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: Bilow who wrote (35214)	11/25/1999 3:13:00 PM
From: Zeev Hed	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Carl, not exactly correct (more performance per dollar), the excess cost at between $200 to $1000 is of little import when considering the cost of "time". Many of the buyers of such technology have to charge in excess of $100/hour if they can achieve just a 10% increase in efficiency of their time utilization, $100 is peanuts. I am not going to even discuss the buyers of $2000 TV sets that finance this way nothing but a "waste of time". (G). What is important in my opinion, is that the technology will be adopted at the high end, and percolate to the low end quite rapidly as the learning curve in cost is ridden down. Zeev

To: Bilow who wrote (35214)	11/25/1999 3:17:00 PM
From: The Prophet	Respond to of 93625

Humility becomes you. Happy TG.

To: Bilow who wrote (35214)	11/25/1999 3:37:00 PM
From: Brian1970	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Hey Bilow, If you're prepared to make such a strong prediction, that RMBS will remain a niche technology forever, why don't you just say it and avoid the disclaimer at the end: "Of course, I've been very much wrong in the past, and will continue to make incorrect predictions in the future." Are you worried about looking embarrassed? Need to save face in case things don't go as you predicted? That's a natural human impulse, but you shouldn't need it, if you're so confident in your position. I totally disagree with you, by the way.

To: Bilow who wrote (35214)	11/25/1999 4:43:00 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Carl, <If Rambus is such a great technology, how come exactly zero companies have adopted the technology for cache memory?> If you're talking about processor caches, then your point is moot, since processor caches are moving on-die, like Coppermine. Merced may be the last processor with an off-chip cache, but its cache bandwidth is already rather huge. <The new fast SRAMs are coming out in very wide widths with very high speeds. If IC pins are so expensive, how come they haven't reduced the pin count on the chips that connect to cache by using Rambus technology?> You already answered your own question. The SRAMs are running at very high speeds already. The concept of Rambus is to increase the speed and reduce the pin count. When the speed is already fast, then what can Rambus do? <My answer is that the only reason Rambus has made the progress it has is because Intel has forced it.> That's a non-sequitor. You first mention that SRAMs aren't using Rambus' technology, then you use that as proof that Rambus' only reason for being is Intel. "Truly you have a dizzying intellect." Tenchusatsu

To: Bilow who wrote (35214)	11/26/1999 7:20:00 PM
From: Jdaasoc	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

Bilow: Rambus is about sending information to and from a memory. The technology is supposed to provide a better design in terms of bandwidth per dollar. I always try to only quote others who are knowledgeable about technology since I am no expert. I was cleaning up some paperwork tonight and found my notes from Pat Gelsinger's keynote speech for International Test Conference on Sep 28. RMBS stock was @ 59 at the time. Gelsinger had a slide stating doubling of AGP bandwidth rate every 12 months. After reading about Hydunai's DDR memory for video cards, it got me to thinking. Either memory bandwidth will have to double in width every year or video memory clock speed will have to double every year or some combination of the two to meet Gelsinger's prediction. We are already at 128 bit wide memory for video. What are the practical limits for width in video memory applications. It appears that DDR memory for graphics adapters will get us through 2000(4XAGP) and DDR-II will get us through 2001 (8XAGP). What type of memory do you expect for 16XAGP in 2002. Don't you like these leading questions that I pose. john