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 (51559)	8/28/2000 7:40:10 PM
From: Scumbria	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Carl, Careful planning saved Samsung from an RDRAM oversupply situation, Eminian said. "We're not building an excess of Rambus. We're shipping what we're building now. Are low yields normally considered to be careful planning? Scumbria

To: Bilow who wrote (51559)	8/28/2000 7:41:07 PM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 93625

Hi all; Another Rambus mention: Intel's CEO Admits to a Lack of Critical-Path Planning ... Intel is already capacity-constrained and analysts predict that only by the second half of next year will the company be in a position to generate significant revenue from P4 production. At that time, Intel is expected to introduce the 0.13-micron process, which will not only make the die size smaller but will also allow the company to push clock speeds much higher. Intel should ramp up the P4 in the next year so as not to fall behind AMD, which has been extremely competitive in the past year, according to Ashok Kumar, semiconductor analyst at USB Piper Jaffray. Before that, Intel must make a decision regarding licensing P4 chipsets to other makers. It expressed its willingness to do so at the IDF, but did not elaborate. The key issue for Intel is the mix between the chipsets. Kumar believes the mix will depend on the performance advantage of Rambus DRAM (RDRAM) as well as the price premium. Also, the difference between RDRAM and SDRAM on standard benchmarks will be a few percentage points, but the price premium will be about 30 percent. In this case, DRAM makers will be looking for profits and hence will not commit to RDRAM. Intel, though, is "investigating" double data rate chipsets that will help Intel ramp up the P4. Intel is expected to license its chipset technology to others under the condition that chipset makers have no part of AMD. Intel and some analysts are still trumpeting P4's compatibility with Rambus. "(But) Intel will never let Willamette (P4) be crucified on a Rambus cross," said Kumar. And that makes sense, because the P4 core will be Intel's mainstay for many years, in the desktop as well as the server segment. Barrett's priorities were clear when he said that the markets would decide what kind of memory would succeed. electronicnews.com -- Carl

To: Bilow who wrote (51559)	8/28/2000 10:22:25 PM
From: dmf	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Carl, RE: Latest "News" You left out this quote, "if the price of RDRAM doesn't come down, other types of DRAM will be used for the Pentium 4 (P4) in the mainstream PC market, Craig Barrett, Intel president and chief executive officer, told gathered media at the Intel Developer Forum held here last week." Just because it has today's date, doesn't mean that the information isn't old news. Thanks for the link. Your quotes didn't tell the entire story. dmf

To: Bilow who wrote (51559)	8/29/2000 1:36:04 AM
From: NightOwl	Respond to of 93625

Holy Cow! Is Kanadjian already posting under a pseudonym here? If not somebody ought to invite him. The guys a natural. :8) "Why does Rambus get so much coverage and everything else gets to be treated with such confidence?" asked Kanadjian. "Has the DDR option missed its window of opportunity before it even got started? DDR systems were supposed to be launched by the middle of the year and I have yet to see a DDR system that is production-ready." But it's a little sad to see someone under this kind of pressure though. Obviously the phone lines between Samsung, INTC, RMBS, Infineon, MU, media, and analysts have been burning up lately. As much as we might agree or disagree with their various positions on memory technology, I think its safe to say that none of the executives involved in this mess are truly "evil" people. Not so "evil" as to warrant the death penalty anyway. And I don't see how RMBS can exist as an independent without INTC's market force behind it. If it loses ALL of INTC's support, it will be gobbled up long before the litigation comes to an end. If its any consolation to Tate and Kanadjian, if that happens there will be some folks at INTC taking the "Golden Parachute" with them. Personally, I think the memory makers and INTC are better off with a free standing RMBS than they are without it. The more DRDRAM production they have competing for excess capacity, the better off their bottom lines will be in the next down cycle. Not that I expect anyone to agree with this, but if RMBS had a "MSFT" behind it, i.e., a money pit outside the normal semiconductor list of suspects, this story could have a very different ending. Or if RMBS had been pushed as an "additional" memory technology by INTC, rather than a drop dead, take it or leave it proposition at exorbitant royalties, everyone would be better off. But then that's just my free opinion. 0\|0