Slashdot Mirror
Intel To Rambus: Long Walk, Short Pier
NightHwk writes: "A article here reports: "We made a big bet on Rambus and it did not work out," admitted Craig Barrett, Intel chief executive. "In retrospect, it was a mistake to be dependent on a third party for a technology that gates your performance." [...] "We hoped we were partners with a company that would concentrate on technology innovation rather than seeking to collect a toll from other companies," Barrett said.
"
If you look at Intel's use of Rambus in detail, you'll see that it's _BROKEN_ ! They do not directly connect the RDRAM to the processor, instead the processor is designed to communicate with non-RDRAM memory, then they need a separate chip (read the memory translation hub or MTH) to translate what the chip speaks to what RDRAM can understand and vice versa. This design just doesn't work. It eliminates all the reasons one would want to use rambus in the first place. Yes, Rambus ram has higher latency, but it more than makes up with it if you take into account the increased bandwith and the prefetching capabilities.
The bottom line is that Rambus RAM isn't a bad design. The Intel Engineers just don't know how to use it correctly. If they really wanted performance, they would have integrated the Rambus memory controller directly onto the chip... but I guess their engineers / designers either didn't think of this, or couldn't handle it. Now, instead of admiting their incompetence, they blame it on Rambus.
-Too Lazy to Register
Except that they already got royalty agreements with at least two major RAM manufacturers. They will continue to have an income until those contracts expire. If there were any justice, those contracts would be null and void.
But you can bet that not a single company will license one of their products in the future or give in to their legal crap.
But what about the PS2, which is based on Rambus? (isn't it?)
Hello little man. I will destroy you!
I just wonder if Intel, might be deeply, deeply fucked by their contracts with Rambus.
I was reading this page.
www.ugeek.com/procspec/blurb/archive072000.htm>
" I don't know what he's been smoking, but Intel is bound contractually not produce chipsets for memory that transfers data at over 1GB/second, like DDR. So, next year when everyone's after that hot new DDR, Intel will come out with a lame PC133 chipset for the Pentium 4, and we'll all be saddened by its performance.
---- End of Quote ----
This sounds pretty grim to me. Is it possible Intel may never catch up with AMD -- ever? That is if they've got some contract with Rambus to limit which way they go memory-wise? Looks like their options now are either to just cheat and do what they gotta' do, and then fight it in the courts down the line, pay Rambus a pile of cash to get out of this, muddle along, and perhaps fall further behind AMD, or maybe buy Rambus out.
http://junglevision.com -- Shamus for Gameboy
Never noticed their prices (I guess I never see them, only looking at the low end of the price scale for most things), but you're right about good products. Best Mac mouse I ever used was a Kensington.
From the article:
Intel was then confronted by the problem of chips that would allow cheaper memories to be used with its Rambus-only microprocessors. This led to the recall of about 1m PC boards earlier this year, and a profits warning related to the costs involved.
Hope Intel hurt good. They actually went out of their way to stop users from using less expensive chips? Assholes. Time to start looking hard at AMD.
"that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
Yes.
.
Very few people have been as vocal a critic of intel as I have. But after this statement, it shows an attitude of almost . . . human, humility.
Have our harsh anti-intel sentiments published on line finally gotten through to someone who makes decisions at intel? Are there really decent human beings in positions of power in corporate America?
I could only hope that Motorola can find enough grease for it's neck so they can pull their heads out of their asses as well. Otherwise, I might actually *sign* that OSXonIntel.com petition. .
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
I've read in a couple of places (Tom's perhaps? I don't recall) that there is *NO* difference between a P3 and a P3-xeon (unlike the very real difference in their P2 counterparts). If I understand correctly, the only purpose of a P3-xeon is the ability to upgrade computers with Slot-2 motherboards. But I can't confirm this.
Either that, or he figured out that his posting was going to be sid#25, and put in the link manually
Bad slashbot. Bad. Sit! Giggle!
Read the rest of this comment...
`ø,,ø`ø,,ø!
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Remember New Coke?
Was mich nicht umbringt macht mich hungrig.
Wraithmaster
www.wraithmaster.com -- Chicken soup for the spleen.
www.wraithmaster.com -- Chicken soup for the spleen.
"Naaarf!" --Pinky
I could have sworn what he really said was...
"It was a mistake to rely on Gates for performance"
Hmmm....
Mostly I hate them because I would guess that 80% of the people I have met who work for Intel are total assholes. I figure I have probably encountered about 100 Intel people - salespeople field apps types, marketing, designers, and management. Corporate arrogance seems to be the norm there.
-- All that's left of me, is slight insanity, whats on the right, I don't know. -- Bob Mould
Sheeesh. This is utter nonsense. The design is the opposite of what you say. The 820 chipset interfaces directly to RDRAM, but requires the intervention of the buggy MTH to interface to SDRAM.
That's why the 820 worked fine with RDRAM (as long as you didn't have more than 2 RIMMs), but was garbage when trying to use SDRAM.
Wraithmaster
www.wraithmaster.com -- Chicken soup for the spleen.
www.wraithmaster.com -- Chicken soup for the spleen.
