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: REH who wrote (7616)	9/29/1998 11:53:00 PM
From: Boplicity	Respond to of 93625

Thanks, It's enough to make one cry for joy if it happens like that spread sheet has it laid out. Much could happen in the mean time, to derail RMBS, but as of now, piles and piles of bucks will be coming in. Greg

To: REH who wrote (7616)	9/30/1998
From: Joe Senesac	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Have any of you run across the following article at Tom's hardware Guide? I have been a Rambus shareholder and made a bit of money on the stock, but I still question the technology. It is clear to me that Intel is adopting this, but for reasons other than it will solve memory speed problems. It is confusing that Intel which seems to have in the past made decisions based on technology now is making more decisions based on marketing and such (this and Celeron spring to mind). Performance Impact of Rambus Created: August 14, 1998 By Bert McComas Introduction Rambus is a very hot topic. Intel has been promoting Rambus as the new memory standard since late 1996. Now, eighteen months later a few DRAM manufacturers have prototype silicon in hand. Because it uses a completely new interface, Rambus requires a whole new generation of chip sets. Intel's Rambus platform is targeted for mid 1999 using the Katmai processor. Because of the risks associated with Rambus, we also expect that Intel willoffer a Katmai platform using a BX-like chip set supporting SDRAM at the same time. Isn't Rambus going to be really fast? Remember, there are two kinds of fast – low latency and high bandwidth. Rambus offers extremely high bandwidth, but has slower latency than even standard SDRAM. Its slower latency will compromise CPU performance, but its higher bandwidth exceeds the ability of the CPU to use. This does not translate to "fast". Doesn't Rambus run at 800MHz? It is described as 800MHz DRAM, but the bus actually runs at a 400MHz clock with a double data rate approach like AGP and DDR SDRAM. In order to hit this clock speed, the bus width had to be reduced by 75%. At 16 bits wide, it is not wide enough to issue commands to the DRAM in the standard manner. It must packetize and serialize the commands and data between the controller and the DRAM chip. This adds delays in the path between the chip set and DRAM, resulting in slower access latency. What is "Fake Rambus"? Because of the uncertainty of Rambus, Intel is developing a version of the Rambus Memory Module that doesn't use Rambus DRAM at all. It uses SDRAM. This type of module may be cheaper and easier to get than "Real Rambus", but its performance will be even worse than Rambus. Each module will have an additional translator chip that increases latency further, making fake Rambus probably the slowest high speed memory on Earth. Intel may even use "Fake Rambus" to demonstrate how Rambus is faster than SDRAM. Don't fall for it. Can ultra high bandwidth make up for poor latency? Not really. Apply a little psychology to the question. First, mess up by being slow to deliver what the CPU requires, then try to make up for it by offering the CPU data that it may not be able to use - faster than it can accept it. Sounds like something men do when they forget their anniversary or wife's birthday. It doesn't work in relationships, or in PC architecture. If you read the article "Bandwidth vs. Latency" posted here a few weeks ago, you may recall a chart that shows how the performance profile of the CPU, peak burst bandwidth and DRAM latency have progressively been getting out of balance. The Katmai/Rambus platform of 1999 is even worse in this respect. Intel seems to prefer to fix the part that is not broken, while further degrading the performance attributes that most desperately need attention. For the full context of this analysis please see the article "Bandwidth vs. Latency". This article will focus almost entirely on Rambus performance issues. But, there are several other barriers that the OEM and user will face if they choose to adopt Rambus. We should expect Rambus to be rather expensive. It has a large die and a new and expensive packaging technology. It burns a lot of power and introduces new challenges regarding cooling and power management. For the first six months of its life, Rambus platforms will not be able to support a memory capacity of more than 256MB. This seems more like the minimum configuration for a 500MHz Katmai platform, not the maximum. These and other issues will be covered in future articles. For now, lets dive in to the performance analysis.

To: REH who wrote (7616)	9/30/1998 7:39:00 AM
From: REH	Respond to of 93625

ASIANET - SUMMARY FOR TUESDAY, SEPT 29, 1998 Kingston Technology Company today announced the shipment of more than one hundred 64- and 128-MB Direct Rambus memory modules, or RIMMs, to Semiconductor Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) and industry technology partners during the month of September. Direct Rambus memory modules represent the next-generation of memory technology which will be key for high performance desktops, servers, workstations and portable systems based on Intel processors. Direct Rambus RIMMs will provide a bandwidth of 1.6 Gigabytes per second link: quoteserver.dogpile.com