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 : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: wanna_bmw who wrote (73810)	3/7/2002 1:26:17 AM
From: THE WATSONYOUTH	Respond to of 275872

Therefore, what's wrong with the explanation that, between the months of May and January of the following year, it suddenly dawned on Intel management that RDRAM wouldn't hit the levels of commodity pricing needed to open an entryway into the mainstream market for Pentium 4, From the 11/17 article an Intel hack is quoted as saying "RDRAM will continue to be our high-performance memory solution for the foreseeable future," said Austin. "DDR does not have the road map to the performance RDRAM will deliver." . Then on Jan 19 Otellini, senior vice president and general manager of the Intel Architecture group, told analysts earlier this week that Brookdale for Pentium 4 will transition to DDR SDRAM "as fast as we can get it out." So... the foreseeable future for Intel is less than 2 months. I think your position on this issue is simply not credible. I believe Intel was lying thru their teeth in May,in Nov, and right up to their revelation in Jan. It's the Intel way. THE WATSONYOUTH

To: wanna_bmw who wrote (73810)	3/7/2002 1:43:12 AM
From: Joe NYC	Respond to of 275872

wbmw, If you look at the quote you linked to, you'll see that Burns never denied SDRAM being on the roadmap. He only said that his* roadmap did not include DDR.* Parsing the lines, looking for direct quotes only cop out? How about the title of the article: Intel commits to using only Rambus with upcoming Tehama chip set. Don't you think that this Louis Burns character read the article, and has an obligation to call back the author and correct him? The article is based on an interview with him. If the article has a title, and conclusions that are 180 degree opposite to reality, there is a certain obligation on part of this Intel executive giving the interview and Intel corporation to ask the author to correct it? (BTW, it looks like we are going through the same mental somersaults as yesterday, when you claimed the Register article said the opposite of what it really said) 5/9/2000 - Intel says DDR is not on the roadmap. 11/17/2000 - Doubts come up about the future of RDRAM. 1/19/2001 - Intel previews Brookdale, and mentions DDR. The sequence is just too fast IMO. Correct 5/9/2000 - Intel says SDR or DDR not on the roadmap. 11/17/2000 - Doubts come up about the future of RDRAM. 1/19/2001 - Intel previews Brookdale, and mentions DDR. Add 7/2/2001 - Tom has the first look at 845. Joe