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: Tom Warren who wrote (31826)	10/8/1999 2:22:00 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

<Coppermine is the processor that should have been used to introduce Camino IMO.> This is how I feel as well. Coppermine, a.k.a. Pentium III EB, will make better use of RDRAM's ability to support concurrent transactions. However, it might be kind of tough to make an apples-to-apples comparison. The closest we can get will be a Coppermine on RDRAM Camino vs. a Coppermine on a VIA Apollo Pro 133. However, VIA's chipsets aren't very good at performance, since their Apollo Pro 133 chipset fails to beat even the PC100 440BX chipset. You might also be interested in this tidbit as well. In the Coppermine slides at MPF, there was this one graph comparing memory bandwidth for prefetches generated by Katmai (current Pentium III) and Coppermine (new Pentium III). Both are on a 133 MHz bus, and both are on the Intel VC820 board w/ 128 MB RDRAM: Katmai: 679 MB/sec Coppermine: 1010 MB/sec Remember that the peak theoretical bandwidth of the 133 MHz FSB is 1066 MB/sec, so Coppermine achieves 95% FSB utilization, vs. 64% for Katmai. That's perhaps one reason why RDRAM's performance benefits are marginal right now. Once Coppermine is released, the Camino platform will be shown in a better light. Tenchusatsu