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: Bilow who wrote (40093)	4/19/2000 6:11:00 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

Hi all; RDRAM power problems... Some additions to the post that this one links to. To a remarkable extent, this thread lives in "Rambus Land", that fantasy land where an ingenious new technology arrives out of the blue and proves to be better than previous technology in every way. This makes the stock purchase a slam dunk. Easy decision. Just buy, otherwise you'll miss the bus! People here believe that Rambus has better signal integrity, better reliability, cheaper manufacturing, higher bandwidth, lower latency, longer and stiffer virility, and of course, less power consumption. Anything that goes against the Rambus Land happy talk is certain to be lies, broadcast by people with financial reasons to hate RMBS. The above post on power consumption still hasn't been explained away. Power consumption calculations are complicated, and depending on how the system is designed, either Rambus or DDR could have the lower power consumption. Basically, RDRAM typically has the advantage in smaller memory systems, while DDR has the advantage in larger memory systems. But the simple notion that RDRAM uses less power is silly. RDRAM is well known in the industry to be a finger burner, that is why so much effort is put into the above Intel articles. From an article on power consumption trends in PCs, which have been rising in recent years: The CPU is not the only culprit, however. Power consumption is on the rise in chipsets, DRAM modules (especially Direct Rambus DRAM), and AGP graphics cards, the latter of which now ship with on-board fans of their own. techweb.com I know, clearly techweb is horribly biased against Rambus. And those 500mA Idd specs in the Rambus data sheets on the Samsung website aren't the same units as the mA figures used in DDR. Rambus parts run on nature's own energy from the sun! They don't get hot! Whatever. -- Carl

To: Bilow who wrote (40093)	5/22/2000 2:43:00 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 93625

Hi all; So much for RDRAM running cooler than SDRAM. Anandtech took temperature measurements as follows: PC133: 93.2 PC800: 98.6 anandtech.com Compare the above to the sham engineering calculations posted at dramreview: SDRAM: 6.5 Watts DDR: 6.2 Watts RDRAM: 4.1 Watts dramreview.com Technical note: The surface area of the RDRAM heat sink is much larger than the combined area of the SDRAM chips, and so its thermal resistance to ambient is certain to be smaller. In addition, the PC133 temperature is being measured at the chip, while the RDRAM temperature is measured at the heat sink. Since there is thermal resistance between the heatsink and the RDRAM chips, it is clear that the RDRAM chips are actually hotter than the above measurement would indicate. Both these corrections will increase the temperature (and power) consumption differences between the two memory types, not decrease them. Anand didn't realize that these temperature differences are significant, in terms of indications of power consumption, but they are quite significant. Anand didn't mention his ambient (i.e. room air) temperature. If we guess 72 F, then the SDRAM chips were 21.2 F over ambient while the RDRAM were 26.6. That means that the RDRAM was consuming at least 25% more power, quite a bit more if the technical notes of the previous paragraph are taken into account. Conclusion: RDRAM IS A POWER HOG!!!, something the longs around here have just been unable to accept due to sham engineering calculations released by Rambus. Dramreview should be totally ashamed that they were suggesting that RDRAM used 1/3 the power of SDRAM. But the bald faced \|:@~& won't say a thing, I predict. PUMP SITE Now even the rabid longs have to understand why it is that they don't see any mobile usage of RDRAM. (Even from Dell.) -- Carl Note that I already showed that the dramreview site is closely connected to RMBS former management in this post: Rambus' Fake website? Here's where you'll find informed analysis on where to turn and who to trust. #reply-13405397 Now you have to wonder. Why did someone so high up in RMBS management give figures reversing the power consumption mubers for SDRAM and RDRAM? Do you suppose that Rambus management might be watching their stock price just a little more carefully than their engineering? Does anyone suspect that any of the other claims of Rambus are also totally incorrect? Or is this really the only blotch on their virgin pure reputation? Do you guys really *trust* Rambus?