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: Ali Chen who wrote (40440)	4/19/2000 11:57:00 PM
From: Pat Hughes	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

You are correct. It's nothing new and it doesn't mean a thing. When are the bashers going to see that it doesn't matter if Rambus is better or not. What is important is that Intel is committed for at least 5 years. PLUS, Rambus on the desktop will account for only 35% of its revenues in the future. Get with it or lose. You guys just don't want to see it.

To: Ali Chen who wrote (40440)	4/20/2000 12:02:00 AM
From: Dave B	Respond to of 93625

Ali, Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us. And as long as we're reposting previously posted information, here're two for you for this evening... Message 13465694 Message 13465725 Highlights of the above posts from Dataquest include: There has been a lot of talk lately about double-data rate DRAMs, or DDR, and the possibility that this less-expensive technology could postpone the need for RDRAMs indefinitely. Dataquest does not buy into this theory for a number of reasons. First, the DDR interface, although easier to implement than RDRAMs (without the burdens of an increased die size and a royalty payment), is a solution only at the DRAM chip level. Many of the cookbook details that have been so neatly worked out by Rambus' engineers, details like signal paths, termination, and clocking, are left to the individual OEM in the case of DDR. This can significantly slow down time-to-market. Second, the high-signal frequencies used by DDR are alien to most circuit board designers and are likely to end up causing trouble when brought through one or more connectors to an indeterminate number of DRAM chips. Other reasons include a lack of the required support components and even a lack of rigid standardization that could impede the acceptance of this technology until the true winner is determined from an array of nearly compatible devices. What about other systems? Assuming, then, that RDRAM will take a large slice of the PC market in 2001 and beyond and given that the PC market now consumes, and will continue to consume, between 75 percent and 80 percent of all DRAM sold, one has to conclude that RDRAM will become the focus of all DRAM manufacturers' cost-reduction efforts. This same phenomenon has happened in the past. At its inception, SDRAM had a larger die size, was more costly to test, and yielded worse than the equivalent EDO chips. Look at the market now. EDO DRAMs routinely sell at the same price as their SDRAM counterparts, and sometimes command a higher price, depending more on the availability of parts on the market than on the speed of the technology. Now, if the RDRAM receives all the attention of the designers in the die-shrink group, and if the RDRAM constitutes the bulk of the market, then it is inevitable that RDRAM pricing should eventually drop below SDRAM pricing. This will then have a self-propelling effect of forcing RDRAM to be used in applications that don't need all that bandwidth, but that need to use the cheapest DRAM available. This means that anything from hard disk drives right down to the lowly digital telephone answering machine are likely to be found using RDRAMs in future years. For 2000, though, we see a more gentle progression. RDRAMs will penetrate to reach 13 percent of the year's market over the course of the year, the bulk of this number shipping toward the end of the year. DDR will not achieve such a high number and we expect to see the difference in penetration between the two technologies increase rather than decrease. Although it is likely that DDR's acceptance in graphics subsystems will ramp faster than will RDRAM (from a perspective of the percent of all systems penetrated) we do not anticipate that overall DDR shipments will ever come near those of RDRAMs. Dave