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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (29550)	9/15/1999 9:52:00 AM
From: grok	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

RE: <KZNerd, "Can you really make any clear statement that demonstrates that the evolutionary approach could not keep up with these future killer apps if they do, in fact, actually happen?" Yes. Rambus is clearly a better solution than even DDR SDRAM. The only thing DDR SDRAM has going for it is low cost and a less complicated memory controller design. DDR has its own problems, such as large pin count and inefficient use of the memory channel.> Tench, I asked for a clear statement why the evolutionary approach cannot keep up in the same way it has for the last 30 years. Your answer amounts to: "Rambus is better" but you fail to give any conclusive statement about why it is needed. The issue actually is: "Is it better in any substantial way that actually makes it worth all the disruption that it is forcing on the dram makers as well as the on-going higher cost of the drdram?" RE: <Let's back up a little. Why did the industry shift from EDO DRAM to SDRAM? If I recall correctly, SDRAM provided very little benefit over EDO at the time. It was certainly costlier and tougher to implement, and the web sites were recommending that people not go all out and swap their motherboards just to get SDRAM.> The simple answer is that the dram industry responded to the increasing demands of microprocessors. It was only a little costlier and tougher to implement and, essentially, amounted to another "free upgrade" that the dram industry could accept with little disruption. There has been much improvement in drams over these 30 years but they came in small steps with low risk. Intel and others should be grateful to the dram makers who have fueled the PC industry and managed to continuely keep drams from limiting the system. RE: <One coworker of mine, an engineer (i.e. not a marketing guy), said that when you transition memory technologies, you always have to go over a big hump. And he's speaking from experience, too. EDO to SDRAM, PC66 to PC100, and now RDRAM. The only difference is that this time, people are trying to make that routine big hump look like the Berlin Wall.> Perhaps your friend is in the chip set side of the business. It's easy for him to minimize the disruption for the dram makers. For them this is certainly not just another routine hump like all the others that they've handled.