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: Scumbria who wrote (66706)	2/27/2001 4:18:02 PM
From: Jdaasoc	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Scumbria: DDR is lower power than SDRAM, 2.5 V like RDRAM vs 3.3 V for SDRAM. it provides more bandwidth for apps which require it, It provides about 10% more memory bandwidth than SDRAM (550 vs 500 MB/sec) and less than 1/2 the effective bandwidth of RDRAM (>1GB/sec). The real reason is to gain this 10%+ speed benefit in large system memory configurations of servers (>1GB). However, this unbuffered benchmark I am quoting will probably be slower on real world servers with registered DDR DIMMs. sharkyextreme.com it requires less pins on servers* for equivalent bandwidth.* I think one Tawainese MB vendor did a limited run of dual channel SDRAM motherboards that were no more than $20-30 more than the ubiquitous single channel SDRAM MB's. These dual channel MB's showed no extra speed benefits. However, DDR server boards with much tighter design specifications will cost much more than $20-30 then single channel SDRAM MB's. Also, why are you bringing up just servers and not desktops. Is this just a slip. Or are you at IDF. john