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: Jim McMannis who wrote (53404)	9/14/2000 3:08:10 PM
From: Don Green	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Jim> I wish someone or something would put an end to this RAMBUS fiasco. I see no redeeming value in the company. Aren't you a big Gold Bug! Now there is a good investment the requires great vision and foresight! LOL!!! Subject 22735

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (53404)	9/14/2000 3:08:20 PM
From: Steve Lee	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

"If all Intel can do is get Rambus to bench "essentially equivalent" to an 815/PC133, what do you think the real world performance is?" How much older is the 820 than the 815 in the published benchmarks? Now apply Moores law to the answer and see what kind of performance diff u would expect. How does that compare to the actual tested performance diff? Have you seen the benchmarks for the 820e? What does that say about RDRAM v PC133 performance?

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (53404)	9/14/2000 5:10:32 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Jim, <If all Intel can do is get Rambus to bench "essentially equivalent" to an 815/PC133, what do you think the real world performance is> I knew you'd try to bring up this kind of argument. I don't believe the guys doing Intel's performance briefs will actively try to cripple the scores of 815/PC133 just to give it a better chance against 820/RDRAM. Otherwise, they wouldn't have stopped half-way and left the scores merely equivalent. Rather, they would have gone all the way and cripple 815 to the point where it would scores less than 820 in every single benchmark. All these conspiracy theories are just that: theories. <I wish someone or something would put an end to this RAMBUS fiasco> I wish someone or something would put an end to the Microsoft fiasco as well (i.e. DOJ stop pushing for MS breakup; MS stop acting like an arrogant bully). But hey, that's life. Tenchusatsu

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (53404)	9/14/2000 5:30:07 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

Jim, here's another question. If RDRAM is supposed to be so bad in performance, why does Intel only publish SPEC2000 results with RDRAM-based platforms (both 820 and 840)? Why aren't there any SPEC2000 results with 815? Several possibilities: 1) The Conspiracy Theory: Intel is artificially inflating RDRAM performance. They figured that getting the highest SPEC2000 scores possible isn't as important as basing an entire multi-billion dollar business on illusion. 2) The Lack of Effort on 815/PC133: Intel does a wonderful job making the best use of RDRAM memory bandwidth in their SPEC benchmarking efforts. But what if Intel spent as much time and effort optimizing SPEC for 815/PC133? 3) The Advantage of RDRAM: Intel already knows that RDRAM is simply better for SPEC than PC133, period. Of course, that brings up the question: is SPEC an accurate reflection of real-world applications? So what's your (final) answer? Tenchusatsu

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (53404)	9/14/2000 7:28:04 PM
From: J Krnjeu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Hello Jim McMannis, When it became evident that their own technology, RAMBUS, wasn't going to cut the mustard, they decide to go out force the issue by demanding royalties on other forms of RAM...so why didn't they do that years ago? Why all of a sudden? This is very similar to what happen to Napster. They were found guilty of copyright violation because the holders of the copyright did not recieve royalties. I guess there is nothing wrong with protecting their IP, heck that's why there is a patent office. Thank You JK