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: Dan3 who wrote (75201)	7/1/2001 11:41:34 AM
From: tinkershaw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

So if you need more than 64 bits in a row, (the width of SDRAM/DDR busses) RDRAM moves that "high volume" of memory faster - that's bandwidth. But if you just need to know what value is stored at a particular address, then SDRAM/DDR is faster because, well, it's faster. You just don't get as much in each "chunk" read. People, this is basically what I have said all along about what has become of this thread. There is nothing of objective truth in the vast majority of the posts I am receiving. They are at best Clintonese in their shading of the truth, and almost all in the form of advocacy, or personal vendetta posts that do fly in the face of what is actually happening in the field. "Is faster because, well, its faster." Good reasoning. And by the way, if I'm using Word or Excel, in just simple, non-bandwidth intensive tasks, there is little to any difference between any of the memory technologies either in existence today on the market such as SDRAM, DDR, and RDRAM, nor in the labs like MRAM. I could easily live with EDO when I type up the next great American novel or do some simple spreadsheet calculations. Yet, yet, someone actually goes through the trouble of trying to say DDR and SDRAM are faster on applications like this. Well WHO REALLY CARES! It is like comparing a Chevette and a Beretta, stuck in a parking lot. You know what, in that situation, the Chevette, with its light weight and low gearing ratio might actually appear to be slightly faster, at least until they got back onto the open road. I think Bilow has made enough of a fool of him or herself to pretty much be discredited as any objective observer on this thread, the personal attacks alone should have been sufficient to accomplish this, which is a shame, because Bilow is really a much more talented writer and advocate than this. If Bilow wants to be a pro-DDR, anti-Rambus poster (and I say "want to" because that is all Bilow wants to be, not someone discussing the industry, the markets, et. al.) that is fine. Do it honestly. If DDR is so good and the wave of the future and RDRAM so bad and on its way out wouldn't the simple objective presentation of all the facts be sufficient to prove this? Well one would think so. But the fact that someone must try so hard, and then personally attack anything that may be a bit contrary to this viewpoint, expresses volumes. Good luck with future Ali and Via DDR launches. I lay odds when Rambus gets 40% marketshare and the next DDR chip that the DDR world puts all its hopes into fails again, that Bilow will still be screaming the end of RDRAM in two months due to the much awaited release of the next DDR dynamo. Funny how almost all hopes and dreams of the pro-DDR advocates now fall to Intel. And by god, Intel may, may, release 1, yes 1, DDR chip. A chip with no follow-up on the road map, and which has been more than once called an "interim" solution. Something to hang a hat on I suppose. So know where your news is coming from. Tinker