"Naaarf!" --Pinky
. . . and I guess Apple will now license RAMBUS technology for Macintoshes.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Rambus multiplexes the heck out of everything, to get lower pin counts. Address selection involves sending a string of values accross the bus. Data comes back in a burst of values. To get even similar performance, the Rambus architecture has to run their narrower bus several times faster and faster parallel busses have more problems - their harder to synchronize, have higher energy emissions and hence potentially more cross-talk and they are subject to resonant interference at shorter distances. This last was the problem that tubed the Intel three-slot controllers. Rambus thought they were clever enough to work around these problems, which aparantly they weren't.
They also seem to have failed to find out the frequency of different memory access modes (burst sequntial vs. random, what lengths predominate etc.) in a typical system, so they produced a system tuned for long sequential data burst. This resulted in high latencies which kill Rambus performance in typical useage (though it should really fly in streaming applications).
Rambus has a long list of nasties. Any one of them might be annoying, but collectively they make the whole thing a house of cards. Issues:
There are other problems, but that's a good starting point.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
RAMBUS has gone for high frequencies: 800 MHz x 16bits = 1.6 GB/s peak. But 800 MHz isn't easy to design onto working PCBs. Tough enough on silicon dies, and mobo's had plenty of grief just getting to 100 MHz a few years ago. 800 is a big stepout.
Every trace has to be fully simulated, none of the usual cut'n'try. Can you say data-dependant crosstalk? Sure you can! Getting close to where you need to use wave-guide techniques.
The current slew rate (Amps/ns) to drive the traces is also proportionately higher, and it isn't easy to build such low ESR capacitance.
Just because you can run 100 MHz over 100m of clothesline (oops, I mean quality Cat5 cable) doesn't mean you can run 800 MHz over 10cm of traces. Balanced lines might help, but then you double the pincount.
...and pushed Intel off the pier to go "sleep with the proprietary hardware." IMHO, the entire Rambus-Intel deal turned into one of the largest incidents of extortion in the corporate world. Furthermore, due to Intel's contract with Rambus, they can't sue for damages; and we all know that Intel could've been doing much better things with the year that has passed since the Rambus deal. Instead of dicking around with the Rambus interface, they could've optimized the P3 and released the P4 in July. But it didn't happen this way, due to the gag orders and hush money shelled out by Rambus. The original 820 chipset was basically the Rambus chipset with a translator hub for SDRAM. Since the MTH wasn't perfect, the chipset bombed and Intel re-released the 820 only in Rambus form. Not since the 440BX has there been an Intel chipset that natively accepts SDRAM, and unless some action is taken against Rambus, things might stay that way for some time.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
Intel's contract with Rambus forces them to ship motherboards supporting Rambus DRAM... but it doesn't say HOW it has to support them.
Intel's chipset plans call for the inclusion of a separate memory bank that will make it possible to increase the performance of the chipset-embedded graphics core by adding graphics-only RAM to this special bank. The special bank will be Rambus, the main memory will be double data rate RAM.
The kicker is that NO ONE will EVER use the special slot. The embedded graphics core is dog slow, and only marginally less so with the dedicated RAM added.
Any one wanting more performance will mearly bypass the embedded core instead of actually using Rambus, but Intel will have shipped a motherboard with a Rambus interface, fulfilling their contractual obligation.
Tastes Like Chicken
Only embedded applications (like a Nintendo 64) use a direct interface with the RAM. It is not a good idea to create the memory interface directly on the CPU if you want third parties to be able to make motherboards (and chipsets too). You would have to have a chip for RDRAM and a chip for SDRAM, and possibly a chip for DDR-SDRAM, and they would not be interchangeable. Intel used the right implementation, but for the wrong technology.
A few years ago, I started to loose grip on PC's hardware architecture. I'm not able to understand it anymore, it seems really complex to me, RAM in particular.
My question is : is it because this particular hardware platform still has its roots in the original IBM PC and it has become unmanagable, or is it normal technological progress (i.e. it's more complex because it's more advanced)?
so does this mean ram prices are going to skyrocket? or level off
...Rambus, the company, doesn't want to improve memory technology anymore. That was their goal during the original design stages of Rambus; they have long since discarded that goal. Now, all that they want to do is sit back and watch their coffers get stuffed with accrued royalties and licensing fees.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
When you are talking about servers the p3 can only do dual processing, while the xeon can go to 4 or 8 way processing with the right chips sets.
no sig
Imagine that. Intel being partnered with a company that is only interested in the bottom line. For shame. Hey, waitaminute...that sounds like...Intel. (Points finger and laughs) HAHA...
-PARANOIA is fun. D20 is not fun. The Computer says so.
-The Computer
However, there is something of a silver lining for Intel. The company's investments in Micron and Samsung have produced a generous return as the shares have appreciated significantly in value.
I suspect this investment gain is not as rosey as this author is claiming it is.
That which does not kill me only makes me whinier
Rambus is able to run the bus much faster because they use a serial protocol, along with an interesting clocking scheme. They have lower pin counts than a parellel bus with equivalent bandwidth, but then you can have multiple rambus channels for an equivalent pin count and much higher bandwidth. Yes, there are signifigant pcb problems for such a tight bus, which is why the PC world isi probably not ready for rambus yet.
Does it actually make chips, or is it just an IP litigati... uh, design company?
Does my bum look big in this?
There's an analysis of this announcement on The Register, here
Short Summary: Intel might be regretting it now, but they're legally committed anyway...
--
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
Bill - aka taniwha
--
Bill - aka taniwha
--
Leave others their otherness. -- Aratak
In the immortal words of CaptKos, "You pay for the drive, or you pay for the media. This is always true.".
