Intel Cuts Back on 820 Chipset Manufacturing

BRTB writes "It seems that Intel has actually done something right: realized that its new 820 chipset (with Rambus memory support and speed increases) is so expensive for computer builders and end users - on the order of $500 added to the cost of an 820-equipped machine - that it's decided to cut back on production. Check out the News.com article here."

Comments

Intel should drop Rambus

[renoX]

I don't understand why Intel is so adament to support Rambus whereas memory makers would really like to forget it.

Intel bought some shares of Rambus Inc. sure, but frankly Rambus is a really small company compared with Intel, so I don't think it is a major point.

Technically, I'm not sure at all that Rambus is superior to cheaper alternatives: SDRAM at 133 MHz is only a first step: DDR SDRAM (which transfers data twice per clock cycle) should have a bandwith comparable to the Rambus memory AND they should have a LOWER LATENCY (and a lower price too!). So ?

For those who don't konow: the latency is also very,very important, the bandwith is not the only thing to look at... (especially the maximum theoretical bandwith!).

Re:The cost will come down

[chip guy]

Moore's law isn't the issue. The high cost problems for DRDRAM are fivefold. First the rambus access cell stuck onto a normal DRAM core plus the necessary changes to the DRAM core itself adds about 25% to die area. What's more the RAC doesn't scale down with the rest of the DRAM going to a smaller feature size process. Second, even in 0.22 um DRAM processes the AC functional yield of DRDRAM is about 30%. This means that out of 100 DRDRAM parts made and have all bits functional, only 30 of them can run at 800 Mbps. The others have to be binned to 600 or 700 Mbps speed grade parts which no system house will touch with a ten foot pole (lower performance than PC100 SDRAM). Third, these parts need *very* expensive production testers AND these testers can only test up 16 parts at a time compared to 64 for an SDRAM tester. Fourth, DRDRAM compatible motherboards and memory cards must be made with more expensive impedance controlled PWB technology. Finally, every DRDRAM and DRDRAM compatible chipset sold pays a small put significant royalty to Rambus inc. Some of these factors will lesson over time. But the 64 Mbit question is why would anyone pay 10 or 20% more (let alone the 50 to 100% seen now) for memory devices with significantly longer latency, thermal management problems, PWB design headaches *YET* offers little or no system level performance advantage over PC100 SDRAM (and evidence exists to show that formany apps DRDRAM is actually *slower* than PC100).

The cost will come down

[Dan B.]

Like all other PC hardware, They'll get cheaper.

Don't forget Moore's law - 18 months, double the power. The good thing is though, the prices are dropping while the power goes up. RAMBUS tech is new and not yet fully explored.

I will garantee that next month they'll be rethinking their cut back stategy.

Re:The cost will come down

[MassacrE]

plenty of video cards use Rambus - but none in the sub-$1000 price range

Re:rambus and latency

[blazer1024]

From the review I've read of Rambus/i820 chipset on Tom's Hardware Page, it has the highest latency of all the currently available memory types for PC. The review said it has enormous bandwidth capability, but the latency is so high that you really don't get any speed/performance increase. The fact that it's only available in 8bit and 16bit don't really help either. Here's a good guide on Tom's Hardware about latency vs. bandwidth. It's worth a read.

hearsay: 820 is "a bitch to work with"

[timothy]

I was at a party 2 weeks ago with several Dell employees, one of whom was a systems engineer working on Dell systems (I won't specify line, lest I get him / her / it -- who I'll call specify by the male pronoun for convenience -- in hot water).

He said that the 820 was a particularly buggy chipset, and that it was causing them a lot of frustration, more so than previous chipset releases. I told him that it was being marketed as Intels most advanced chipset, and his response was (I'm paraphrasing as best I can) "they ought to call it Intel's most advanced piece of crap!" He had other harsh words for it, such as unreliable and inconsistent, and as in the subject line.

So maybe it's being cut back on not just for "the sake of consumers" as this /. mention implied, but rather for some tweaking so it works better.

Also, as others have pointed out, it doesn't make any sense to *cut* production on a chipset which people are willing to pay for in order to gain performance improvements. Someone mentioned Xeon, and I think it's relevant. No one is forcing you to buy a system with a certain set of components, and the bleeding-edge carries a premium. So what? That just means I can't buy it until it's not the bleeding edge.;)

Again, this is hearsay, but from a good source ...

timothy