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: unclewest who wrote (30076)	9/22/1999 3:27:00 PM
From: grok	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Unclewest, please be advised that I am taking a day off work today so expect more than the usual amount of harrassment. I've been wanting to find time to discuss your posting #30077 which concerned information from this link: electronicnews.com which addressed the benchmarks presented by Jay Bell of Dell at IDF. You said: "i use excel and word together too. according to the graph rambus is 44% faster there. those 2 are more than enough improvement to get my money." However, if you look closely at the Electronic News chart labeled "Office Bench Results" you will see that the chart is calibrated in Application Run Time in Seconds and you will see that for Excel and Word the RDRAM bar is longer and therefore RDRAM is slower not faster. In fact, Excel is 44% slower and Word is 15% slower with RDRAM. If you or anyone else cares to look further into this you can check here platform99.com for the raw data which has been scanned off Bell's charts by Bert McComas. Yes Nepheweast is anti-Rambus but I don't think his scanner is biased. Doug McLeod from this thread who is clearly pro-Rambus was there and has verified that Bell presented those charts. If you look here inqst.com you can see how Bert read the numbers off the chart and maybe you could read them slightly differently but Bert's numbers look very close. See Bert's charts using those numbers. Then go back to Electronic News and see that they just used his exact same numbers but screwed up the part on Excel and Word by saying Rambus was faster when they should have said slower. Now, of course, you may say that you don't believe the benchmarks anyway so why bother? I'd only point out that you seemed to believe them just fine when you thought they showed Rambus was faster.