AMD/INTC/RMBS et ALL -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: grok who wrote (42)	9/12/1999 4:40:00 PM
From: Charles R	Respond to of 271

<Effects like this are difficult to simulate since you've got to model a real system which is huge and benchmarks don't help at all.> You have a very good point here!

To: grok who wrote (42)	9/12/1999 9:02:00 PM
From: kash johal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 271

KZ, Re: "power down" It is possible that this is happening. These benchmarks are so stunning that if remotely true Intel and Dell will get laughed at in the press. Now with the press on these benchmarks I am surprised that Rambus folks have not posted a retraction or something from Dell. So whats the best way to play this. I had planned on buying some covered calls for my position prior to the 9/27 release and also maybe some short term puts. Anybody else got another strategy. regards, Kash

To: grok who wrote (42)	9/23/1999 8:49:00 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 271

Hi KZNerd et al; Re RDRAM power consumption... It is obvious to me that RDRAM has a heating problem, it's a lot of peak power to put through a tiny chip. This is a problem that has already been faced with the CPUs, but everybody is already used to hooking fans up to them, not memory. It would be possible to reduce the average RDRAM power by leaving parts in NAP mode, but that doesn't help the worst case problem, which is what engineers have to design to. Only the heat "spreader" would do that. Reminds me of an ancient engineering story... There was somebody who worked on the Star (super computer back in the 70s) who told me that they had a little problem with a similar kind of overheating in their core memory. (Core took around an amp for about a microsecond to switch states in a tiny ferromagnet. Like DRAM, reads were done with sense amps, and were destructive.) The cores were in an oil bath. As long as memory accesses were random, the heating was spread around by the oil. But if someone wrote a chunk of assembler that whaled on a particular address, it could overheat that column of core and destroy it. Then they would have to cut all those tiny wires, replace the bad core in each plane, and reconnect the wires. So the factory solution was to detect when someone was pounding too hard on memory, and, in that event, reduce the system clock speed. Wonder if anyone has thought of doing something similar with RDRAM. The controller would automatically get an idea of the chip's temperature since it is supposed to measure this regularly. Incidentally, when an RDRAM is temperature/current calibrated, it causes the part to be unavailable for reading (and most memory accesses are reads) for Ttcquiet = 140ns. These cycles only happen once every 100ms, but are another pain in the butt for the memory controller designer. Sorry for wandering on. Time to decide whether it is time to go to bed or time to get up. -- Carl