He was referring to tape drives at the time; I was commenting that DAT drives were expensive, but the tapes were much cheaper than their Travan counterparts. However, this really seems to be a truism in computing.
This is unlike cars, where high-end models typically require more expensive high octane fuel. Instead, think of laser printers that cost an arm and a leg but use dirt cheap toner, or the case of winmodems where you trade a cheap DSP for cycles from an expensive CPU.
It seems to almost never work out were the cheap solution is less expensive in the long run, except for SCSI vs. IDE and Intel's overpriced CPUs vs. cheap Athlons.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Well - atleast the CEO seems to be able to own up and say 'Yes we screwed up and yes we realise this', rather than the obfuscated search for a scape goat that most other companies seem to participate in these days. Hopefully this will be a trend for the future. Would be nice to hear more people admit blame and move on trying to change it than do everything they can do cover over mistakes.
Can't Intel theoretically release a P4 chip, chipset, motherboard, etc, for RDRAM, and then an otherwise identical solution, but otherwise call it PV with DDR-SDRAM support and maybe a few other goodies, and just flush Rambus down the toilet?
The nick is a joke! Really!
GPL Deconstructed
When was the last time a *large* company came out and said "We made a bone-head manuever. We really wish our partner would pull it's head out of it's anal passageways and stop trying to screw everybody else."??? Maybe I'm having short-term memory problems, but I can't think of a single time that a company has been this fothright about something that *big*. I'm still going to be buying a Duron, mind you (hell, it's on the way), but my opinion of Intel has just risen a couple notches. Kudo's to you!
Here is another article.
Basically saying the same thing as the financial times article, but also saying that intel is moving towards DDR.
Well, looks like Rambus did serve as a positive force after all. Because of Rambus, Intel has lost *serious* ground on the low-end processor front. Canceling Timna was a major setback and how long do we expect the Celeron line to last under increased pressure from dirt-cheap Athlons? Because of Intel's dalliance with Rambus, now AMD has a major boost in the low-end of the processor market. Couple that with the fact it isnt easy to overclock newer Celerons anymore and soon every PC under $1000 is gonna be AMD Inside :) Sure, Intel still owns the top end of the server market but its the low end that really matters. Cheap PC's are heading towards telephone status in terms of ubiquity - we aren't there yet by a longshot, but I think we are on that path.
Don't blame me - I voted for Howard Dean. http://dean2004.blogspot.com
The article failed to mention that Rambus is significantly inferior to DDR SDRAM. The industry isn't rejecting Rambus just because of price, its a price per performance ratio. Why pay more for Rambus its 5-15% slower than even pc133. Intel made a serious wrong turn. DDR SDRAM on an Athlon running linux will be the END of "Wintel" =^)
"I know where you wanted to go today, But we decided to stop here instead!"
Kensington just makes those expensive computer accessories which should be cheap.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
Personally, I'm looking forward to NVidia's chipset if they do actually make it. It would be the first non-VIA, natively-SDRAM chipset for an Intel processor since the 440BX.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
What, Intel can't release P4 with Rambus support, and then a quarter later, release the P5 with DDR-SDRAM support? Or the P4a?
The nick is a joke! Really!
GPL Deconstructed
...then use your SDRAM and be happy. If you want real performance, then you have to acknowledge the possibility that there are other computers besides Intel or AMD boxes. If you would put down Quake for long enough to learn how Rambus works and why it is superior for high-end machines, then you would know why it was chosen by companies like Alpha for their high-performance processors. Your little toy benchmarks don't matter to the part of the world that is buying Rambus right now.
I'm not saying that PC'ers should buy RDRAM (yet), but don't trash a technology that you don't understand.
Maybe a /. bug or something? I see a "Read the rest of this comment..." link that just pulls up the comment with the same link!
So, I'm guessing there were more bullet points there, but /. just doesn't want to show them to me! Maybe if I reconfigured my user preferences or something...but ISTR I've seen much longer comments on /. before a link like that in the past?
Oh well.
Practice random senselessness and act kind of beautiful.
Could you possibly have a word with the RIAA?... and the MPAA? and all the other assholes who think technology is a great way to fuck with us?
Fsck DeCSS! Lock 'n' Load!!
(To The FBI: JUST KIDDING!)
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
If EV7 does direct to RAM, then how does it write to the framebuffer or read from the ROM?
Bad Slashcode. Bad, BAD Slashcode! Sit! Stay.
--
Build a man a fire, and he's warm for a day.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Intel nailed their own butt to the wall with this one, the P4, so long as there is a Rambus, is exclusively (in so far as Intel brand motherboards and chipsets) RDRAM.
Probably the motive behind Barret's public pissing on Rambus is to discourage Rambus from pursuing these revenue sources which only hurt Intel (as Intel would rather not be doing the RDRAM dance.) Rambus hurts their patron at their own expense, as Intel should be moving millions of memory hungry boxes. Rambus wants to have their cake and eat it, too.
It could be interesting if Intel were to launch a legal salvo at Rambus. Something to the effect of working against Intel, bad faith, that sort of thing. Rambus may be able to withstand the assault from Micron and Infineon, but Intel would probably inflict a mortal wound. Perhaps the grumbling is meant as the warning growl of a bear, procede toward her cubs at your own peril.
