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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jim kelley who wrote (110775)	5/13/2000 10:58:00 PM
From: Eric K.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1578510

Your post is riddled with assumptions and errors. Would you care to point out the assumptions and state why they are erroneous? You might want to make your response take the form of Assertion: Basis, Assertion: Basis,..., rather than Assertion, Assertion,... However, it does reveal the nature of the opposition to RDRAM. It seem to be perceived as a INTC effort to control the PC architecture You have a remarkable gift for perceiving things. :-)

To: jim kelley who wrote (110775)	5/14/2000 1:44:00 AM
From: Ali Chen	Respond to of 1578510

jim, oh boy, you took Scumbria's invitation too seriously! <It seem to be perceived as a INTC effort to control the PC architecture.> It certainly does! Cannot agree with you more on this! See, we can agree on something! So something must happen... stock crash? Or just slow death? The real question is which one :)

To: jim kelley who wrote (110775)	5/14/2000 3:20:00 PM
From: pgerassi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1578510

Dear Jim: How many electronic circuits have you designed? What is your education level? Have you heard of what IBM did with Microchannel? Did you realize that almost no one wanted RDRAM even from the start? It has been over hyped. It was a solution for embedded electronics. Here you want low granularity, low pin count, and high transfer rate. In the computer world, high bandwidth is usually achieved through parallization. That is why Cray, IBM, and even Intel built massively parallel processor and memory arrays. The memory is interleaved to allow high bandwidth. Alpha (the current processing champ) uses 256 bit wide memory busses using 4 way interleaving of PC-100 memory (in the highest configurations) yielding 12.8GB/sec transfers. It is not unusual to have 16GB memory which takes 512 256Mbit SDRAM chips arranged in DIMMS of 16 chips each in banks of 16 DIMMS to a Memory Subsystem Module. It was Intel who insisted that RDRAM be used in workstations and PCs. The only other place you see RDRAM used is in embedded applications like video games, set top boxes and the like. At current prices, RDRAM is as expensive as SRAM. And if you have any historical knowledge, you would know that SRAM is faster than any other current memory type. It has an access time of 3.5nsec where your vaunted RDRAM PC800 from Samsung has an access time of 45nsec, PC-133 SDRAM has the same 45nsec access time, and PC-2100 DDRDRAM has an access time of 40nsec. All of these timings are from Samsung, so you can compare. Unless RDRAM prices fall soon, they will not be used. When any company forces you to pay much more for the same benefit, you will change your business away from it. This happened with IBM pushing Microchannel, Circuit City with Divx, and Sony with Mini Disc. Now it appears to happen with Intel and RDRAM. RDRAM is a square peg that Intel has been trying to fit in everyones round holes of SDRAM in PCs. If you would check Samsung PDF on RDRAM RIMMs, you would notice that every other pin is either Power or Ground. They use 29 traces in and 29 traces out of each RIMM not including power. SDRAM uses 64 for data (I am not counting ECC traces in either case), and 22 for control and addressing. That is a savings of only 28 traces. Also not included were SPDs and other trace types. RDRAM does not save that many pins. Too bad! All in all, RDRAM has too low of a Benefit given its costs. At $560 per 128MB, SRAM would be cheaper (it usually costs about 3x DRAM cost but has higher performance) and better. Pete