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 (75417)	7/9/2001 9:46:41 PM
From: tinkershaw	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 93625

Now, since Intel decided to support DDR, do you have a similar article explaining how it was that TeamDDR hoodwinked Intel? Bilow, really. Intel has one, one, one, desktop CPU on its roadmap, and it has been stated as an interim solution at best, a solution not due out until 2002 and one that utilizes DDR 1600. Not much to place your hat on. But any port in a storm I suppose. Now, if, if, IF, for some reason consumer out cry is so great that they demand DDR, DDR, DDR, and INTC moves 845s like there is no tomorrow while RDRAM 850s et al, remain on the shelves, then indeed DDR may have new life and a chance on the desktop. But that really seems to be its only choice. I'd also like to know how the following companies got hoodwinked into designing chips that use DDR: AMD Intel VIA SiS ServerWorks IBM, et al. As for the other vendors, who cares. Except for a nVidia who are innovators in niche markets, like graphic cards, or ServerWorks, an innovator in servers; a market by the way that Intel thinks DDR may do very well in. Except for the niche players these companies are all followers. The only way they sell product is to follow Intel and then try to undercut it. What we are primarily talking about here is the desktop market. Intel is the clear innovator on the desktop, the rest of the industry follow. For AMD DDR was an easy decision, it made Intel's pioneering move to RDRAM harder and it enabled AMD to take a crack at Intel while it was vulnerable during an architectural change. It had little to do with product but with strategic marketing decisions from AMD's perspective. This is what monkeys like AMD do. It never works in the long-run, and doesn't look like it will work in the long-run this time due to the above .13 production technique problems and the restating, again, of the AMD product launch windows and roadmap. BTW/ in regard to networking. I have heard of at least one company (Level 3 I believe or the one that Intel bought whichever networking company that was) specify that they first considered RDRAM as the solution but understood that there may be difficulty in obtaining sufficient supply. This company's choice was therefore made not because of a preferred technology but a fear of not obtaining enough supply. I would suppose because Intel told them that all RDRAM would go first to the desktop fearing itself a shortage and thus another technology (not DDR but some sort of embedded DRAM was chosen for the task). Not all decisions are made from a strict engineering perspective. Different companies, different positioning, different needs. But I am indeed of good mood to see this argument becoming your mainstay. It truly means, that if this is the best you can do, that things really are going the RDRAM way. Tinker