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 : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Paul Engel who wrote (11986)	10/7/2000 6:29:32 PM
From: porn_start878	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

You may wish RAMBUS to go away now, but without them, 66 MHZ EDO DRAM may be all that you could get today without RAMBUS having entered the moribund DRAM market 10 years ago Are-you really thinking what you're writting. What you say is a total non-sense... You actually say that, without rambus AMD and Intel would ship GHz chips on 66 MHz memory busses. YES rambus may have stimulated a little bit the DDR devellopment (most of it is due to the video cards) but 133MHz sdram would be here anyway for about the same price (don't forget DRAM makers compete each other). It's like if I was saying that without AMD Intel would still ship it's p90 in 2001... that is not reasonable... Intel would have probably just began shipments of cumine at 600-733 and would sell them at $350 ASP without AMD but lets not exagerate. RAMBUS sucks, they are sharks, they are undesirable. I hate Rambus. Max

To: Paul Engel who wrote (11986)	10/7/2000 6:29:46 PM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Paul Re....<<<Give innovation the credit it is due - and RAMBUS deserves more credit than anybody for the faster DRAM that is today becoming available - whether it be RDRAM or other faster versions from DRAM manufacturers.<<<< I will when you give AMD credit for every Intel processor over 600 mhz. If it would have been up to Intel, we would still be paying $900 for a 600 mhz Katami.

To: Paul Engel who wrote (11986)	10/7/2000 7:01:35 PM
From: niceguy767	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Paul: "Give innovation the credit it is due - and RAMBUS deserves more credit than anybody for the faster DRAM that is today becoming available - whether it be RDRAM or other faster versions from DRAM manufacturers." Comment: The tone of your post is wholly out of character...Almost a hint of compassion...Almost think you had some personal involvement in the INTC/RMBS love affair you're so seemingly defensive and supportive...wholly out of character!!!But refreshing!!!

To: Paul Engel who wrote (11986)	10/7/2000 10:03:53 PM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Re: Rambus almost single handedly forced the DRAM manufacturers to get off their butts and design faster memory. Wrong. The memory industry has consistently had faster DRAMs available than there were chipsets capable of using them. Video cards are already using the 333MHZ DRAMs being produced by the DRAM industry. For a long time Intel dominated the chipset market and refused to use the faster DRAMs being produced by the industry. Intel even sued VIA for producing a chipset that used 133MHZ memory that the DRAM industry had been producing for years. Intel refused to support VCDRAM in its chipsets. It took AMD, with its relatively small market share, to support faster (DDR) memory technology. Intel meanwhile did support a more expensive memory (Rambus) but not, according to its own benchmarks, a faster one. Have you noticed that AMD is now leading the industry as it moves to the newer, higher performing DDR platforms? Kind of reminds you of when Intel took the lead away from IBM, doesn't it? Dan