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 (44285)	7/13/2001 3:54:14 PM
From: tinkershaw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

"820 was not [optimized] for RDRAM." The i820 was _designed_ for RDRAM exclusively. I wonder how can you argue that it was not "optimized" for RDRAM... Straight answers are preferred :) Ali, This is why trying to get the true story on Rambus is so difficult, even when you know you are wrong you still act as "what, what, it was optimized." YEah, right. The 820 had a 133 mhz bus, a bus that starved RDRAM and was a total mismatch. The 820 was put out there to start the ramp process. Compare that to the P4 that has a 400 mhz bus that is optimized for RDRAM. It would be a whole lot easier to discuss the company if when your point is blatantly wrong you admit such and discuss both the strong and weak points of both technologies, value chains, products, etc. When I see something wrong with Rambus I don't hesitate to say so. Unfortuantely this is not the case for those who seem to have a personal vendetta and personal hatred against Rambus. Whether you think it is a good investment or not, gorilla candidate or not, dismissing the 133 mhz bus as "what it is optimized" is as disingenuous as anything I have ever heard on this board. Tinker