Slashdot Mirror

Rambus analyzed Intel's in-CPU RNG implementation about 5 years ago and found it to be very robust, FWIW: http://www.rambus.com/wp-conte...

>In computers, "random number generators" are often only pseudo-random, and are in fact deterministic.

Unless they are the ones commonly found in every modern CPU, which include an entropy source.
E.G:
Intel : http://www.rambus.com/wp-conte...
VIA : http://www.rambus.com/wp-conte...
Many Arm Socs: https://community.arm.com/mana...

>In computers, "random number generators" are often only pseudo-random, and are in fact deterministic.

Unless they are the ones commonly found in every modern CPU, which include an entropy source.
E.G:
Intel : http://www.rambus.com/wp-conte...
VIA : http://www.rambus.com/wp-conte...
Many Arm Socs: https://community.arm.com/mana...

Forgot about this, but CRI might have some tricks up their sleeve. They MIGHT have the ability to DPA the AES engine if Apple didn't license their countermeasures - http://www.rambus.com/security...

They did not manufacture RAM at any point in time. What you have was made by a licensee.

Rambus has a 2:1 lawyer to engineer ratio (they did 2-3 years ago), which skews them towards patent troll ;)

No, the fact they are now into LED lighting skews them towards money hungry jewclub.

And i suppose that you are some kind of Germanic super-engineer who's been in hiding since the war ended in 1945?

Rambus has a 2:1 lawyer to engineer ratio (they did 2-3 years ago), which skews them towards patent troll ;)

No, the fact they are now into LED lighting skews them towards money hungry jewclub.

In the past 10 years, the most notable patent lawsuits were:

SCO vs. Linux - After hundreds of millions of dollars were blown away in lawyers legal fees, the judge rules that Linux didn't infringe on SCO's intellectual property. Best site for news here is Groklaw

3Dfx vs. Nvidia - 3dfx lost and merged into Nvidia

Rambus vs. Hynix vs Micron Technology vs. Infineon Technologies vs. Siemens AG. vs. Samsung

Rambus seemed to be suing just about everyone, and everyone else was countersuing Rambus and each other. Legal letters seem to be flying around like chairs in a Saturday night bar fight.

Hynix to pay Rambus $379 million in patent dispute

A complete list of legal updates provided by Rambus

Micron vs. Rambus

Although it does seem better to settle all patent disputes with cross-licensing as soon as possible, rather than slogging it out into bankruptcy

Rambus and Infineon settle patent dispute

Considering that Rambus is still around and they obviously haven't been selling RDRAM, are they still relevant in the consumer market place for memory?

The only products listed on their website are:
# XDR
# DDR
# RDRAM
# Custom Solutions

From their press releases, XDR seems like the only thing they're really selling.

Are you nuts? Sorry but I had to ask it.

Memory on PS3 makes it state of the art. It is some maniacal configuration RDRAM (yes, Rambus) configuration which doesn't exist except some custom workstations.

256MB XDR Main RAM @3.2GHz
Main RAM -- 25.6GB/s
http://www.rambus.com/us/products/xdr_xdr2/

This is the memory archi making cell suck? Also your 100 million playstations running folding@home needing to build powerplants really shows some troll signs.

Yes, people choose to run folding@home, a VALID STANFORD PROJECT on their personal PCs instead of idling them. Live with it.

Nobody runs their PC or workstation ONLY for folding, they run folding WHILE PC runs. Very different.

I got a Quad G5 and while I use it for browsing, e-mail , my CPU usage is down to 3% levels. So, I run folding@home which runs in those idle cycles. Power saving? I run a 8000 BTU air conditioner here for my own comfort, THAT is the power waster for you.

CPU and Memory suck? OMG man, you know that device defaults to 1080p HDTV 3d and Dolby Digital sound yes?

