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: Ali Chen who wrote (34622)	11/15/1999 4:56:00 PM
From: John Walliker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Ali, <24. MINIMUM RISE OR FALL TIME = 1.000 ns> Who cares what kind of bogus numbers are used in your perfect simulations. Stop fudging your numbers please. That was quoted from the RIMM design guide. Rambus's own simulation file, not mine. The RAMBUS spec, rdram_128d_0059_10.pdf, says on p 44: CTM and CFM fall and rise times min=0.2ns, max=0.5ns; Data fall and rise times: min=0.2ns, max=0.65ns. Agreed. I wonder why Rambus were using 1ns in that simulation. I will look again at exactly what they were doing. So I guess you are some 100% off, and your simulated numbers with fudged down simulated parameters are not very convincing. Not true. My simulations used an RF design package where fixed frequencies are entered. I chose 400, 800 and 1200 MHz. Rise and fall times were not used. What I did not simulate was the increasing losses with frequency which will attenuate the higher harmonics which are more prone to reflection. Also of course, the signal level of those harmonics is very much lower than the fundamental, reducing their significance. I just recalculated my 6 chip simulation for 2400 MHz (ignoring losses) and found the reflected signal to be 8% of the incident. Still far to low to cause any problems. Simulations again? How do you expect a system to run on simulations alone? Not a Monte-Carlo, but "Real-Field" exercises have shown that there are problems in mass manufacturability of RAMBUS - two delays since March do say something. Or these were the "simulated launches" only? You said earlier that the impedance matching network was no good. Simulations are an excellent way of understanding the effects of component variations and certainly showed that the matching network is excellent. Do you know the real cause of the problems? At least I am trying to understand rather than just guessing. John