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: Dave B who wrote (37019)	2/12/2000 4:03:00 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Dave, <If RDRAM was exactly the same cost as SDRAM or DDR DRAM, which would the server vendors prefer?> Probably DDR still, because of the way you can double-stack and double-side the DIMMs and still put four DIMMs on a channel. RDRAM doesn't allow for double-stacking, and you can only put two double-sided RIMMs on one channel. Thus, DDR allows for four times the capacity per channel as RDRAM. RDRAM would have to resort to repeaters and branch channels, which saps performance somewhat. For servers, it's not a latency issue. In servers, latency is huge anyway, and sustained bandwidth makes much more of a difference than a few clocks in latency. Tenchusatsu