I guessing Hynix will settle and if they do, why not a payment plan? The doubling of RAM cost after the earthquate was due to capacity. That is the supply side of the equation? IFX has already settled with Rambus. Did anybody notice a price increase? As follows is a little slice from an order from Judge Whyte today: "the cases involving the various parties cry out for a business resolution and the sooner matters which have been heard are decided the sooner the parties will be informed where they stand so hopefully they can intelligently evaluate their respective positions and resolve their disputes before further evidentiary proceedings occur" Rambus defeated Hynix's big defense (here is a link to Judge Whyte's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law http://investor.rambus.com/downloads/Uncleanhandsp df.pdf) and Rambus already has several summary judgments of infringment against Hynix. The next phase is to determine if Hynix infringed further and then the damages for the infringment. Judge Whyte is telling the infringers to get out their check books and cut a deal with Rambus because you won't like the deal I will give you. If the bad actors don't settle and the price of RAM climbs because they end up having to pay treble damages, anger should be directed at the bad actors - thieves, not Rambus.

Rambus died a fairly quick and ignomius death.

I can see Blackberry and Microsoft and Palm all forming a coalition to sue NTP into oblivion, since presumably the palm treo and even the smart phones made by motorola and others violate some aspects of NTPs patents, which sound overly broad.

It's obvious the US patent system is broken.

XDR is a Rambus technology. This doesn't make the PS3 evil by association imho, Sony chose the technology, they weren't forced by patent lawyers to use it.

Hmm, Rambus)?

SCNR...

Here is the official patent from the USPTO. It was originally filed in 1998, but IC's have been around much longer than that, so I'm sure there's some prior art somewhere. This next quote could almost have come from the depths of the SCO complex:

"'Our Main focus is the IP [intellectual property] business now,'" he [CEO Jeff Wallin] said."

Kinda sounds like Rambus and look where they've gone.

Amigori

SCO knows that without the lawsuits they have a losing business model. If you can't beat 'em, sue 'em, and hope that 1)One of the charges stick, or 2)Somebody buys you out.

This isn't the first time that someone has tried this.

Why is RDRAM a bad thing for computer users? I think promoting better technology is a good thing for users. If people promoted the better technology instead of the cheaper one, companies couldn't dump their obsolete products on the market in order to decrease sales of the better technology. If people bought a product based on its quality, we would have things like organic LED displays instead of truly obsolete LCD screens and CRT monitors.

I don't know where to stand on the issue of who had prior art, but I have talked to people on both sides and they seem to both have valid arguments. I don't believe any of the companies involved are boyscouts. What I am interseted in is which is the better technology. Obviously, if you look at the specs of Rambus, you will see that although DDR 266 is just a lower stepping of PC133 Ram and the bus is double-pumped. Rambus, on the other hand, has a lot more going for it. Its bus has less traces and allows you to more easily have more than one channel. It is also capable of shutting off portions of itself not in use.

If you look at a Tom's Hardware article It mentions that there is a limitation with using parallel designs due to uncontrolled impedence.

Not to mention that memory benchmarks available on many sites show that DDR can't continiously maintian its bandwidth like Rambus can. Instead, its bandwidth is spurty.

Also, Rambus has many new things on the backburner.

Rambus memory has also become much cheaper. I believe in leaving the decision of whether or not
Rambus infringed on patents to the courts and going for what is the best technology so you can give it a boost. What holds back RDRAM in terms of price is that there isn't enough being sold.

Why is RDRAM a bad thing for computer users? I think promoting better technology is a good thing for users. If people promoted the better technology instead of the cheaper one, companies couldn't dump their obsolete products on the market in order to decrease sales of the better technology. If people bought a product based on its quality, we would have things like organic LED displays instead of truly obsolete LCD screens and CRT monitors.

I don't know where to stand on the issue of who had prior art, but I have talked to people on both sides and they seem to both have valid arguments. I don't believe any of the companies involved are boyscouts. What I am interseted in is which is the better technology. Obviously, if you look at the specs of Rambus, you will see that although DDR 266 is just a lower stepping of PC133 Ram and the bus is double-pumped. Rambus, on the other hand, has a lot more going for it. Its bus has less traces and allows you to more easily have more than one channel. It is also capable of shutting off portions of itself not in use.

If you look at a Tom's Hardware article It mentions that there is a limitation with using parallel designs due to uncontrolled impedence.

Not to mention that memory benchmarks available on many sites show that DDR can't continiously maintian its bandwidth like Rambus can. Instead, its bandwidth is spurty.

Also, Rambus has many new things on the backburner.

