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: jim kelley who wrote (39893)	4/14/2000 10:57:00 AM
From: Scumbria	Respond to of 93625

Jim, Argue with this whitepaper...you have been peddling nonsense. It will be noted on your next review. I will review your "unbiased" paper on DRAM latency (from a DRDRAM manufacturer), though it appears that the author has chosen an SDRAM with very long CAS latency. Regardless, you are missing my point. Given that the core memory technology is the same on all DRAM types, the latency does not vary much from type to type. Latency (not bandwidth) is the primary consideration for CPU performance. It therefore makes no sense for a desktop computer manufacturer to pay a large price premium for a high bandwidth memory. That is Intel's big mistake with DRDRAM. Scumbria

To: jim kelley who wrote (39893)	4/14/2000 11:20:00 AM
From: Ali Chen	Respond to of 93625

jim kelley, <From Samsung: usa.samsungsemi.com Argue with this whitepaper...you have been peddling nonsense. It will be noted on your next review. <G>> If you have no clue, do not talk. The article tries to deceive you and alike. First, they are talking about a single RDRAM chip. In a real system the chips are programmed with additional delays to compensate for propagation time to the farthest device, or typically additional with 5-6.25 ns, read Paul DeMone clear explanations as why. BTW, this programmability is exactly the important patened feature the Rambus is so praud of. Second, I am not aware of SDRAMs suffering "from what is known as the two-cycle addressing problem." Look at the God-written document, ftp://download.intel.com/design/chipsets/memory/pc133sdram/spec/sdram133.pdf and you will find no requirements for two-cycle RAS. Actually, if you want to compensate for heavy load and weak drivers, you always have extra two full clocks of precharge time to drive address lines ahead of the RAS strobe, or exactly how it is done in Intel chips. Therefore the actual timing requirements are fairly relaxing in the reality, and that's why it works in contrast with unthinkably and unreasonably squeezed Rambus interface. Third, they compare best case RDRAMs with PC100 Cas2 and PC133 Cas-3 memory. Today there is plenty of SDRAMS at 133 and 143MHz with true 2-2-2 timing. Looks like Samgung wants to sell the slow-going product and wants to grease sales with blatant marketing. Have nice trading, - Ali

To: jim kelley who wrote (39893)	4/14/2000 3:59:00 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Re that Samsung white paper from so long ago... I believe that the article is the same one that we hashed over this past summer. I couldn't quickly find a date on it, but I think it is at least a year old, and is from when the company had a big lead in RDRAM, and was flogging the technology hard. Since then, Samsung has made an about face, and is pushing DDR hard. In addition, the article was wrong then, and is still wrong, as has been noted already on this thread. They were performing the ancient and revered technique of comparing the latest technology with something obsolete. I don't feel like going over the rest of the errors right now. By the way, the same page has the following, somewhat humorous comments in light of what was to happen to Camino a few months later: The Resurgence of Rambus DRAM Electronic News, 4/5/99 ... Can they really supply PC133 desktop chipsets, which would rival Camino's performance, in volume? ... The Rambus delay that received so much publicity and negative comments is surprisingly beneficial for the DRAM industry. usa.samsungsemi.com More recent articles on the same page include this support of DDR SGRAM. And you thought that RDRAM still stood some sort of a chance of picking up graphics wins? They don't even bother to compare DDR to RDRAM, RDRAM is quite dead, design engineers are not seriously considering it for new products. c) It assures boost in performance with a little premium over the SDRAM. DDR SGRAM can fully utilize existing SDRAM capacity and infrastructure, i.e., existing process, packaging, and testing, and does not require additional capital investment by the memory vendor. This advantage enables a low-price premium for DDR SGRAM relative to the SDR SDRAM. d) It answers the advance of memory technology. The continuous improvement in DDR SGRAM technology gives longevity to the system design with multiple generations (higher density and advanced die shrink) and ultra high-speed operation (DDR-II, more bandwidth). e) It is the preferred graphics industry standard. Many top-tier DRAM manufacturers have developed DDR SGRAMs, assuring the customer of multiple sources and a competitive price. In addition, the top 5 graphics controller manufacturers plan to offer DDR SGRAM products in volume by the end of 1999. Most importantly, DDR memory technology is an open specification and it is already a JEDEC standard usa.samsungsemi.com -- Carl P.S. RMBS looks to me to be possibly bottoming. This could be a great time to load up on the shares big time!!! Just don't get greedy, over the long run, the technology is dead, dead, dead, and the long run will be evident to most people over the summer.