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: MemoryExpert who wrote (5141)	6/26/1998 9:56:00 AM
From: UFGator93	Respond to of 93625

MemEx, Thanks for sharing your views with the rest of us. If what you say about the management of RAMBUS and DRAM is true, that's pretty astounding. A few semesters in EE course work and one should know memory architecture very well. It's not all that complicated, after all. I'm short, so it's actually a good thing as far as I'm concerned. Damon

To: MemoryExpert who wrote (5141)	6/26/1998 10:12:00 AM
From: Shibumi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Obviously you have an enormous amount of confidence in your opinion; thank you for sharing it. As I can, I will attempt to post several responses concerning points you raise in your note. The first... >>In contrast with the competence of MOSAID, after meeting all the main players in RAMBUS, I was astounded that not one seemed to know anything whatsoever about a DRAM. I was asked to explain how a DRAM worked, and had to show them how each of the current DRAMs operate. This was astounding: after all, this is public information that every engineer should be able to recite in his sleep. If RAMBUS could not design even the simplest circuit using a standard DRAM, how could they develop the next generation?<< Fascinating. I know several of the players in Rambus -- I've worked with them over the last 15 years or so in the computer industry. The folks I know have designed large microprocessor-based servers from the processor/memory bus up -- designing their own ASIC's to implement very high multiprocessor processor/memory interfaces. You might want to consider, if the folks at Rambus seemed so ignorant to you, that one common technique used in the technical community when you run across someone you feel is arrogant without the corresponding technical depth to back it up is to "sit back, ask basic questions, and let him make a fool of himself". A more benign explanation may be that the folks you were talking to are primarily analog engineers. When you start talking about very high speed digital devices, you need to run increasingly into analog problems (as a memory expert, I'm sure you realize this). Much of the intellectual property of the company is focused upon solutions to digital/analog crossover (no pun intended -- techie joke) issues. >>Also the real speeds in a PC environment are much lower than the headline speeds RAMBUS report due to the large overhead RDRAM carry - there is lots of control for graphics applications, but PCs just want to dump cache data as separate 8 byte blocks, so do not need any of the bit manipulation and masking overhead in RDRAM.<< I'm translating this statement to read "microprocessor primary caches are currently designed to do smaller data transfers -- RDRAM is optimized for larger data transfers". Of course, you might ask yourself just why microprocessor caches are designed this way. The answer, of course, lies in matching the microprocessor bandwidth with the memory bandwidth. In either tenured or non-tenured bus systems, you have to make sure that you don't introduce so much latency between the primary cache and the memory that a cache miss on an instruction execution causes too much of a stall. To put this another way, at Intel they have these great software simulators that they run software through. They can change parameters on these software simulators such that they can increase or decrease processor speed, memory speed, cache line size, and an enormous number of variables. A large part of the architects job is selecting the best possible combination of these given various workloads. What you're seeing from Intel is frustration that they're increasing microprocessor performance every 18 months, but that DRAM performance is increasing on a much, much slower scale. This is one of the factors limiting Intel's ability to maintain very high gross margins by selling very highly priced upper end high-frequency microprocessors. Anyway, thanks for posting. I'm long on Rambus (I'm a long-term investor) and am positive on all of the things you mention as you are negative. My longer term concern with the company lies beyond the PC and the DRAM market, e.g., just what is Matsushita planning to do in the consumer arena with Rambus technology?

To: MemoryExpert who wrote (5141)	6/26/1998 10:31:00 AM
From: Rachel M. Kuecks	Respond to of 93625

Just a note on volume. Nasdaq volume will be reported as about twice the NYSE/AMEX volume because it is not an auction market (there is a middle man between the buyer and the seller which makes for two trades). Still the volume was huge given the reported float but about half the turnover you suggested.

To: MemoryExpert who wrote (5141)	6/26/1998 10:43:00 AM
From: Shibumi	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 93625

More on a response to your post: >>The profit in a PC is really split between these two pieces of silicon, the processor and memory: If you take away the overheads of a monitor and the minor bits and pieces (things that are cheap: mouse, keyboard, case, PSU, video card, sound card), then it really is simply a profit split between Intel and the memory makers. This is cyclic: at the moment Intel have the lion's share of the profit, and in 1995 the memory makers had the share. In 2000 the memory makers look as if they will be ahead again, hence Intel's interest in LG.<< Certainly DRAM as a commodity is subject to rather extreme "boom and bust" cycles. The current lack of profits in the DRAM business are simple to explain and subject to precisely the same phenomenon as the current lack of profits in the oil industry -- too much supply and not enough demand. I take it that you are positing that there will be a much greater demand (or much lower supply, or both) in the year 2000 for DRAM -- I'd love to get you to lay out precisely and quantitatively your reasoning and compare that with the SIA. In any case, you seem to be ignoring the concept of intellectual property. Intel has some, the DRAM vendors at the moment have comparatively little, there is little differentation for DRAM, etc. Your ignoring this may come about because you are such a "memory expert" -- after all, whatever money people can make from DRAM over the years have been in the realm of process engineering -- relatively little design engineering has helped (see Micron back when it was so successful). Let me take a theoretical, Machiavellan, viewpoint on Intel's interest in LG. Intel badly wants Rambus to succeed. Why? Well, one above-board reason is that they badly need 10X or more faster memory such that their faster processors can shine. A not so obvious reason is that Rambus currently plans to charge 4% royalties on microprocessor vendors (e.g., AMD, National, IDT, etc.). Because Intel has up-front agreements with Rambus, it has decreased its competitors margins by at least 4% in one fell stroke if Rambus is universally adopted. Leveraging an equity investment into increased Rambus committment might make a great deal of sense to Intel. Of course, this is just theory. Intel could be buying LG equity for the same reason most U.S. companies are currently trying to shop in SEA -- there are just some great deals over there.

To: MemoryExpert who wrote (5141)	6/26/1998 11:02:00 AM
From: Estephen	Respond to of 93625

memoryexpert, there's so much bull sh@*! on this thread from shorts, I can't hardly read it anymore.

To: MemoryExpert who wrote (5141)	6/26/1998 11:10:00 AM
From: MileHigh	Respond to of 93625

Gosh, the thread must be hitting a low... First, MemoryExpert just taught me how to Cut and Paste...<g> and now he is going to give us a daily update on what he thinks RMBS value is, let me guess, not much in his opinion... And as far as all the other mindless chatter, sometimes I feel like responding, but it is not even worth my time.... Regards, MileHigh

To: MemoryExpert who wrote (5141)	6/26/1998 11:51:00 AM
From: Gary Ku	Respond to of 93625

Thanks a million for your insightful view. With your message so nicely, the bulls here won't get burned too bad who bought at the highs.

To: MemoryExpert who wrote (5141)	6/27/1998 8:31:00 AM
From: Jack Mills	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Thanks for your comments most of which was over my head to be honest with you. I love to invest in great new Idea's. All of last year Rambus never got to 9 dollars now CPQ, and DELL said its going in their Computers in 1999 and little Intel owning what 28% of the company my money is on Rambus, and this other company you talk about I never heard of it. Not to say I heard of all companies cause I haven't, but thanks for the information. I still like my Rambus and I do have the time and Patiences to see if your right or I'm right again. Jack