Rambus memory has also become much cheaper. I believe in leaving the decision of whether or not
Rambus infringed on patents to the courts and going for what is the best technology so you can give it a boost. What holds back RDRAM in terms of price is that there isn't enough being sold.

Yellowstone

The PS3 Cell Processor

Many Slashdot readers are "liberal" or "left-leaning" and are opposed to the War on Drugs and drug laws in general. If you don't like the government telling you what you can and cannot put in your body, why are you so eager to have the government tell you what it thinks the best and worst products are? Let the private sector handle this.

An excellent point, my "conservative" or "right-leaning" friend!

I, for one, trust the private sector to make important standards decisions in a just and unbiased manner. I know that can count on private enterprise to interact with the public an an open and honest fashion, and think that your average board of directors has a much better handle on what's going on with their company than some hare-brained committee of bureaucrats has over some bloated, complex government scheme.

Besides, I don't want such important things left up to some government agency that could disappear from the face of the planet in an instant--no, thank you, I'll take private enterprise any day. They're really looking out for what's best for me.

...perhaps we should look to Europe for examples of how to do things properly...

The best part of this announcement at IDF was that Rambus was there, and was even a gold sponsor. "Come see our ultra permorming RDRAM in action at our booth...ccchh This is the CEO of Intel, we are dropping Rambus, thank you...DAMNIT!" http://www.rambus.com/company/events.html#idf

These new chips coming from AMD are nothing short of amazing. While Intel struggles with their attempts to force a slower, proprietary memory architecture on PC users and push a weaker processing architecture, AMD is leading the market and producing technology that is faster, more reliable, and cheaper.

Unfortunately for AMD, better technology often loses to superior marketing forces. Several of my friends went to work for Dell after graduation, and they told me that their employer is not going to be supporting these new AMD offerings out of allegiance to Intel. Dell (and many other manufacturers, such as Gateway) are afraid of Intel cutting them out of the loop when supplies are tight so they give AMD second-rate status or drop support altogether. The problem also exists that many customers buy Intel exclusively, despite its low performance/price ratio.

The future isn't nearly as bright for AMD and TMTA as it should be. If our government actually punished companies for anticompetitive practices, things would be different. Maybe in 2004 it will be a priority for the new administration. But I am not holding my breath.

~walter

A year ago, the Cube was being hyped like crazy. What happened?

______________________________

RDRAM is also known as Rambus-DRAM. Can't get much more nom-centric than that.

Except you can't buy "RAMBUS brand" RDRAM. I couldn't even find a link on rambus.com to any retailers selling RDRAM sticks themselves; the "Where to Buy" page mentions only systems that use Rambus memory.

A technology development company gains more credibility if it has a "house brand" of hardware. If Rambus wanted a credible claim on SDRAM technology (as opposed to a Lawsuit Company reputation), it could have sold "RAMBUS brand" DDR SDRAM.

If you read their latest earnings statement here, you'll notice something even more telling:

...no additional licenses for SDRAM-compatible ICs will be signed, that prices of RDRAMs will remain high compared to SDRAMs and that litigation and building costs will exceed the Company's plans.

They're perfectly aware that nobody else is going to license their chipsets, and they plan on suing anybody and everybody to make money.

"This release contains forward-looking statements regarding financial results for future periods. Actual results could differ materially. Among the factors which could cause results to differ materially is the possibility that the Pentium 4 and PlayStation2 ramps will be slower than expected, that shipment of Rambus ICs and other licensed products by Rambus licensees will be below forecast, that no additional licenses for SDRAM-compatible ICs will be signed, that prices of RDRAMs will remain high compared to SDRAMs and that litigation and building costs will exceed the Company's plans."

Sounds like Rambus might just take care of itself!

However, resistance to the tactics by Rambus, and testing that proves Rambus is inferior to DDR SDRAM, the entire Rambus concept has soured. Intel is stuck with either a dead elephant on its back, or a legal situation resulting in breach of contract (I'd root for the latter, since Rambus may die soon anyway). If you have something to say to Rambus, send it here. If you have something negative to say, don't flame; instead, explain why Rambus is inferior, and better yet, cite examples.