--
Chief Frog Inspector
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
The fact that AMD got a boost and we have a more competitive CPU market is good.
Remember, however, it's competition that's good -- not AMD. Both AMD and INTL are publicly traded companies with responsibilities to nobody but their shareholders. The only reason they don't break the law is because the reprecussions would be bad for their shareholders. Intel has done some bullyish things, but who's to say AMD wouldn't in their place?
That being said, I'd still go with AMD right now since the price/performance is much better. I do look forward to Intel recovering from being RAMBUS's bitch and focusing on making good technology.
...considering their tactics lately, they're that stray mutt covered in mud that walks on and rolls around all over your Oriental rug. Definetly a mutt.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
That's how every company operates. Unfortunately, under the "safe harbor" clause "Under The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995", they're protected from litigation based on the statements. You can barely even say "N'yah, n'yah! I told you so!" without having their lawyers/liars knocking on your door.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
They have to support RAMBUS in the P4, but do they have to only support RAMBUS? I assume they can still support other memory technologies as well. Anyone know?
Oh yup - you're right there - with the name bit - wouldn't know about their peripherals bing overpriced though.
Matt Thompson - Actuality - Insert product here.
I work at CompUSA, so I really should know about this. However, I'm looking for another job (non-retail, preferably systems administration) before I end up going insane due to the retail mindset.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
QDR SRAM is not meant as a replacement for main memory. Like most SRAM, it's meant for high speed buffers, such as on a network router, hard drive, or (maybe) processor L2 cache (though it only runs at 200 MHz). SRAM is much more expensive and consumes much more power than DRAM, including DDR SDRAM and RDRAM.
DDD SRAM != DDR SDRAM. Read Ars Technica's RAM guide for a good description of the underlying differences in design between SRAM and SDRAM.
Also, you'll note that QDR SRAM does not violate the most contentious of Rambus Inc.'s patents because it's older SRAM technology, not SDRAM. They aren't really doing anything that new. All QDR SRAM is is double-ported DDR SRAM. All the information is there on the website you linked to.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
This is obviously some usage of the phrase ``In retrospect'' I was previously unaware of... Where I come from, ``In retrospect'' implies that it wasn't intuitively obvious in the first place.
Now, how long do you think it'll take Mr. Barrett to completely forget this fact?
Teach your kids: "C++ made baby Jesus cry."
The busness world has been long notable for their CYA practices. Why buy Dell when you can fabricate your own machines for less than 1/2 the price of the Dell machine? Well, if it screws up, then everybody else does the same thing... Same with Windoze, and Intel. Most folks would rather be in the crowd rather than in the right. Unfortunately for Intel, they are losing market share in Europe (especially Germany) to AMD. You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people most of the time, but sooner or later the truth will out.
"Windows is fairly widely used but we all know that it's not necessarily better..."
I'm going to nit-pick.
This statement depends on your definition of "better".
Like you said, it is quite possible that Rambus memory is better in the context of a Playstation 2, but that doesn't mean it is better in the context of a PC.
Similar concept goes along with Windows being better. To the majority of consumers who have bought it, it is better. Otherwise they would be buying competing products and Apple wouldn't be reporting slow sales.
"We apologize for making keyboards without the letter 'Q'. We're sorry. We're morons. We hear strange voices in our heads. I have broccoli in my socks."
Dilbert (to Dogbert): "Good writing."Dogbert: "Thanks."
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
A corporation putting money ahead of producing a good product? Can this be true? I am shocked, shocked to hear of such a thing! Certainly such craven behavior is unprecedented in the long and noble history of corporations, which as any fool knows, are given exceptional powers in the expectations that they will act in the public interest.
BTW, what ever happened to "Only the paranoid survive"? Andy Grove must be waking up his bunkermates with his barely strangled screams.
Alpha 21364 (EV7) uses a RDRAM controller on-chip. Of course, it is a ccNUMA machine, and therefore has a slightly different memory structure--which, you could argue, makes it easier to use a 'non-standard' interface to local memory.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
Note to Taco, Hemos et al: Please don't link articles from ft.com any more.
--
Build a man a fire, and he's warm for a day.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
You can't HAVE a direct to RAM interface on a computer system, since the address space is shared between RAM and peripherals. Try again.
In case anyone thinks that Intel backing away from Rambus is a sign they're becoming nice guys, read the above comment and the other responses to it closely: Intel is most likely backing away from Rambus for technical reasons, not because of the tollkeeper business model. Intel has realized that RDRAM will drive up design and manufacturing costs and thus make it much harder to price products competitively. What would happen to Apple's market share if X86-based PCs suddenly got significantly more expensive?
My guess is that Intel knew about the technical problems with RDRAM early on, but believed that as the technology matured, those problems could be eliminated - manufacturing costs would drop, and hardware designers would learn how to use the technology effectively. This belief turned out to be a mistake.
Barrett's rhetoric about Intel's disgruntlement with Rambus's IP strategy is just a cover story: By focusing on that issue, he hopes to draw attention away from the fact that Intel apparently made a faulty technical analysis when deciding to push RDRAM. A perception that Intel had made a technical mistake would be far more damaging to them than a perception that they had partnered with what turned out to be a pack of jerks.
