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: Zeev Hed who wrote (42664)	5/21/2000 12:14:00 PM
From: Scumbria	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Zeev, all that is required is "narrower" specifications or better tolerances, I view this as an integral part of the learning curve. Theoretically this is a nice concept. The fact is though that higher speed requirements result in lower yields. As the learning curve improves, so does the speed requirements. DDR has a wide datapath, and does not suffer the high clock speed requirements of DRDRAM to achieve the same bandwidth. Competitive DRAM manufacturing requires very high yields, and I have seen no indication so far that RDRAM is competitive. As an investor, you should not ignore the fact that the DRAM manufacturers walked out of the Intel meetings. You seem to be turning a blind eye to the facts in front of you. Scumbria

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (42664)	5/21/2000 6:43:00 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

Hi Zeev Hed; Re learning curve and yields in semiconductors... You wrote: Scumbria, all that is required is "narrower" specifications or better tolerances, I view this as an integral part of the learning curve. High yields in traditional chip production came about by the continuous tightening of the specs, and this part of the equation, IMHO, is evolutionary and not a major technical road block. Please consider the following: (1) The memory makers have claimed for several years that DDR was easier to manufacture than RDRAM, and that DDR was about as difficult as SDRAM. (2) The memory makers are now producing large amounts of DDR for graphics cards. The pricing on these chips is already well below the pricing of RDRAM chips, even though much more RDRAM has been produced, to date, by the industry, and even though, to date, RDRAM has about as many major suppliers and has had a longer history of production. It seems to be the case that DDR has already crossed RDRAM in terms of learning curve. One might suppose that the movement of production into DDR instead of RDRAM would tend to postpone the climbing of the learning curve for RDRAM. The concept that RDRAM could possibly be built almost as cheaply as SDRAM at some indefinite point in the future may have little relevance to the eventual acceptance of the technology. Especially given the fact that the other technologies are not standing still. Wouldn't you say that, generally speaking, a race is won by the participant with the head start? And so, given their head start, why isn't Rambus winning this race? On a purely theoretical basis, do you suppose that it is at all possible that if a technology had a slow enough learning curve, that that would be enough to prevent its widespread use particularly when easier alternatives were readily available? -- Carl P.S. In the words of the great economist, in the long run we are all dead. (Which is why people should consider trading instead of long term investing.)