A self reply for the url of the benchmarking data: http://www.rambus.com/pr oducts/products_benchmark_840.html

I do not believe that RDRAM is still a first generation implementation, since they've been around for a long time. Check their history. Since they were founded, standard PC ram evolved from DRAM to EDO RAM to Synchronous DRAM and DDR SDRAM is just around the corner. Decide for yourself how Rambus has been progressing in 10 years compared to "normal" DRAM.

Is Sky Computer's SKYchannel an example of prior art that could be used to defeat Rambus patents?

SKYchannel is a packet-switched bus used to interconnect processing nodes and memory in Sky's multi-computers. I believe it has existed since 1995.

Ken Hendrickson N8KH

Everybody's favorite hardware source around here appears to be Tom's Hardware... my guess is that his whole experience with RDRAM is using Intel chipsets. Is it quite possible that Intel's way of implementing a RAC wasn't the best way? Much like Cyrix's attempts at x86 domination didn't pan out the way they would have hoped. Was x86 flawed, or was it just Cyrix's implementation of it? In the end, it's just a high-performance (if done right) spec that is going to make RMBS shareholders a lot of money.

Everybody's favorite hardware source around here appears to be Tom's Hardware... my guess is that his whole experience with RDRAM is using Intel chipsets. Is it quite possible that Intel's way of implementing a RAC wasn't the best way? Much like Cyrix's attempts at x86 domination didn't pan out the way they would have hoped. Was x86 flawed, or was it just Cyrix's implementation of it? In the end, it's just a high-performance (if done right) spec that is going to make RMBS shareholders a lot of money.

As I have noted in earlier, more detailed posts, like this one, this agreement is simply a classic example of the 'patent sharing' (not always entirely voluntary) that is standard practice within the Japanese patent system. I'm not saying that it is entirely innocuous -- much of the Japanese system of doing business could be framed in terms that would provoke extreme outrage from much of the Western geek community (and indeed the business community). However, I *am* saying that it is not only part of 'business as usual' today, but has been an element of the electronics industry, back before the first cheap (and shoddy) Japanese transistor radios -- i.e. all our lives! It's not a disturbing new trend, if anything, it's milder than it once was.

Yes, Rambus isn't Japanese -- but look at its list of partners (recently divided up, regrettably into separate pages for each technology)

This system has several major goals: preserving hierarchy and the Japanese business structure (which is very different than ours, with strong, almost monopolistic vertical integration, pan-industry consortia, and many intermediate layers of supernumary distributors), 'maintaining relationships' in the Japanese sense, perhaps most importantly allowing Japanese industrial development in the face of foreign patents (in the early decades).

It is an expression of their culture, which retains very significant feudal elements. It would be disruptive and disrespectful to expect them to instantly adopt *our* values, as if we had some intrinsic superiority. If they even attempted this, to a greater degree than MITI already does, it could massively disrupt their economy and society (e.g. the supernumary distributors are a major part of the economy and cannot be eliminated easily; also, their approach to lifetime career and company affiliation could not be more alien to Silicon valley, where even founders like Steven Jobs leave, compete, return, etc.)

_________________

See Rambus's RIMM design guide, section 8.2.1 "Mechanical Components - Heatspreader/Cover Reference Design". More info can be found on Intel's developer site, on the RIMM Module Reference Design page, under the section "Production Heat Spreader Reference Design".

Basically, RDRAM RIMMs give off a lot of heat, plus the heat is produced in a very small area. The aluminum covers are necessary to prevent hot spots. If you look at the figure 8-1 "Double-Sided RIMM Module Assembly-Exploded View", you'll see that the reference design calls for a thermal pad (Or thermal grease) between the heat spreader and the RDRAM chips.

This kind of RAM uses a narrower connection to the memory controller (typically 16bit) than tradionnal SDRAM (typically 64bit), but transmits data at a higher frequency (350MHz here), on both edges of the clock (hence PC700).

Though you get higher memory bandwidth (1.4GB/s here, versus 0.8GB/s for PC100 SDRAM) you must be aware that the memory latency is worse.

See Rambus, Inc's web site

Here's one article (April 9, 1999) announcing the 700MHz spec. It exists, just not in desktop quantities; AFAIK, it's only just reaching the OEMs for server integration...

Just so there's no confusion, Direct Rambus DRAM (RDRAM) is a completely different memory architecture from the stuff in a regular PC. That's why the speeds are orders of magnitude faster