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: Alan Bell who wrote (31497)	10/3/1999 3:08:00 PM
From: grok	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

RE: <Let me throw out 2 other possibilities: 1) There may be more than 2 Rambus channels on an 840. Can you point this thread to a credible source for technical details that says the 840 has only 2 channels? 2) One might be able to put more than one 840 on the Front side bus. We know that multiple processors can be attached to an FSB. With a little design, possibly in the 840, there should be no reason that multiple memory interface chips shouldn't be attachable. -- Alan> Alan, I don't think that 1) is true because it has been reported so many times that 840 has two channels. Of course the reports could be wrong and it is even possible that the 840 spec has changed and 4 channels are now available. But this probably would have leaked. 2) is a stronger possibility in my opinion and it is one that never occurred to me. Thanks for pointing it out. Now you've got me thinking. Alan, if you could design the 840 and you wanted to support lots of memory what would you do? Supporting 4 Rambus ports on one 840 might make it difficult to fan the channels into the chip. Or would it? How would you configure the RIMM slots so they don't get in each other's way? Might be easier to support two 840s on the same FSB. Just lengthen the FSB so that the two 840s are separated enough so that the RIMMs don't get in each others way. I hope that everyone kicks this around for a while. Now I'm thinking about Tench's original post on this subject. I thought that he was just claiming that I screwed up some calculation on the info that has been commonly tossed around. Now you've got me thinking that he was hinting about some inside info that he can't talk about. If so, then Tench: I'm sorry that I was surrly in my first post back to you.