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 : Micron Only Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: eabDad who wrote (42283)	1/16/1999 9:13:00 AM
From: Carl R.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 53903

I don't disagree with you about the questions for RDRAM. Obviously the market is re-evaluating TER due to the RDRAM ramp up, and that is good for me. As for the die size issues, where does your data come from? Mine comes from the MU conference calls. In them, MU stated that most people may see a smaller die size penalty like 10-15%, but that those who were already very efficient in the use of silicon real-estate (like MU) would see a larger penalty, more like 25%. They further stated that they expected that including packaging, RDRAM costs would be 50% higher, not the 30% you cite. I'm not saying you're wrong, just asking what your source is. Is it coming from other DRAM makers? As for who will pay the penalty, remember that DELL was the first to implement SDRAM, and sold a lot of computers at a higher price than the competition based on having SDRAM in all computers (even though SDRAM provided little measurable benefit in computers with burst cache). With a 50% penalty, 128MB of SDRAM will cost maybe $75 more, and with a 30% penalty the difference will be more like $50. Who will ultimately decide if RDRAM is successful? The market! If consumers and businesses are willing to pay $100-200 more for a computer with RDRAM, RDRAM will be a success. Will they? I don't know. I am pretty sure that when you factor in that cache hit rates are over 90%, the difference in performance of an RDRAM system over an SDRAM system will be barely measurable, if at all, for most applications. But that was true of SDRAM as well, yet consumers demanded SDRAM. So we will just have to see how it plays out. My guess is that RDRAM will be used in some high end workstation systems and on a few servers, but not the lower end systems. But it's only a guess. Thanks for your informative posts, Carl

To: eabDad who wrote (42283)	1/16/1999 10:02:00 AM
From: Chas	Respond to of 53903

I think most suppliers strategy is to accelerate getting the 128M based versions into high vol. production this year.This will hellp keep this premium down. The 64M version like you indicated does cost more in penality. The performance gains will be worth the 30-40 % premium I think, at least I would be willing to pay it. These are going to be high perf systems in 99 for the most part not consumer cheapies, so these customers who like the high perf are wanting bigger faster etc. and willing to pay more for it. Since DRAM has been only 6-7% of the overall system price tag, I dont think it will impact the overall cost that much. The synergy between Intel Rambus the memory suppliers and the PC companies is such that it will be a success. Good trading.