None of you guys knows how Rambus performs because none of you have seen a decent implementation of it yet. Statements like "DDR SRAM is 5-15% faster than RDRAM' are patently false. The fact of the matter is that Rambus alleviates memory bandwidth bottlenecks which (although not yet a problem in your little PC) are already choking workstations and servers. Additionally, the myth is that the latency to RDRAM is exorbitant, and it isn't. There is some trade-off of latency for bandwidth, but with an on-chip controller, the latency to memory is pretty competitive; and, of-course, the bandwidth per-pin is much, much better than with DDR SDRAM. If you think that the performance of RDRAM is worse than SDRAM, then ask yourself why Alpha is using RDRAM in their flagship processor (EV7).
Intel sees AMD/Via/DDR overtaking them and they fear losing credibility in the market. Now suddenly they portray Rambus as the backstabbing partner and make them the fall guy for their own failed attempt to again bully the industry into a new Intel "standard". If RDRAM had taken off you would still see Intel hailing Rambus while turning the legal screws on their competitors.
Speaking as someone who actually has a an 815e (gigabyte) mobo, there's nought really wrong with them. you can just ignore the silly CNR thing, the on board video disappears as soon as you shove something better in, and the onboard sound is not too awful, and is easy to kill off. OK, so a BX board is theoretically faster, but it has to pop out of spec to run anything with a 133MHz bus, and it lacks the async memory clock of the 815. It may not be better than the BX, but the 815 does seem to be intel back to their old stanards for chipsets.
The trendy digerati world exemplified by Slashdot is anti-Intel/pro-AMD for the same reason they are anti-Microsoft/pro-Linux. They want to differentiate themselves from the "normal" consumer. Very few people outside of the digerati are anti-Intel, and are in fact quite pro-Intel (for example, compare INTC's market cap and P/E to AMD's).
Slashdot crashes my browser. Clealy a linux only site.
Gary
"Making linux GPL was the best thing I ever did" - Torvalds. I'd hate to see the worst thing...
It would be good for intel and rambus to part company completely....
The thing that irritates me about this article however, is that it implies that the rambus technology was actually somehow superior, or performed better. Superiority is a matter of opinion, it wasn't superior, just different. From a performance perspective however, it has been proven time and again, that the performance gains of rambus are negligable to negative, when compared to SDRAM... compared to DDR SDRAM will be a whole nother issue.
Old truckers never die, they just get a new peterbilt
Yes, this is really good news. Hopefully Intel will fix their chipset problems by q2-2001.
But the problem does remain, memory speeds are too slow now. The problem is going to be critical when machines starts shipping with >512meg ram. There is very little that cache can do to be effective.
Complements of a lead from "JC's", here is an interesting article about Intel and DDR. Rambus always impressed me as an idea looking for a problem. Given Intel's switcheroo, it may be a problem looking for a wastebasket.
And it forced the hand of the other players to bring DDR-SDRAM to market sooner.
"I have been around the world and found that only stupid people are breeding" -- Harvey Danger
Rambust reported a 9 cent quarter yesterday. With a street estimate of 47 cents for the year going forward, they are at a price/earnings of 150. With Intel going more and more to DDR, etc. and suits like Hyundai's, I wonder if that 47 cents isn't a bit on the optimistic side...
While I don't root for Intel, its good to see that they finally realized that they are riding a lame horse with this one...
When I learned that Rambus ran on a packet structure, steam poured forth from my ears. To hear that something as low-level as RAM was being tainted with yet another proprietary packet structure just made my decision for me: boycott Rambus.
Also, take into account that an SDRAM system without all the bells and whistles of Rambus runs faster anyway. I think that the Rambus strategy was just too weird to implement. Sure, a packet system for system memory might be good for server stability, but not at the performance hit that has been reported.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
Rambus not signing any more SDRAM licences, combined with estimated legal costs, suggests a couple things
They intend to shut off the license-revene spigot on certain technologies to push others(e.g. RDRAM
They are determined to self destruct through litigation the way Ashton-Tate did.
As much ire is directed at Rambus, I can't see the logic behind this. Ashton-Tate is relevant because they channeled resources into legal wrangling, rather than R&D and customer service. They failed, by putting all their eggs into one basket, a very wrong basket.
Rambus seems to be betting the farm on sales of RDRAM and winning suits against DDRAM manufacturers (Micron, Infineon, et al) By the time appeals have run their course Rambus will probably have borrowed deeply to continue litigation and have spent little on R&D or IP acquisitions. (I wouldn't sell my Patent;¹ to a company which looks lik they may never be able to pay royalties.)
;)
That is, assuming I was some evil scum with a patent
--
Chief Frog Inspector
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
i815, anyone?
Please don't swear in public. It's impolite.
I can really identify with you, so much.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
Really? Okay, that's kinda good to know. I say kinda because all of the 815 boards that I've seen look like they would go into an e-machines case. When I said "It would be the first non-VIA, natively-SDRAM chipset for an Intel processor since the 440BX", I meant on the same caliber as the 440BX, not some consumer-oriented board bombarded with a CNR slot and onboard sound/video.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
I guess this means that Intel will now use DDR SRAM for upcomming chipsets. And then possibly QDR SRAM
*drool*
--
Keep in mind that Intel still has contractual agreements that work in Rambus' favor, Rambus still has patent leverage over SDRAM makers, and Sony is still using RDRAM in the Playstation.
Rambus isn't dead yet, by a long shot. Their stock is actually up 8% this morning.
