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 : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ali Chen who wrote (44195)	7/7/2001 10:33:31 AM
From: substancep	Respond to of 54805

What is pathetic is your irrational and contentious disposition. You strike me as a bitter AMDroid with nothing worthwhile to contribute. Congratulations! You win 1st prize. You're the 1st person I've placed on ignore. AMD Says Second Quarter Sales Declined siliconinvestor.com P@irrationalhatredofacompanyisbizzare

To: Ali Chen who wrote (44195)	7/7/2001 12:50:07 PM
From: tinkershaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Ali, I hear such arguments all the time, pretty much phrased the same way as you put it, time and time and again. Then I ask, okay, show me. Show me a DDR product on the desktop that is in the mass market. Heck, show me all DDR products cumulatively on the desktop that are in the mass market. Then show me a DDR product on the desktop that actually is providing material benefits, even assuming it is not in mass production. You know the only answer I ever get back, "so in so is coming out with this or that product....," "or theoretical bandwidth is x vs. RDRAM's y..." and so it goes. Now it is the Brookdale chip that is scheduled for release in early 2002. Before it was AMD's chip, then VIA, now some await Ali's future chips. Funny how now INTC is DDR's savior now. INTC was the devil not long ago and DDR was to have toppled INTC. But INTC has made clear, and reviews of the Brookdale have drawn similar conclusions (wish I had the link on me to Tom's Hardware where he draws the exact conclusion himself), that the 845 is but an interim solution at best, and besides, it is the only DDR desktop chip on the INTC roadmap. But lets not have little details get in the way. Reality is that DDR is not really in competition with RDRAM, at least not now. It appears to be more in competition with SDRAM, and the reason is very clear as to why. RDRAM is adding materially significant performance increases in bandwidth to the P4. P4 has been called crippled without it. Also RDRAM systems are becoming easier and more cost-effective to build and have proven themselves with well over one million systems sold and most probably with over 10 million sold by the end of the year. Compare that to the DDR chipsets that have been released. The material performance advantages have not yet been seen in the benchmarks. In addition stability is still a problem as Samsung made known this week by recalling its DDR chips from Korea, citing compatibility problems. DDR simply isn't adding much that SDRAM itself can't provide, and in return it brings forth many system complications. AMD has certainly developed what looks like a good stabile system. But for this AMD's DDR systems do not provide much benefit over and above what a more mature SDRAM system could provide. So given the increased system costs DDR adds vendors are utilizing SDRAM in lieu of DDR and seemingly still experimenting with DDR in very niche ways. A lot is said, little has been delivered, and the rhetoric and pattern hasn't changed since 1999. Of course the talk now has moved beyond DDR, and now skipped over DDR-II (the former RDRAM killer) to DDR-III. But Ali, thanks for your contribution to the thread. Tinker P.S. Ali, there are several legitimate rebuts to the argument as to why RDRAM vs. DDR is not the same as say beta vs. VHS, but in your haste you did not bring these up to the thread. Perhaps a more reasoned response would be helpful to the thread. I would appreciate it.