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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tinkershaw who wrote (33486)	10/26/2000 3:04:22 PM
From: Ali Chen	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 54805

Tinker, re <extraordinary profits from RDRAM at Samsung> So, as I see, you do not have anything to support your claim. And from what you are saying, you have little clue about DRAM manufacturing. It is not the cost of RDRAM chips itself that are higher. Silicon cost per area is about the same, even if accounted for extra area for Rambus on-chip controller logic (although it might be some additional cost associated with necessity to operate the interface internally at 800+ MHZ). The problem is that you do not plug Rambus chips into PC directly, you have to make RIMMs, and that is where the problem and cost is. According to this article (and other experiences) electronicnews.com the Rambus signalling interface has zero electrical margins to operate. Therefore Intel/Rambus have to tighten manufacturing tolerances to unbearable level, with several extra level of control in every step of manufacturing: trace width control, material thickness, epoxy fill, soldering spacing, thermal spreaders. Any deviation from the lucky spot in this multidimensional parametrical space leads to unwanted "microwave resonances" and to unreliable data transmissions, and therefore to lower overall yields. Another hurdle and expense were the testers to operate at 800+ MHz - there were none, and they are very expensive. Thanks to DDR memory, the testers can be reused and therefore absorb part of amortization, and this may be a part of lower RDRAM prices. There are also many systems aspects of the cost for using Rmabus in PCs. Therefore, your conclusions are based on wrong assessements of superficial facts. Most of your other interpretations in your post Message 14631705 are also in error, especially with regard to RDRAM PC performance. In particular, could you provide any support for your following claim: "Dell ... based nearly their entire workstation line on the success of RDRAM."? - Ali