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 (35235)	11/26/1999 8:03:00 AM
From: dumbmoney	Respond to of 93625

Bilow, I was looking at some old magazines and ran into a Rambus article (written by a Rambus guy) published in Micro in '97. It's interesting to review what Rambus was saying then about SDRAM: 1. SDRAM in main memory would not exceed 100Mhz 2. DDR-SDRAM would run at a slower clock rate (i.e. slower than 100Mhz) These predictions have, of course, been proven false, but they were plausible claims, and Intel may have believed them.

To: Bilow who wrote (35235)	11/26/1999 10:55:00 AM
From: Tenchusatsu	Respond to of 93625

Carl, long reply follows: <My mention of that part is to illustrate the trend in package types, and it is very clear. More pins. A lot more pins.> Not really. A guy from Intel said that with that 5000-pin module, IBM is basically getting the silicon for free. His comment was a hint at how difficult it's going to be for IBM to go that route. Interestingly, he also said that IBM has always chosen rather "interesting" packaging for their products, and this is a prime example. <Re "the uni-directional pin runs at 1.6 Gbit/sec" type of interconnect. I think that the stuff is on the right route to the future. But it isn't a general purpose DRAM interface. Unidirectional and point to point connections are a lot more robust than the Rambus solution which is multidirectional and multidriver, and is what is used on general purpose DRAM interfaces.> Guess I'll just have to totally disagree and leave it at that. <Sure Timna has an RDRAM interface, but that decision was started before RDRAM went TU, and you have to wonder if Intel is working on an SDRAM version of the same chip.> If this statement doesn't fit the definition of FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt), I don't know what does. I haven't heard of any SDRAM version of Timna. Given Intel's modus operandi, I don't think there ever will be a native SDRAM version, either. Manufacturing two different Timnas at a time, or even switching one out in favor of another shortly after its release, is not something that Intel would do. If they wanted an SDRAM version of Timna, they'd delay its release rather than bother with an RDRAM version in the first place. <Intel is undoubtedly going to ship most of the RDRAM controllers with SDRAM translators> As you know already, Intel has already said time and time again that this is an interim solution, and that Rambus is still a go for the long-term. <You can get DDR anytime you want to by ordering it. I've had parts in my hand as long ago as March. It is in production from most of the memory makers. They aren't selling to retail, but they are certainly selling to me.> That's not the point. I can get a Rambus-based PC now. When can I buy a DDR-based PC? As for game consoles, I can get a N64 now, which is based on the older Rambus. I can also get a Playstation 2 around March of 2000 if I lived in Japan, and that will be based on the current RDRAM (Direct RDRAM). When can I buy Nintendo's new Dolphin console? I'll bet it'd be a lot later than March. This time-to-market advantage that Rambus has cannot be ignored, even after the 820 Camino delay. <Intel's support is melting away. No reasonable observer could deny that Intel's support has decreased since a year ago, the only possible disagreement is how low that support will fall in the future. Neither can anyone realistically deny that direct RDRAM has seen delay after delay.> You're right about the two facts, that Intel's support of Rambus isn't as gung-ho as before, and that RDRAM has seen delay after delay. But then you use those facts as a basis for a very leading argument, as if it's a given that Intel's support of RDRAM will continue to fall. Let's face it, Carl. Most of your arguments are nothing but broad proclamations about the upcoming death of Rambus, the current death of Rambus, the death of Rambus several months ago, yada yada. It's as if you're trying to wag the dog here and create the death of Rambus, instead of "merely reporting the news." In other words, you fit perfectly into the image I have of anti-Rambus coalition members. Intel is still very much dedicated toward pushing Rambus into all market segments. Repeat: Intel is still supporting Rambus, and will continue to support Rambus in the near-term and long-term future. Tenchusatsu