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: Scumbria who wrote (38548)	3/21/2000 10:37:00 AM
From: Estephen	Respond to of 93625

Balanced thinking would have to dismiss DDR performance as FUD fodder. NO important player use ddr..sony, intel, dell, msft etc... Ask yourself why ? You have largely been negative of rambus even at 75. I can't remember you making a positive post without lacing it with your doubts. That may have caused you to miss the run up.

To: Scumbria who wrote (38548)	3/21/2000 10:50:00 AM
From: dmf	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Scumbria, Re: ...high bandwith applications like graphics I expect such applications will become more pervasive. Just as higher performance PC's have filtered down to the normal user, don't you expect EVERYONE will want high bandwith applications? Sooner rather than later? dmf

To: Scumbria who wrote (38548)	3/21/2000 11:48:00 AM
From: jim kelley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

There have been people claiming that NO benchmarks show that RDRAM has advantages. This is utterly false. Take a look at the game benchmarks. This group has no axes to grind. With the current processors they are showing a 13-15% improvement. They compare "products" that do not exist (like DDR) with RDRAM. RDRAM has a lot of headroom for bandwidth and latency improvements. This is always ignored in discussions about vaporware DDR. As the processor speeds increase the advantages of RDRAM will become more pronounced. Additional gains can be had by using multiple channels. Tom's blurb on this was almost unintelligible. He did not layout the details of his test configurations rendering his results useless. He is too biased to be taken seriously. JMO :)