SI
SI
discoversearch

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: visionthing who wrote (38827)3/23/2000 8:17:00 PM
From: Barry Grossman  Respond to of 93625
 
zdnet.com

Thursday March 23 06:30 PM EST
PC memory: The next great battle?
By John G. Spooner, ZDNet News

PC memory technology is outdated. Now two rival technologies are vying to make your computer faster. Which will win?

The computer industry is famous for its battles -- Windows vs. Linux, Macintosh vs. PC, Intel vs. AMD. Now get ready for the next great fight: PC memory.

This war is over how personal computers handle system memory, an arcane but critical technology that affects overall PC performance. Already chip titans Intel Corp. (Nasdaq:INTC - news) and Advanced Micro Devices Inc. (NYSE:AMD - news) are lining up in opposite camps, ensuring that the war could be long, bloody, and divisive.



? Samsung expects surge in non-memory chips
? Fujitsu, Toshiba plan faster memory





The technologies at the center of the debate are Rambus Direct RAM and Double Data Rate DRAM, both contenders to replace Synchronous Dynamic RAM as the mainstay PC memory technology.

In short, both memory technologies were developed to allow PC systems to keep up with the rapid increase in desktop PC processor clock speeds. Even as processors get faster and faster, they hit a bottleneck because data flow through the system can't keep up the same pace.

Double Data Rate DRAM, pioneered by a consortium of chip makers and embraced by AMD, promises to more than double the available memory bandwidth of a PC, and for a very small price premium.

DDR is expected to begin production in the second half of this year at a premium of only 7 percent to 10 percent over the memory technology in use now. DDR could reach price parody with Synchronous Dynamic RAM in the first half of next year.

But DDR is playing catch-up with memory technology developed by Mountain View, Calif.-based Rambus Inc. (Nasdaq:RMBS - news), which has been available since November. Rambus commands a huge price premium -- PC makers wishing to use the technology pay more than 300 percent higher than the price of Synchronous Dynamic RAM, based on prices Dell Computer Corp. (Nasdaq:DELL - news) charges for systems with Rambus memory and with SDRAM.

Despite the high cost and company misfires -- a production delay caused Intel to push back introduction of its 820 chip set -- Intel continues to back Rambus. (Intel has said, however, that it will support DDR for server products.)

Investors are also in love with Rambus. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter Analyst Mark Edelstone set a 12-month price target of $500 a share, citing Intel's loyalty to the technology. Rambus this week was trading around $350.

Two flavors of DDR

AMD is on the other side of the trench, occupied by Double Data Rate Dynamic RAM (DDR). Like Rambus, DDR doubles system memory bandwidth, thus increasing overall PC performance. In short, both memory technologies were developed to allow PC systems to keep up with the rapid increase in desktop PC processor clock speeds.

There will actually be two flavors of DDR to start. The first, PC 1600, will offer a bandwidth of 1.6GB per second, or twice as much as today's standard 100MHz SDRAM memory. The second kind, PC 2100, delivers 2.6GB per second of peak bandwidth. Rambus delivers 1.6GB of peak bandwidth, while the current peak bandwidth of SDRAM is 800MB per second.

"DDR, fundamentally, is a two times improvement over SDRAM at the same clock speed," said Mark Kellogg, a senior member of the staff at IBM's Microelectronic division in Burlington, Vt.

DDR derives its increase over SDRAM by transmitting data on both edges of a clock cycle, moving twice as much data per a given clock speed, he said.

However, since DDR and SDRAM are based on the same underlying technology, "You're not going to have to pay for the ramping and development," Kellogg said.

IBM Corp. this week put its weight behind DDR, announcing it will utilize it in all of its servers when the technology becomes available. But IBM is interested in DDR for more than servers. It has designed DDR memory modules, known as DIMMs, or dual inline memory module, that will be included in all their PCs and servers.

The bottom line for PC makers and memory manufacturers may be that DDR offers the path of least resistance. Besides cost advantages, there is technology momentum behind it in the PC graphics market. Graphics board makers such as NVIDIA use DDR in their products.

The other advantage to DDR is the licensing model, of the lack thereof. Memory makers must purchase a license from Rambus in order to make the memory, a cost that eats into profits. By contrast, DDR is a freely available specification hammered out by a technology standards committee of memory makers, called JEDEC Solid State Technology Association.

DDR's story may become even more compelling shortly. While IBM pushes the technology for servers, AMD will be DDR's biggest proponent for desktop PCs and workstations. The company is working on a pair of chip sets, which will support DDR and raise bus speeds to match.

"It's the availability of chip sets that will determine the success of (DDR) in the desktop space," predicted IBM's Kellogg.

The decision to support DDR over Rambus was simple, said AMD's Byran Longmire, product marketing manager.

"Our OEMs said, we want to increase memory bandwidth, but we want to do it on the same cost curve," he said.

Consumers will benefit, too, he added. "You can initially double memory bandwidth for similar, if not equal cost," he said.

AMD's forthcoming 760 chip set, for single processor PCs, will support a 200MHz or 266MHz system bus, to match both 200MHz and 266MHz DDR modules. The AMD 770 chip set will do that same, but for dual processor machines.

