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 (44775)	6/17/2000 11:45:00 AM
From: jim kelley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

To push DDR much faster one has to go to transmission line busses on a 8 byte buss. That has got to be more expensive than RDRAM which only has 2 bytes per channel. In fact, it may be needed for 266MHZ. RDRAM can be implemented on a 4 layer MOBO such as the 820 while DDR appear to require a 6 layer board. So the cost a memory component(DDR) does not yield the cost of of the memory system. There have been no real public comparisons done because there are not any production DDR systems available. Waving ones arms in the air and proclaiming that DDR is less expensive is not sufficient to make your case. DDR-II is less compelling for the desktop. You simply do not have the facts the carry your argument for the desktop.