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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JDN who wrote (104133)	6/7/2000 4:08:00 PM
From: Tony Viola	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

JDN, >My recollection is that INTC has stated that when software gets written for the superpowerful potential of todays new computers it will take RMBS technology to utilize it efficiently. Willamette is supposed to be so freaking fast that it could use core memory and still kick any other chips arse. Well, not quite core. Still... Tony

To: JDN who wrote (104133)	6/7/2000 4:52:00 PM
From: Elmer	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

Re: "I too would like a knowledgeable person to go over it again for me. My recollection is that INTC has stated that when software gets written for the superpowerful potential of todays new computers it will take RMBS technology to utilize it efficiently" RMBS brings 2 things to the table. High bandwidth and low pincount. SDRAM can be used to achieve the same bandwidth however the cost in pincount is great. Approximately 4x. The $cost$ can be quite significant when very high memory bandwidth is needed. All things being equal, a dual channel RMBS solution such as the 840 chipset would be a much better choice over a similar SDRAM solution if the cost of RMBS was similar bit for bit and RMBS was available. It's not available and it's very expensive. As of now there are no signs that this will change. Some say ever. Timna was intended to use RMBS however the high cost and lack of availability forced Intel to add the broken MTH, thus somewhat defeating the lowcost intention. A major redesign would be needed to replace the RMBS memory controller with an SDRAM controller adding significant delay and added cost. No matter how you look at it RMBS has been Intel's biggest disaster in recent memory and maybe exceeds the FDIV disaster of about 5 years ago. I know it seems like blasphemy to criticize Intel management but when are these guys going to cut their (our) losses? I have an uneasy feeling that we haven't heard the last of the problems. EP