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 : Steve's Channelling Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TRINDY who wrote (6973)	10/30/2000 8:34:08 PM
From: Zeev Hed	Respond to of 30051

Well, Earlie and I have exchanged a number of ideas about this. He still believes that RMBS will not fly, and until proven otherwise, I still think that INTC needs RMBS more than RMBS need INTC. When Barrett came out with his "mistake" statement, I posted on the RMBS thread that this might be an indication of a rift. An indication is not yet a rift, and recently, in Taiwan, Barrett tried to back pedal a little on this. There are still a number of essential questions that need to be resolved before one writes the bu$$ off. INTC supported the bu$$ since, at least at the time, that was the only way they could see maintaining their high profit margins in the high frequency arena. If DRAM would slow down the PC, or serve as a bottle neck, who needs a faster PC. RMBS' patents included three various elements, IMHO, that attracted INTC to it, first doubling of communication rate by doubling the clock read (DDR is taking the same route, and frankly, I think that RMBS got that locked up), second, the on chip register, allows the controller to vary, in essence the synchronization, in time according to the then required need, if the controller asks for a long string of data, it no longer needs to bring it in the random fashion (one at a time or a very short "string at a time") but it can bring a lengthy string (if a lot of these strings are the essence of the communication between the CPU and memory, of course, the whole issue of latency becomes moot, since latency is important when many random requests are generated). The last part is the communication protocol (and actual physical structure of the bus), which in essence opens the arena to data rate well in excess of what INTC is contemplating bringing on the market over the next two three years. Now, it is quite possible that these factors are no longer "operative", or that the penalties (in cost, in energy dissipation and in latency in pure random fashion operation) are too high, and thus INTC is changing course. If that course change is to DDR and later to DDR II, we still must see how actual DDR mother boards handle the real problems (without a tight universal specification) encountered when operating at above 1.5 Ghz, such as strict termination rules (all DDR will have to have quite tight specification, like the RMBS specs, and probably a central authority certifying products operating in tandem with those DDR). Last, even if for some reasons, yet unknown to me, DDR is proven the better technical solution, there are some serious questions if the dramurai's can really get around RMBS' IP covering the double clocking. Since I do not have an answer to these questions, I retreat back to my TA approach, and right now, as long as the bu$$ does not breach the $50 to $51 area (and I still have a GTC at $51-7/8), I'll have to say, the short term trend is neutral. As for the long term trend, it is still negative (has been since we breached $98 quite some time ago), and will be reaffirmed if the support at $50 to $51 is breached. Zeev