SI
SI
discoversearch

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 (59024)10/27/2000 2:52:31 PM
From: jim kelley  Respond to of 93625
 
Message deleted



To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (59024)10/27/2000 2:54:06 PM
From: jim kelley  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 93625
 
Ten,

I don't think this was a technical problem. I don't see any technical issues regarding heat or power that would be expensive or difficult ot overcome. After all, Intel solved these problems easily for the i840.

As I remember, after the 820 recall, Intel sent prototype i820s to the MOBO manufacturers that ran about 1.5 X the speed of the final production i820s. There was a lot of talk about about de-rating at the time.

Makes you wonder why Tom's and Anand aren't overclocking the I820.

This sounds like a simple marketing decision to de-rate the product so as to minimize cannibalization from the WS business.

JK



To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (59024)10/29/2000 2:20:13 PM
From: John Walliker  Read Replies (4) | Respond to of 93625
 
Tenchusatsu,

I doubt it. I think if Intel could have licked the problems with just a beefier power supply or better airflow, they would have.

In that case, I really don't understand what is going on. The only place I can think of where the power dissipation could depend on the number of active banks is in the memory chips/modules themselves. The same memory is used in the 820 as in the 840, so why the difference?

John