Its nice to see that Intel is realizing its mistakes. Perhaps they aren't quite the bumbling behemoth that we've seen them as for the last year or so. Realizing their mistakes is the first step, now they just have to remedy them.
The article makes a very proper assumption that Intel's partnership with Rambus has been a good part of its downfall. Its not enough that their processors are more expensive than their competitors', but if you pair that up with a system that is required to use Rambus RAM, the price of that system comes up quite a bit higher than its nearest AMD-equipped neighbor. No doubt if they had endorsed a more Open RAM standard such as DDR they would be in much better shape.
But its not only that, Rambus' lawsuit frenzy has shown badly on Intel as well, since they seemed to be the only one supporting the company in the entire industry. This is most likely why those other RAM companys signed up with Rambus to pay them royaltys--because they believed the Behemoth, Intel, wanted Rambus to be on top--and they didn't want to get on Intels bad side.
But the fact that Intels CEO has "badmouthed" Rambus shows that he may be more on top of the situation than we thought...and their may be hope for the future yet. Sure, its nice to see AMD catching up and giving Intel some definite competition, but I don't think any of us want to see them fall completely out of the race.
The only thing I wonder now is for the Pentium 4. The article states that they have an agreement to include "support" for Rambus with the processor...but does that mean that they cannot include support for other, better forms of ram, such as DDR? I suppose that will show how all of this will turn out.
In any case...this is a start.
-Julius X
-Julius X
remove "-whatkindofspamdoyoutakemefor-" from email to send
So it's sorta like DDR in that respect, right? Unfortunately, Rambus just isn't as adherent to accepted standards as DDR is. Who's going to be manufacturing DDR anyway? Rambus has been suing almost every IC company out there when they announce a plan for DDR.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
PC prices are dropping. More importantly is that for your dollar you get much more than you got last year, or the year before, etc. Memory is only one component, which Rambus seems intent on keeping the price high on, by demanding an IP license cut. The drops in CPU prices in the last month easily offset whatever Rambus is squeezing out of you for passed-on-to-the-consumer costs.
Don't, however, assume this will play the same for the P4 when it rolls out (assuming it can stay on track this once) Nov. 20th. Even with Intel cutting the initial prices for P4's and subsidizing PC makers (basically giving them the premium for using RDRAM, makes Intel look all the more foolish, eh?) they'll still be for the deep of pockets.
--
Chief Frog Inspector
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Thats actually rather interesting...
Alpha's aren't really concerned with price points, since they're expensive as shit anyway.
EV6 was a completely point to point protocal and i assume that EV7 will be as well. If the processer, bus, and man memory all use compatible point to point packet switching and addressing, you end up with an incredibly fast incredibly scalable platform for systems with lots and lots of processors...
Old truckers never die, they just get a new peterbilt
check this out
y hoolnk
. http://www.fool.com/news/2000/rmbs001019.htm?ref=
they got no worries.
Intel HAS to support rambus in the P4. But they're unhappy about it. Not true. The chipset determines what type of memory the CPU needs. However, since the P4 frontside bus is twice as fast as EV6, the >3GB/s of bandwidth has to come from somewhere, and RDRAM is the only technology that can support it.
---
Unto the land of the dead shalt thou be sent at last.
Surely thou shalt repent of thy cunning.
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
Intel/Rambus strategy: Oh, sure, you can keep using your SDRAM, but then you take a major performance hit.
They both bribe you to give them more money.
Intel HAS to support rambus in the P4. But they're unhappy about it.
Not quite a long walk off a short pier, but probably after the P4 intel will learn to do a little more research before making big decisions.
-- IANAEG - I am not an elder god.
RAMBUS wants to control their market like any other company. They know they can't do this without Intel's help. Like a bunch of fools, Intel gave them a long leash, obvuiously believing that they could control them.
So what happened? The leash came off. Rambus had the run of the park. Intel's only solution was to make sure that both they and Rambus suffer.
Fortunately for the PC market, Intel got out before they were controlled in the same way that IBM became controlled by Microsoft.
How, precisely, does one represent themselves dancing a jig and going "Nyah, nyah" in ASCII?
Or should I be asking the folks at AMD, Micron, et al? *grins*
Rafe
V^^^^V
Rafe
Opinions expressed by the author may not actually exist in the wild.
all of the people most of the
time, but sooner or later the truth will out."
Err no.
You can fool some of the people all
of the time and all of the people some of the
time, but you cant fool your mom.
Hoped! Classic! Biggest chip manufacturer in the world basing its future on dreams...
With planning like that, i bet AMD are pissing themselves!
You never say "Johnny are going to the store", do you?
- Mike Hughes
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
This is good news! Intel must have finally gotten around to reading Tom's Hardware.
Maybe it's the beginning of them getting their head out of their arse. I wonder how much behind-the-scenes wrangling there has been between Intel ("make your damn memory work") and Rambus ("give us money") has gone one leading to this moment. Maybe Intel Management woke up during one of the meetings and said, "Hey! These guys are a law firm disguised as a hardware company! Argh!"
Anyway, I'm happy about this. Now, if Intel can just help shut down the Rambus crusade against all other memory makers, it'll be perfect. Find the rock that Rambus came out from under, lift it up, and chuck them back.
________________________________________
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Could someone please repost the above comment?(#25). Apparently, there's a glitch in the slashcode, or whatever that is not allowing us to "Read the rest of this comment...".
