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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (104144)	6/7/2000 5:37:00 PM
From: Scumbria	Respond to of 186894

Ten, Bilow Carl says a lot of things on the RMBS thread. He likes to distort things just a little in order to make "dead dead dead" a self-fulfilling prophecy for Rambus. Whatever Carl's personal motivation is, he brings a lot of valuable technical information to the thread. It may also turn out that he is correct! Scumbria

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (104144)	6/8/2000 11:31:00 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Hi Tenchusatsu; You wrote: "Yes, RDRAM needs additional lines to enhance signal integrity at high clock speeds. Yet the pin count is still lower because RDRAM's data path is 1/4 that of SDRAM's, and that more than offsets the additional pins necessary for signal integrity." This is true for the memory controller, but not true for the memory chips. But since a computer has a lot more memory chips than memory controllers, the added pins in the memory chips dominate the added pins in the controller. Samsung data sheet figures don't lie: 256Mb SDRAM is in a 54-pin TSOP: usa.samsungsemi.com 256Mb/288Mb RDRAM is in a 92-pin uBGA: usa.samsungsemi.com The RDRAM memory chip has 70% more pins than the SDRAM memory chip. Do try looking up the figures before you suggest I like to distort things. If you want to challenge my technical facts, please do it over on the Rambus thread, by the way. -- Carl