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: Daniel Schuh who wrote (40160)	4/17/2000 10:35:00 PM
From: Dave B	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Daniel, My, that was quite a pinpoint cite for the BS detector crowd, wasn't it, Dave? Intel's own published specmarks put the 800 cumine on a 133 FSB 820 board dead even with PC100/ BX chipset on a 800 / 100FSB cumine. Son-of-a-gun, ya got us Tex. Us BS generators got caught right out. Congrats and kudos to the BS Detectors, led by Daniel Schuh. I guess you and your crowd have every right to gloat on making the Rambus thread safe for dissenting opinions. Let's see, first honors go to the original poster of the article...uh, wait a minute, this can't be right. No, no, NO! It seems it was originally posted on the Rambusite, copied to this board by Richard Surkla. But how can that be? They're both Rambus mega-Bulls! It must have been a mistake, they must not have known what they were looking at. We'll have to ignore them. So, we'll skip right to the kudos for the anti-Rambus individual who brought attention to the RDRAM chart and pointed out the discrepancy. That would be...um, er, this just can't be right! It was...ME! How could that be? I'm a Rambus Bull. I never say anything bad about RDRAM. I don't even listen when anyone else tries to! This is just too weird! Gosh, now you've reduced me to terminal sarcasm <G>. As you can see, Daniel, three individual Rambus Bulls posted information about RDRAM that was not beneficial to our cause. On top of that, one of them even asked for comments from a non-Rambus-in-systems-fan individual. How biased we are! How much BS we must be spreading around! Again, if you'd like to post valid information with valid sources and participate in reasonable discourse, simply drop the attitude and bring some value to the thread. Otherwise your super-bias reduces the value of your opinions to zero. Dave p.s. As an example of your biased view, your statement that "Intel's own published specmarks put the 800 cumine on a 133 FSB 820 board dead even with PC100/ BX chipset on a 800 / 100FSB cumine" is not accurate. The accurate statement is that it puts the latency dead even between the two, up to a certain bandwidth level. After that bandwidth level is reached, the 820/RDRAM combination provides significantly better latency than the BX chipset. So, as we've said as well, Intel is looking to the long term to handle increased bandwidth needs with RDRAM.