Perhaps by splitting the rest into another comment?
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
In addition to what the above poster said, you can't get a non-Xeon P3 with 2MB of cache. :)
With a major supporter like Intel basically saying that "Rambus don't have a product worth spit", whatever market confidence Rambus had has gone out the window. Regardless of the outcome of their "we can't compete, so let's sue" patent claims, I don't that Rambus is long for this Earth...
On the other hand, I wonder if the use of the term "gates" was to imply that Windows, also was a third party technology that Intel (until recently) was dependent on. . .
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
1. Sure, some of the tech is good, but I understand it has some severe latency issues that limit its performance to barely more than that of SDRAM. Maybe DDR tech owes a lot to Rambus--I won't claim to know that, either. But what I *do* know is that I'd rather have had to wait a year for well-developed RDRAM (from some other company, preferably) and the genesis of DDR RAM than deal with...
2. Rambus' way of doing "business." Sure, there are other companies out there acting immorally. But Rambus has taken things to a whole new level. I read an article (sorry, can't remember what or where; I think it was a report on someone's lawsuit v. Rambus) detailing Rambus' sneaky methods of procuring the patents it has so it can extract the licensing fees it does. Apparently, they were/are a member of an industry body that sets standards, etc. (JEDEC, maybe? I don't remember!). After skulking around there for a while, they pulled out in a flurry of random reports and patent filings, buried within which were those for the patents allowing them to get license fees from SDRAM manufacturers. All right, maybe that's a little vague, but I read it a while ago. The point is, Rambus kinda pulled this whole thing off like a theif in the night, going against established industry practices.
In closing, I would ask that you not attack people for posting honest, polite opinions. I'm just trying to make a point about Rambus and their MO, not start a flamewar.
Sincerely,Wraithmaster
www.wraithmaster.com -- Chicken soup for the spleen.
www.wraithmaster.com -- Chicken soup for the spleen.
"Naaarf!" --Pinky
Naw, only NON IE. Netscape works fine. However IE on NT at work is another story.. If I am finished reading, all I have to do is post a comment and it's hello Dr. Watson!
The truth shall set you free!
The rest of us know we'll be flamed out of existence if we say anything good about Intel here.
Even with RDRAM, I think they got the idea right, but they got burned as early adopters of an immature technology from a juvenile company. The technology really is a superior solution that is just not ready to be used yet, and eventually, perhaps under some more compotent hands, it will get there.
As for Slashdot hating them, I don't know. I think it's because most of the Slashdot community has little clue about technology, particularly hardware, but think that using the Internet and reading Tom's Hardware make them experts. Particularly the ones who scream out every one of their ill informed opinions in posts that boil down to "I rox u suxors" posts are of that sort.
Of course, I'd be hypocritical if I said I was a whole lot better. =P
If you are modding me down because you disagree with me, use the "Flamebait" category, not the "Troll" one.
I just canceled my order for a Dell 620 which uses PIII Xeon and RDRAM (fortunately still sitting on the secretaries desk). I'm curious though. I've been searching and cannot find any benchmark numbers comparing a PIII Xeon to a regular PIII (e.g., otherwise identical Dell 620 v. 420). I find it rather amazing. Tom's hardware et al. seem only interested in 3D game performance. Where's the data? Has no one run SPEC CPU2000 on a Xeon? (Perhaps that says enough!)
The _idea_ behind rambus memory is a good one--
:-) for
there are some very impressive bits of technology
that could (and should) be developed.
HOWEVER; Rambus the _company_ has dropped the
ball. Rather than develop the technology, they
have behaved in the finest tradition for the year
2000, and tried to make money by whinging,
whining, and ultimately suing everyone doing
better than them. They behave like children, and
I've been gleefully watching them get spanked.
Maybe I'll form a company to create electronic
dictionaries. Rather than collecting any words
though, I'll just sue Oxford (and Webster, but
definitely not the American Heritage group
copyright/patent infringement. MUCH easier than
real work.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Case in point, some have little awareness of technology or the workers who produce it. Good reading can be found here.
Perhaps more to why many hold a dim view of Intel would be that not every slashdotter believes Intel makes the best technology. Many, myself included, have worked on other platforms (many of which are vastly superior designs) which have been marginalized by the dumping of cheep WinTel boxes.
--
Chief Frog Inspector
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
You aren't kidding on them being overpriced.. 15.00 for a Cat5 connector (to be wired into wall plate) ?!?!? Or 60 bucks for a SCSI 50 mini cable ? Or 100 bucks for a box of Cat5 cable (when I can get a 500foot box of Cat5 wire from Home Depot... Such is life.. I don't buy that stuff from them ( I just get their freebie stuff each week *g* ) but someone must ...
UPS Sucks
Yes, I did see the smiley.
No, I didn't think it was funny.
As for the worthy idea, the market capitalization of Rambus is $6,220.69 million with $64 3/8 per share. That's about 96 million shares on the market. To takeover Rambus, would have to pay over $3 billion dollars, and then somehow incorporate Rambus into another business so as not to get sued by the rest of the shareholders and get investigated by the SEC.
end of line
I talked to a competitor (DEC)'s engineers around that time and they said that while they'd looked at Rambus, it was not a very stable memory technology; the complexities it introduced into their engineering were not worth the performance gain and cost hit.
