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 (29682)	9/16/1999 10:34:00 AM
From: Dave B	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

KZ, Thanks for the AMI2 link. I will start following their efforts. <Of course the dram industry never did much of that since their customers are the large OEMs and most of the communication is in conference rooms. > Getting out information to the public is an effort any successful company needs to pursue. Samsung has certainly put together RDRAM ads for the engineering community. Have they put together DDR ads? I haven't seen evidence of any (I'll be the first to admit that I don't read the majority of EE publications, but I would have thought that the DDR proponents would have posted some links or information in this respect). Dave

To: grok who wrote (29682)	9/16/1999 2:30:00 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

KZNerd, <You can look around and see DDR specs and even read about how this organization is going to trump Rambus' marketing-inspire coining of the PC800 name by using PC2100 to reference to a module with 2100 Mhz data rate.> Man, PC2100? That's not referring to a 2100 MHz data rate, since nothing achieves that sort of data rate right now. Instead, that's more of a bandwidth number, 2100 MB/sec. Maybe Rambus should rename their modules PC1600 for their 1600 MB/sec data rate. Or since DDR requires a 64-bit interface in order to get their 2100 MB/sec bandwidth, Rambus should level the comparison and give the numbers they'd get if they move to a 64-bit interface. That would lead to the name PC6400! Heck, since marketing terminology makes very little sense anyway, let's just go by the number of bytes transfered, instead of megabytes. That would lead to PC1,600,000,000 and PC2,100,000,000, respectively. It could get even worse if we talk about bits ... Just having a little fun. Kind of reminds me of the Dilbert cartoon on UPN, where Dilbert's project, "The Gruntmaster 6000" is going to be challenged by a competitor's product, aptly named "The Gruntmeister 7000." Tenchusatsu