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: Scumbria who wrote (40444)	4/20/2000 12:19:00 AM
From: Dave B	Respond to of 93625

Scumbria, Just to give credit where it's due, the Intel presentation link was originally posted by richard and Jeff (the guy who runs the Rambusite). Dave p.s. Naz down, Rambus up, situation normal. I think we're getting back into our old pattern <g>.

To: Scumbria who wrote (40444)	4/20/2000 12:34:00 AM
From: jim kelley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Re: SDRAM versus RDRAM latency You are pointing out the only positive for your argument. Everywhere else the chart shows SDRAM to be at a disadvantage to the RDRAM 820 and 840 systems. The cross over point for RDRAM is about 425 MBS bandwidth versus the pc133 sdram in the Apollo BX. Note that other SDRAM systems had much higher latencies than the 820 or 840 RDRAM system. After that the SDRAM in the Apollo BX flounders and it is never able to achieve the 800 MB/sec bandwidth. This chart shows clearly why INTC chose RDRAM.It also shows clearly that the dual channel RDRAM 840 board show a significant decrease in latency from the single channel RDRAM 820 system at the higher bandwidths. JK

To: Scumbria who wrote (40444)	4/20/2000 1:11:00 AM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 93625

Scumbria, that foil is rather interesting, isn't it? Here's some interesting points that I gleaned off that foil: 1) The crossover point of latency between Via/PC133 and 820/RDRAM is 375 MB/sec. With Via/VC133, the crossover point is 450 MB/sec. I can't imagine those figures to be a level of saturation for a 133 MHz FSB. 2) The 840 chipset w/ PC800 RDRAM has an average latency that's 50 nsec better than that of 820. That's almost seven FSB clocks. And this advantage is constant throughout the entire bandwidth spectrum. Certainly this can't be achieved by simply adding just another RDRAM channel. That tells me that something is abnormally crippling the performance of 820. 3) The 840 chipset w/ PC600 RDRAM performs very well, better than 820 w/ PC800 RDRAM. For a power-user, it might be cheaper to go with the former setup than the latter. Any thoughts? Tenchusatsu