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: cordob who wrote (71993)	5/6/2001 3:50:23 AM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 93625

Hi cordob; Actually, it is possible to terminate RDRAM buses at both ends. I think it would be a lot safer that way, (because of the reduced opportunity for intersymbol interference) but it would use twice as much I/O power, if you wanted to keep your voltage signal levels and line impedance the same. DDR chips have individual Delay Locked Loops in each chip, as well as the Phase Locked Loop explicitly sometimes used in the module. If you have any questions about these things, or need links ask, I'll provide you with it. Of course the DLL part of the lawsuit was one of the first that the judge threw out, I'm not sure of the reasoning. It was painfully obvious that the double data rate clocks used by Rambus are not similar to the ones in DDR, but I look forward to seeing what the reasoning with the DLLs were. -- Carl

To: cordob who wrote (71993)	5/6/2001 4:01:15 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

Hi cordob; Question why did you wait until now to research the details of these technologies? You've been stating for some time that RDRAM is the next mainstream memory, but you didn't know how it worked? Direct RDRAM is one of those ideas that sound best before you learn the intimate details. Like they did with their patent coverage, Rambus' management always publicly exaggerate the advantages of their technology. One of the consequences of this is that Rambus is better loved the higher you go in companies. At the level of non engineers outside of the industry it is completely impossible to separate truth from fiction here. I'm guessing that you have enough engineering knowledge to pick up the real issues without glossing over the details. What happened to Intel is a story identical to that of many other companies that tried Rambus. Management forced the decision onto their engineers largely through an arrogant belief that their own technical ability exceded that of the engineers working for them. To obtain knowledge of the true state of the memory industry is difficult for outsiders. People who don't know you likely aren't going to bad mouth the decisions of their management. But if you are friends, for instance, with a salesman for one of the high end oscilloscopes that are required to bring up RDRAM systems, he will likely tell you that the engineers at the companies that buy them think RDRAM is a bad idea, but that the decision to go with it was made by management. This has leaked out into the press: Culture Clash Erupts Inside Intel Management and engineers do battle over Rambus DRAM Steven Fyffe, Paul Kallender, ElectronicNews, October 23, 2000 ... The Rambus relationship has taken its toll on Intel's engineers, leaving them divided, disillusioned and distrustful of the hierarchy, according to a former Intel employee who spoke to Electronic News on condition of anonymity. "There's been an internal backlash, and anybody that can distance themselves from Rambus has done so," the source said. "Now nobody believes the Intel Architecture Group. Intel had been good at generating rules that designers could use to develop boards. They basically broke that trust by forcing Rambus down the throats of the engineers." Intel's senior management ignored early warnings from its own engineering staff that Rambus technology would be hard to implement, according to the source. "Requests for information went up the chain and there never would be any response. Two years ago we told them that technically it was a poor proposition at best. But they relied on Rambus for all of the engineering expertise in this area," the former employee said. "We told them there wasn't enough design margin; they were going to be hurt by noise and impedance problems. (One staff member) determined there was negative timing margin. This was repeated to upper management. The reported response from (one executive) was, 'It's not the first time we've shipped devices with negative margin.' " The lack of reality checking inside Intel became extremely serious, according to the source. "The Intel Architecture Group is an arrogant bunch that all ought to be fired. This is a group that many times has no contact with reality and doesn't know how to manufacture real things." Engineers who didn't toe the party line were punished with bad reviews, the former employee said. "Inside Intel, the term was 'disagree and commit.' " Intel employees were not allowed to speak badly of Rambus. "Those internal to Intel who failed to 'disagree and commit' to Rambus were summarily given poor reviews because they were not considered team players, as they disagreed with the commitment of Intel's entire chipset resources and architecture to Rambus," he said. "Some extremely talented individuals, and friends of mine, have had their careers shortened or diverted because they did not become swept toward the cliffs with the rest of the lemmings." The recent failure of Intel's memory translator hub (MTH) project, which was meant to allow Intel's 820 chipset for RDRAM to also work with SDRAM in Pentium III systems, was due to Rambus' highly sensitive technology, the source said. "The issues were not defects within the MTH. The issues were with the Rambus channel itself and the use of large packages at channel speeds. Technically, the problem has been with microwave-like resonance effects in the component packages, connectors and in the structures formed by these when placed on printed circuit boards." Rambus' strict design rules left engineers with little elbowroom to be creative, another industry insider said. "Engineers as a whole don't like being dictated to," he said. "With Rambus' design there's no flexibility." An Intel spokeswoman said it was policy not to comment on statements from ex-employees, but she did confirm that the terms "disagree and commit" and "constructive confrontation" are integral parts of Intel's work culture. ... e-insite.net The above article probably explains why I show up to pester the Rambus bulls more than anything else. I'm not the interloper here. Memory is my territory, Rambus invaded it. But not for long! The forces of the invaders are crumbling everywhere! Soon they will be forced out of our verdant and pleasing land and we will return to our pre war activities of love and money. -- Carl