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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (54636)	9/22/2000 5:59:05 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Hi Tenchusatsu; Re integrated memory controllers... They do make a lot of sense, and for both the performance and the value markets. They undoubtedly would give lower cost for the value market and higher performance for the performance market (both by the simple and traditional technique of higher integration). The only thing holding delaying the stuff is time to market issues, and risk issues, I suppose. So far, it takes longer to get an integrated design out, and by the time you are shipping, your processor core (and maybe the graphics too) is obsolete. And if you blow either part of the design (ala Timna), you end up having to rev the whole thing. Separate CPUs and chipsets are safer. But I think that the winds of change are coming to this, both in the risk issues and in the time to market issues, and we will see cutting edge integrated solutions before 2 years are out. The risk issue that blew up Timna was its being tied to a peculiar DRAM type, but when it becomes a bit easier to predict the mainstream memory type, that risk goes away. A lot of the other risks are fading too. I have no doubt that all the major players are working hard on integrated solutions. In fact, like you, I'm quite surprised that we don't see more of them already. The trend towards higher integration is probably one of the reasons that Intel isn't too concerned about losing a good portion of their chipset business to VIA. And of course that is why VIA is working hard on getting into the low end CPU business, they are trying to avoid a soon to be obsolete chipset business. -- Carl P.S. Last I looked, the Sri Lanka and Greece market averages were up slightly, so the Intel announcement hasn't completely destroyed the world financial markets. (G)

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (54636)	9/22/2000 9:30:29 AM
From: Scumbria	Respond to of 93625

Ten, My only gripe about Timna is that Intel didn't design a Timna derivative for the performance market. Cyrix tried this with MXi. The problem was that graphics technology (and other IP) moves too quickly to be tied to the CPU. MXi was obsolete before they had first silicon. Why the concept of an integrated memory controller isn't catching on any quicker, I don't know. It doesn't even have to be RDRAM, either. The Cyrix MediaGX (and it's derivatives) have an integrated memory controller. If you remember, it was the first Pentium class CPU to break Intel's grip on the major OEM's. Compaq made a lot of money selling MediaGX systems because the fast DRAM subsystem made it unnecessary to have an L2 cache. Over time, caches became larger and moved onboard the CPU. The benefits of an onboard memory controller have diminished somewhat as a result. Having said that, the Alpha 21364, Majic and most embedded SOC chips have onboard memory controllers. Scumbria