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 (52652)	9/6/2000 1:22:12 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Respond to of 93625

Carl, I forgot to mention that Intel themselves have people who are addressing the DDR signal integrity issues, both in servers and in desktops. That's why I don't doubt DDR will work on the desktop. It's just a matter of time, as well as a matter of whether RDRAM can make a comeback (which Intel is still pushing for). Speaking of which, here are my takes on why RDRAM isn't doing so well at this time: 1) RDRAM is more expensive to manufacture. Rambus is actively working on a new RDRAM design that reduces the number of banks per device. 2) RDRAM power consumption is a little too high. That's why the 820 chipset (and perhaps 840?) has to juggle power states on the RDRAM devices. 3) The "juggling" creates additional latency, thereby affecting RDRAM performance to the point where even an 815 chipset with PC133 SDRAM (2-2-2) comes very close in performance. 4) Pin-count is a huge advantage of RDRAM, but like you said, pin-count isn't a very limiting factor in chipset design, at least not yet. In short, RDRAM is a little ahead of its time. I think #1 will be solved with the lower bank design, and #2 and #3 could be solved by the same design if Rambus pays specific attention to it. (Maybe the new 256/288Mbit devices inherently have lower power requirements.) But with DDR on its way, the "new" RDRAM may have an uphill battle to wage. Tenchusatsu