Strange. The Alpha EV7 (21364) is also using Rambus (and only Rambus).
Wraithmaster
www.wraithmaster.com -- Chicken soup for the spleen.
www.wraithmaster.com -- Chicken soup for the spleen.
"Naaarf!" --Pinky
1. I think that the point of this article is they can't without a whole slew of legal implications. And since Rambus has demonstrated themselves to be at least, if not more more, litigous than Amazon....
2. Usually when you have numbered bullet points it implies more than one item in the list.
3. I just put this here for looks...
IANAL... But I play one on
Why the hell is it so hard to make non-buggy products with Rambus? I first heard about Rambus when evaluating some new SGI graphics adapters (High Impact and Maximum Impact) that were among the first devices to use Rambus DRAM. Guess what? The products were announced in mid-1995 but ran into various bugs and supply problems which led them not to really ship till beginning-1996. When those supply problems became apparent, their stock hit an all-time high (~45) never to return and it has since dropped to around ~4.
I talked to a competitor (DEC)'s engineers around that time and they said that while they'd looked at Rambus, it was not a very stable memory technology; the complexities it introduced into their engineering were not worth the performance gain and cost hit.
The fact that Intel has had the same problems as SGI, albeit on a much, much larger scale, really leads me to wonder... what is it that makes Rambus memory controllers or interfacing chipsets so damn difficult to get working properly?
If someone could answer this question, I'd be really obliged. The "toll-keeper" problems were obvious from day 1 with Rambus... the techical problems were not.
--LP
First off, Intel have never OWNED Rambus - they merely license their technology for use in their various products. Anyone saying otherwise is simply talking rubbish.
However, they DID have a fairly serious financial deal that enabled them to purchase lots of Rambus stock at knock down prices once they had met certain requirements - this indicates more than a passing interest in the wellbeing of the Rambus company.
Personally I'm still not convinced that Rambus ever had that much to offer on the technology front, so Intel's claim that they were solely in it for the technology strikes me as doubtful. RDRAM has lots of extra bandwidth for sure, but when Intel forced the system on to the industry there was really no need for vast bandwidths such as these.
Moreover, RDRAM has really no electrical characterstics that are superior to those of SDRAM, and the gap in cost is considerable even today. Furthermore RDRAM isn't really any more 'future-proof' than SDRAM, especially when you consider the future potential of DDR.
So maybe Intel have finally just woken up and 'smelt the coffee', so to speak, realising that Rambus doesn't hold the answer to all the technical problems faced by the memory industry.
Quite apart from the technical problems CAUSED by Rambus - who remembers the i820 fiasco?
Lots of pro-Rambus zealots like to point at the success of the Playstation 2 (which employs RDRAM technology in favour of more traditional SDRAM or even SDRAM DDR technology) and intimate that this somehow relates to PCs and that Rambus is therefore "better". Saying that Rambus is "better" just because it is used in a certain product is ridiculous. Windows is fairly widely used but we all know that it's not necessarily better...
So to sum up:
1. Intel are wise to get out while they still can.
arnald
Even with RDRAM, I think they got the idea right, but they got burned as early adopters of an immature technology from a
juvenile company. The technology really is a superior solution that is just not ready to be used yet, and eventually, perhaps under
some more compotent hands, it will get there.
Actually, this is probably going to happen. Try to find some of the reports for DDRII and beyond. Some of it looks like taking the good lessons from Rambus and SDRAM and combining them. Too bad, Rambus will probably be out of business or have expired or overturned patents by then. (not that I am crying)
Dastardly
I found this section amusing, "Then, more recently, Intel scrapped its delayed low-end Timna microprocessor after customers showed little interest in a low-cost PC microprocessor that required expensive Rambus memory chips."
PHB : Ok boys, we want to sell to the skinflint consumers who only buy cheap Acers at CompUSA. I think the best option is to go with a cheap CPU and really expensive memory! How's that sound?
Lackies 1-N : That's a good idea! Let's do that!!
PHB : Good answer. Now let's have a power lunch.
-----
D. Fischer
ShoutingMan.com
you would have thought Rambus would have learned from Big Blues failure that the industry will not embrace an arcitecture with high roalties if a viable option is available MCA-PCI, Rambus-DDR SDRAM
"I know where you wanted to go today, But we decided to stop here instead!"
"In retrospect, it was a mistake to be dependent on a third party for a technology that
gates your performance"
I suppose this doesn't apply at all to the Apple-Motorola situation, does it?
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Ahem. Sorry. It's true, though.
Wraithmaster
www.wraithmaster.com -- Chicken soup for the spleen.
www.wraithmaster.com -- Chicken soup for the spleen.
"Naaarf!" --Pinky
I was referring to DEC graphics-card engineers, not the microprocessor guys. Also the timeframe of the discussion was much, much earlier than the EV7 design timeframe.
"We hoped we were partners with a company that would concentrate on technology innovation rather than seeking to collect a toll from other companies,"
Is he talking about Rambus or about M$?
"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!
Basically, every other company was betting on DDR, so it was just gunaa be a matter of time until Intel realized that RAMBUS won't compete.
sin(6cos(r)+5A)
don't you all love living in the free world ? i mean ... if there was no competition, there may be something like 1078 comptuters worldwide, all belonging to governments and big businesses.
had it not been for b\competition, most of the 1078 computers may have been using rambus.