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: SC who wrote (38258)	3/16/2000 3:58:00 PM
From: Dave B	Respond to of 93625

SC, Please correct me if I am wrong as I am not an expert on the virtues of RDRAM. I remember reading a review on a DELL system where the author stated that the real advantage of RDRAM is better multitasking (e.g. running antivirus scan or disk defragmenter while also working with wordprocessor or spreadsheet). That's a benefit of the 820 chipset, not particularly a benefit of RDRAM (but since the 820 supports RDRAM natively they're obviously tied together). One of the complaints about existing benchmarks is that they don't measure this type of perforance (e.g. watching video in one window while working on other tasks in other windows). Intel introduced a new benchmark late last year which showed the 820 performance as significantly better when dealing with multiple data streams (it's on their web site but I don't have the link -- jdassoc? I think you found it, didn't you?). So far I haven't seen the benchmark show up anywhere else. The benefit of RDRAM in this scheme is that it provides a faster sustained stream of data than SDRAM, DDR, et cetera, providing better performance for apps like video. Since Intel is obviously interested pushing applications that drive performance, RDRAM fits that need better. Some of the more technical folks may have more info or corrections to the above. Dave

To: SC who wrote (38258)	3/16/2000 3:59:00 PM
From: Marcel	Respond to of 93625

hmm, maybe we should ask Sony this question... Please correct me if I am wrong as I am not an expert on the virtues of RDRAM. I remember reading a review on a DELL system where the author stated that the real advantage of RDRAM is better multitasking (e.g. running antivirus scan or disk defragmenter while also working with wordprocessor or spreadsheet). While this is of practically no value to a gamer or someone who concentrates on a single task at a time, it would be of great value to someone who routinely runs multiple, memory intensive, applications concurrently. Tom Pabst's article does not address how well multiple applications run at the same time on RDRAM vs SDRAM. Is better multitasking with RDRAM truly the case or was the article I read an ad for a system with RDRAM presented as an objective review (which often seems to be the case with the computer mags IMHO). Comments?

To: SC who wrote (38258)	3/16/2000 8:57:00 PM
From: Jdaasoc	Respond to of 93625

SC: RDRAM is going the only DRAM type to be supported on desktop platform for next 3-5 years end of story. It comes directly from Intel, read anandtech report link below, so until they change their tune, learn to live with it. The main two advantages besides faster speed, which yet to be delivered in cost effective manner, is reduced pin count, a major cost advantage as ASP continue to go down, and secondly but more importantly are granualrity issues. They are making 128 MB and just starting 256 MB RDRAM chips right now which corresponds to 16 and 32 MB respectively per single RDRAM chip. So low end computing devices like Sony PSII for MSFT X-box require 2 128 MB chips. By 2002, 512 MB RDRAM chips will be available and 1 chip will suffice for 64 MB DRAM applicaitons like game boxes, digital settop boxes, cell phones, color printers et al. You require a minimum of 4 and sometimes 8 chips to make a typical SDRAM bank of memory. I don't think that many hardware designers will like the idea of using 128 or 256 MB of RAM when 32 or 64 MB is all that is needed. Older, lower density DRAM, 32 and 64 MB chips, will surely dissapear from the face of the planet just as certain as the sun rises in the morning, so the arguement about lower density DRAM devices coexisting with higher density 256 and 512 MB DRAM doesn't hold water. What currently looks like expensive and slow DRAM for the price will surely be the standard for very demonstrable cost reasons. anand tech gives review of what Intel described to the world at IDF, anandtech.com john