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: Dan3 who wrote (33520)	11/1/1999 1:25:00 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Dan, <Anand compared VC133 on a VIA board to PC100 on a BX board.> No, Dan, look at the benchmarks again. The scores between non-VC PC133 and VC PC133 are both on VIA's chipset. There was almost no difference between the two, save for 3D Studio MAX. (The 440BX system consistently scored at the bottom, by the way.) I doubt that moving from CAS 3 to CAS 2 isn't going to make that difference any larger. Virtual Channel tries to reduce the latency associated with page swapping, and that has nothing to do with core latency. <AMD, with almost zero experience in chipset design, was able to easily implement DDR in its connection between the CPU and the chipset.> First, that's a point-to-point connection, not a multi-stub bus. And second, notice how AMD's reference design calls for a 6-layer motherboard over a 4-layer? AMD was being conservative. Intel, in my opinion, was being aggressive by trying to implement RDRAM channels on a 4-layer motherboard. <Meanwhile, DDR moves from 133/266 to 200/400 next year, with latency getting even better, costs staying just as low, and the performance advantage remaining.> Dan, please. Why do you get so worked up over the Rambus "hype" when you are busy spreading DDR "hype"? Every single phrase of your sentence above reeks of hype. DDR-II isn't going to be here for at least 18 months (info provided personally by Bert McComas). No one said anything about latency getting any better w/ DDR-II. No one said anything about costs w/ DDR-II. It could very well be more expensive since the transition from DDR to DDR-II no longer picks any low-hanging fruit. Performance advantage? Even DDR has yet to prove any performance advantage over RDRAM! Why should DDR-II, a vapor technology, prove to be any better than, say, dual RDRAM channels which is ALREADY HERE? (Thanks, 840.) <And I still haven't seen benchmarks of PC600 and PC700 (which will be what, 70% of the available rambus, 90%, 95%?) Compared to CAS 2 VC133.> And CAS-2 VC133 will be what, 10% of the available PC133 SDRAM? Why compare the cream-of-the-crop to the competition's chaff, unless you're a marketing guy, Dan? Dan, you've got a lot of good points in your post, but the HYPE that you mixed in totally ruins your credibility. Tenchusatsu