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.

Pastimes : Ask Mohan about the Market -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bilow who wrote (10555)	12/9/1997 7:44:00 AM
From: Mike da bear	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 18056

>>Problem (2) When we actually get to system on a chip, the >>RMBS spec is no longer needed at all. The whole purpose >>of the RMBS spec is to reduce the number of pins required >>to interface to a DRAM, while increasing speed through >>those pins. On a chip, neither of these is an issue. This is right on. As a designer of system on a chip I agree. In a system on a chip design the DRAM data path width can be 64 bits, no muxing of addr/data needed since I/O count is not an issue. Therefore, RMBS can't take advantage of system on a chip designs. But RMBS concept can be used with advanced CPUs where the DRAM is a seperate chip. The concept is good, but will DRAM mfgr's get together and write a spec for a protocol which is nearly as good but would save the license fees? This can't happen if Intel designs in RMBS interface. DRAM mfgrs will have to license RMBS as a minimum to "claim they are RMBS compatible". How much of RMBS does intel own? Maybe this is just another way for intel to get more $$ on each PC sold. Lots of rambling.... IMO it's difficult to put a value on this company. mdb