For the moment, the technologies will not be compatible. Rambus won't run with AMD chips (though AMD does have a license for Rambus), and DDR won't run with Intel. However, chip maker VIA Technologies is developing a chip set that will allow PC makers to use DDR memory with Intel chips. If PC makers follow the logic AMD expects them to, this chip set should be popular as well.

What about Rambus?

Intel has bet heavily on Rambus, saying it is the right technology for high-performance desktop PCs. To support that boast, Intel is pairing Rambus with forthcoming processors including its high-end PC chip, code-named Willamette, and the low-cost processor, code-named Timna. The two chips are expected in the second half of the year. Timna, however, will support SDRAM to start.

Also, though Rambus is in greater supply now than it had been at introduction, only Dell Computer Corp. is shipping in any quantities, analysts said. Hewlett-Packard Co. (NYSE:HWP - news) and Compaq Computer Corp. (NYSE:CPQ - news) have announced support, but have yet to ship any quantities.

Despite their relative advantages or disadvantages, analysts say its too early to count Rambus out or DDR in.

"The next three to four months will be critical," said Mike Feibus, principal analyst at Mercury Research. "The memory suppliers are not all bought in (to Rambus)."

When it comes to the ultimate success or failure of Rambus memory, analysts say that chip sets will play a major role. Intel's forthcoming 815 chip set, which has the ability to span a wide range of Pentium III systems, from mid-range right up to 1GHz, high-end PCs, could replace the 820 chip set, which supports Rambus, analysts say.

"Some of the OEMs are looking at that as a top-to-bottom Pentium III platform. If it takes hold ... that could relegate the 820 and Rambus to niche status," Feibus said.

Indeed, ZDNet reported earlier this week that Compaq is looking at doing just that with its Deskpro line of commercial PCs.

But it's too soon to tell, Feibus said.

The 815 "could help bring (Rambus) prices more in line and make it more acceptable. It's too soon to tell," he said.

Bottom line, he said, is "Rambus is still really expensive."



To: visionthing who wrote (38827)3/23/2000 9:56:00 PM
From: McNabb Brothers  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 93625
 
visionthing,

I'm still waiting to hear from you concerning the E-Mail you said you received from RMBS.

Hank



To: visionthing who wrote (38827)3/24/2000 1:12:00 AM
From: Bilow  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 93625
 
Hi visionthing; Do you really think it's necessary to threaten me with lawyers? Man, what a thread bully!!!

For those of you who were too lazy to click on the links, here is a repeat of the more juicy quotes:
I should mention that Rambus screwed up the engineering in two obvious places. The first was that they wrote the spec in such a way that RDRAM chips had to be 25% larger than regular SDRAM memory chips. There is some talk about redesigning RDRAM to reduce that area penalty, but it is a little late. Rambus has been working on this stuff for 10 years, couldn't they get it right already? You would think that die area costs would have been something they would have thought through. The only explanation for them having missed this is that they really don't have any competence in memory chip design. It's as if total novices tried to tell the industry what to do, and then got Intel to back it with near monopoly muscle. This was a stunning screw up, truly an amazing error.

But that wasn't the crowning screw-up. The big one was leaving so little room for margin (voltage and timing) in their interface that the companies that had to build products to that interface standard were unable to do so. It was this error that cost Intel big time. I doubt that Intel execs are returning much in the way of telephone calls from Rambus right now...

The world tends to blame the workers when a company produces a product that is defective. And the world has largely left the reputation of Rambus intact, and has, instead, blamed the chip makers, memory makers, and board makers for the problems with systems using Rambus memory. But those of us who work as design engineers for a living know that the real cause of most manufacturing screw ups is lousy engineering. This is the cause of the destruction of the reputation of RMBS among design engineers. Bad design.

Rambus should take as a marketing slogan something like: "Hire Rambus to Design Your Memory Interfaces!", with a subtitle something like "even losers need to have a chance." At least the company that hires them won't be able to blame their own engineers.


My other post isn't as fun, but I stand by the basic prediction:

Rambus is quite dead. It may have a few more twitches as it subsides into coma and decay, but its future is quite obvious. The shares have been largely shoved into the hands of mom and pop, and mom and pop may run the short interest, but in the end, the company is quite dead. The chance that the memory community (or any other engineering community) will ever again trust Rambus with the design of an interface is zero. The royalty and fee income will slowly decline, and Rambus will close its doors.

As far as the above prediction goes, we should note that Intel sure seems to be producing a lot of those little chips that make DIMMs look like RIMMs...

-- Carl



To: visionthing who wrote (38827)3/24/2000 2:22:00 AM
From: August  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 93625
 
Your fascist conduct is despicable. If you think Bilow is wrong, dispute it, and provide technical references to support your position, as Bilow has always done with his.

Bilow is one of the most knowledgeable person at SI on memory systems, and has selflessly volunteered much time writing/sharing his knowledge with us.



To: visionthing who wrote (38827)3/24/2000 7:52:00 AM
From: Pat Hughes  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 93625
 
Hey Vision thing,
The reappearance of Bilow is by far the most bullish thing that has happened to this stock!
Yes, He has been away, perfecting the $2.00 trading system. BUT He's back and we will be richer because of it!

Pat Hughes



To: visionthing who wrote (38827)8/3/2000 4:31:16 PM
From: richard surckla  Respond to of 93625
 
<font color=red>Daniel Schuh... YAWN!