SI
SI
discoversearch

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: kash johal who wrote (29459)9/14/1999 3:58:00 AM
From: Tenchusatsu  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 93625
 
<Dells Rambus benchmarks from IDF were posted and they show Rambus in a very poor light.>

Those "posted" benchmarks were actually extrapolations done between two different foils. It is basically coming up with a third comparison by extracting the data from two original comparisons. This would be OK if the original comparisons had a lot in common. I don't know if that's truly the case or not.

By the way, the "extrapolations" were done by none other than Bert McComas, who has a history of writing anti-Rambus articles, whitepapers, and presentations. While I don't think Mr. McComas would come up with false data, I do think that he has an ulterior agenda.

<Then Apex did a camino/PIII 533/rambus 800 review and shows very poor performance vs std Bx/PIII/PC100.>

I personally have a hard time believing that Apex demo. With performance that bad compared to 440BX, Intel shouldn't even be releasing Camino right now. Instead, Intel should be holding off on Rambus support until later when a real performance need is demonstrated.

Craig Barrett is a pragmatist. He won't hesitate to delay Rambus support if the performance numbers are that bad. After all, Intel had enough sense to abandon the stand-alone graphics chip market because the performance was going to be rather lackluster compared to the competition, especially from nVidia and 3dfx.

Tenchusatsu