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: Bilow who wrote (75401)	7/7/2001 2:36:45 PM
From: tinkershaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Are you really so convinced that you understand engineering better than all those engineers who chose DDR? BWAHAHAHAHA!!! Yep, I guess Intel saw the same problems when they invested $500 million in Micron, who knows how much in Samsung, based their entire desktop roadmap on RDRAM (still is by the way, except for the maybe to be released 845 DDR chip, which is an interim chip at best) and basically stayed away from DDR because of the inherent instability that Intel has talked about time and time again. Not to mention lessor ability to scale and so far performance improvements over SDRAM that hardly put goose bumps on one's arms. But what are a few facts when one can toss inuendo and personal insult around. Bilow, thanks for the reply. Took awhile to build up the ammunition I see. But I'll take 1 Intel over 10 Vias any day. It is a bit like saying the whole world is going Linux, look at X, Y, Z and D. All those engineers chose Linux, but not Microsoft. I'll stick with 1 Microsoft and 1 Intel anyday. Peace (as one might say in their more hippyish days) Tinker I look forward to more of that brilliant insight such as: "BWAHAHAHAHA!!!";) I look forward to more Rambus "defalsification" and just how they hoodwinked Intel's best engineers. BTW/have your heard of any RDRAM recalls? Seems Samsung had to recall some DDR the other day.

To: Bilow who wrote (75401)	7/7/2001 9:20:16 PM
From: gnuman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Actually, RDRAM has far worse EMI problems. The reason is simple, they're at much higher speeds. That's why RDRAM traces have to be provided with ground traces between the signal traces,...... Strip or micro-strip transmission line is well known as an effective method of controlling EMI on a PCB. The long RSL lengths require ground traces between to minimize cross-talk, not EMI. In other words, RlDRAM takes data at 3x the speed of DDR, but using traces that are 3.33x as wide. Now do you get it? The RSL trace is only 18 mil's wide. Whether the signal frequencies are 133MHz or 400Mhz isn't as important as the edge transition rate, amplitude and characteristics of the trace. The use of a current source into a properly terminated low impedance strip or micro-strip line generates very low emission levels since they are primarily in the TEM mode. JMO's and no p***ing contest. <G>