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: Bilow who wrote (49031)	8/5/2000 5:13:17 PM
From: blake_paterson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

hi carl bi-hi/sell-lo: "When the memory makers crank out millions and millions of RDRAM chips per year and a lot of the silicon is being taken up by the larger RDRAM die, while giving system performance below that of PC133, that does indeed waste manufacturing resources." That one is a beaut; you remain 'el rey de spin.' Couldn't have distorted it better myself <g> In the words of jdaasoc, who is infinitely more IT qualified than I: ""The only reason I can explain lack of speed of 820 platform vs 815e is that an IBM ATA-100 hard drive was used on both sets of Intel's tests. The 820 chipset comes with 82801 ICH (supports only ATA-66) while 815e chipset has 82801BA ICH (supports ATA-100) Can you honestly state that there is a not a difference in disk transfer with ATA-66 vs ATA-100 interfaces with an ATA-100 hard drive. My feeling is that there is a measureable speed difference using ATA-100 vs ATA-66. We will have to wait for 820e benchmark tests to adquiately compare RDRAM to SDRAM."" Message 14145618 Why even your favorite soccer player there, scumbrinho, agreed (but only in a moment of weakness, when the truth prevailed): ""It sounds like you have identified a real difference between the 815 and 820, unrelated to the DRAM type. It also sounds like it skews the results towards SDRAM."" Message 14146986 Carl, you remain FOS; full of spin that is. With regards to your inference about RDRAM yields, the RDRAM die yield nearly equals SDRAM, according to sources more reliable than you or I. And the PC800 yield should should approach 90% in the next year, if you were to believe Samsung. But why should I? I've got you to believe instead <g>. And the real estate problem? Higher densities, copper and 0.18 micron processes, and 300 mm should allow the big boys to keep gross margins >> 60% with RDRAM for years to come. Just my uneducated speculation, of course. How dare I!! BP