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 (58675)	10/24/2000 3:12:36 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Hi all; Re RDRAM prices and the jc-news data. I said I'd take a look at the jc-news.com series of RDRAM and SDRAM pricing, to see if they followed along with the smsperling data or not. As I mentioned before, I believe that while the smsperling data form a good time series for RDRAM pricing, the memories included are not directly comparable to SDRAM pricing. That is, the smsperling data includes a lot of expensive ECC memory, while the SDRAM pricing includes far fewer such. The smsperling data shows that PC600 and PC700 have been dropping significantly more than PC800 for the last three months. The jc-news data looks at the cheaper memory for each size, and since the PC600 and PC700 are cheapest, the jc-news data is therefore heavily weighted towards the PC600 and PC700 prices. This is part of the reason that the jc-news data shows RDRAM dropping price faster than smsperling. The other reason, I believe, is that more ECC type RDRAM has come up for sale on pricewatch, and this has skewed the smsperling data towards higher prices, as the PC800 ECC parts, in particular at 256MB, carry a substantial premium. See the following chart for the skew between PC800 and PC600, and how it has changed over time: members.home.com Those suggesting that the PC600 prices should be watched instead of the PC800 prices should note that Samsung claims that the vast majority of their RDRAM production is now PC800. Any way, here is the data and the ratios computed according to the jc-news data. The ratio for any given week is given by the average of the ratios computed from 256, 128, and 64MB stick prices. Example 10/16: (472.50/165.50 + 209.58/73.75 + 133.83/36.67)/3 = 3.12 => 212% Ratio 256MB 128MB 64MB jc smsperling ------ ------ ------ ---- ---------- 10/16 RDRAM 472.50 209.58 133.83 212% 203% PC133 165.50 73.75 36.67 10/09 RDRAM 478.33 217.33 137.83 190% 181% PC133 177.83 80.75 41.67 10/02 RDRAM 486.08 229.58 138.75 184% 162% PC133 181.75 86.92 43.33 09/25 RDRAM 520.58 250.08 149.42 195% 153% PC133 192.58 88.67 44.92 09/18 RDRAM 534.58 263.92 155.25 173% 144% PC133 200.83 99.67 54.08 09/11 RDRAM 543.25 265.17 159.50 160% 141% PC133 206.33 112.58 56.67 09/04 RDRAM 543.25 262.92 163.08 157% 140% PC133 212.50 114.67 57.08 08/28 RDRAM 555.83 279.92 164.92 161% 158% PC133 218.00 115.42 57.50 Based on this comparison, it doesn't look like it makes much difference if I use the smsperling data or the jc-news data. Both series show the same thing: RIMMs are expensive, and relative to DIMMs, their prices are not dropping as quickly as SDRAM prices. In fact, the jc-news data show a higher ratio than the smsperling data. -- Carl P.S. NightOwl; It's manifest destiny.

To: Bilow who wrote (58675)	11/6/2000 10:29:55 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

Hi all; OTOT. (G) Weekly update for PC800/PC133 prices, from smsperling. Average SDRAM is crashing in price, while RDRAM's average remains fairly high. The ratio is now the highest it's been since May. I have to suspect that the mix of RIMMs for sale is changing, with more of the high price sticks coming on market, and that this is keeping prices high. 11/06/00 275% 10/30/00 260% 10/23/00 227% 10/16/00 203% 10/09/00 181% 10/02/00 162% 9/25/00 153% 9/18/00 144% 9/11/00 141% 9/04/00 140% 8/28/00 158% 8/21/00 157% 8/14/00 162% 8/07/00 151% 7/31/00 162% 7/24/00 161% 7/17/00 162% 7/10/00 174% 7/03/00 186% 6/26/00 193% 6/19/00 222% 6/12/00 234% 6/05/00 272% 5/29/00 295% 5/22/00 338% 5/15/00 333% 5/08/00 324% 5/01/00 313% 4/24/00 340% 4/17/00 351% 4/10/00 417% 4/03/00 495% 3/27/00 559% 3/20/00 591% 3/13/00 562% 3/06/00 514% 2/28/00 560% -- Carl P.S. As far as voting for the drunks vs. the drug users, I believe that Churchill was quite the drinker, while Hitler, a heavy drug user, was also a teetotaller. Churchill also smoked like a stack, while Hitler was more modern. In the end, Hitler died in his bunker, Churchill was victorious. (G)