Home

News

Forums

Hardware

CPUs

Mainboards

Video

Guides

CPU Prices

Memory Prices

Shop



Sharky Extreme :


Latest News


- Acer Fires Up Two New Ferrari Notebooks
- Belkin Debuts Docking Station for ExpressCard-Equipped Notebooks
- Logitech 5.1 Speaker System Puts Your Ears At Eye Level
- Dell, Nvidia, and Intel Fire Up Overclockable Gaming Notebook
- Gateway Puts Premium Components Into Affordable Home Desktop
News Archives

Features

- SharkyExtreme.com: Interview with ATI's Terry Makedon
- SharkyExtreme.com: Interview with Seagate's Joni Clark
- Half-Life 2 Review
- DOOM 3 Review
- Unreal Tournament 2004 Review

Buyer's Guides

- September High-end Gaming PC Buyer's Guide
- September Value Gaming PC Buyer's Guide
- October Extreme Gaming PC Buyer's Guide

HARDWARE

  • CPUs


  • Motherboards

    - DFI LANPARTY UT nF4 Ultra-D Motherboard Review

  • Video Cards

    - Gigabyte GeForce 7600 GT 256MB Review
    - ASUS EN7900GT TOP 256MB Review
    - ASUS EN7600GT Silent 256MB Review
    - Biostar GeForce 7900 GT 256MB Review





  • Intel CEO said,"bet on Rambus was a mistake"
    By mlusr October 18, 2000, 03:16 PM

    "We made a big bet on Rambus and it did not work out," Craig Barrett, Intel chief executive admitted. "In retrospect, it was a mistake to be dependent on a third party for a technology that gates your performance."
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/14085.html

    By JabberJaw October 18, 2000, 04:31 PM

    Wonder if Sony will ever admit to that?

    (P/S2 delays, 500k unit xmas shortfall, due to an "unspecified component shortage problem")

    By Arcadian October 18, 2000, 07:50 PM

    quote:Originally posted by JabberJaw:
    Wonder if Sony will ever admit to that?

    (P/S2 delays, 500k unit xmas shortfall, due to an "unspecified component shortage problem")

    Very likely, Rambus will benefit the Playstation 2. It is still a good memory standard. Berret explains that Rambus did not benefit Intel because they were not able to execute a successful launch to get memory manufacturers excited enough to ramp volumes. Low volumes induced cost, which made Rambus inaccesable to most PC users. In a niche market such as for the Playstation 2, these costs do not impact as much, and the performance attainable through Rambus' high bandwidth will help the Playstation 2 to perform very well.

    By RussianSpy October 18, 2000, 08:00 PM

    It's about time Intel realised that Rambus is going nowhere for them. Hopefully this means that the i830 chipset will support DDR SDRAM. One can only hope...

    By JabberJaw October 19, 2000, 02:36 AM

    quote:http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/14085.html :
    In the interview he also slams Rambus's policy of suing its competitors. "We hoped we were partners with a company that would concentrate on technology rather than seeking to collect a toll from other companies."

    Seems Intel is doing a bit of whining here. Since they see fit to engage in 20/20 hindsight...

    Rambus sued its competitors to protect their lawful right to profit from intellectual property without infringement. That is their right as a company in business to make money. That does not make them the 'bad guys', as Intel would have you believe.

    Royalties from patent licensing is commonly the source of revenue for R&D-intensive companies like Rambus. For example, a recent article in the San Jose Mercury News reported that nearly half of IBM's revenue is from patent royalties. Why should it be different for the little guys like Rambus? Is it OK for industry giants like Hitachi to steal Rambus' intellectual property without recompense? No, the law protects the little guys as well as the big. But Rambus has to be willing to go to litigation when necessary to protect those rights.

    Hitachi should have simply cut a deal with Rambus, paid the royalties, gone into production. But they didn't like the price of the ticket. Instead of just dropping the bid, they tried to roll right over tiny Rambus. And Rambus sued Hitachi to stop them from using their proprietary design without license.

    And now Intel is miffed because such litigation brought by Rambus has stifled potentially major sources of volume production. Coupled to foundry yield problems at Micron, this put Intel's entire roadmap in jeopardy. We cannot know the details of the Intel/Rambus partnership agreement, but obviously if Intel could have stopped Rambus' litigious responses, they would have. Intel should have bought Rambus outright in the first place, then called all the shots. Partnerships have always been notoriously tricky, and this is a perfect example.

    By Ymaster October 19, 2000, 03:27 AM

    quote:Originally posted by JabberJaw:
    Seems Intel is doing a bit of whining here. Since they see fit to engage in 20/20 hindsight...

    Rambus sued its competitors to protect their lawful right to profit from intellectual property without infringement. That is their right as a company in business to make money. That does not make them the 'bad guys', as Intel would have you believe.

    Royalties from patent licensing is commonly the source of revenue for R&D-intensive companies like Rambus. For example, a recent article in the San Jose Mercury News reported that nearly half of IBM's revenue is from patent royalties. Why should it be different for the little guys like Rambus? Is it OK for industry giants like Hitachi to steal Rambus' intellectual property without recompense? No, the law protects the little guys as well as the big. But Rambus has to be willing to go to litigation when necessary to protect those rights.

    Hitachi should have simply cut a deal with Rambus, paid the royalties, gone into production. But they didn't like the price of the ticket. Instead of just dropping the bid, they tried to roll right over tiny Rambus. And Rambus sued Hitachi to stop them from using their proprietary design without license.

    And now Intel is miffed because such litigation brought by Rambus has stifled potentially major sources of volume production. Coupled to foundry yield problems at Micron, this put Intel's entire roadmap in jeopardy. We cannot know the details of the Intel/Rambus partnership agreement, but obviously if Intel could have stopped Rambus' litigious responses, they would have. Intel should have bought Rambus outright in the first place, then called all the shots. Partnerships have always been notoriously tricky, and this is a perfect example.

    Rambus does not have the right to claim old techs as thier intellectual property.. But some dam RETARDED JUDGE GAVE IT TO THEM! And now they are going to town on it like a pack of wild dogs. From Intels point of view if they use Rambus, then they have to make a hard to sell Pentium deals with fellow corps. Would you want to buy a pentium board if you were getting sued by a 3rd party in connection with them? No..!! So rambus is a thorn in most peeps eyes now. Just like Nvidia trying to push folks around. And finally they are getting slamed for it.

    Now I know peeps should get sued for intellectual property thieft. And right fully so! But in this case I do not see drams as RambusInc's soul right to sue others where competition is needed. It's just to 50/50 for me to support a company like that.
    I feel that if they make a new tech than they are in control for the amount of time the goverment gives them. Just because you have a Patent on something does not make you God of the idea. The goverment can use your idea's as it chooses. So if they wanted Rambus the shut the hell up, eat shit and die, Then they very well can and will.. I for one would like to see cheaper computer parts and less 3rd part companies selling ideas.

    By JabberJaw October 19, 2000, 04:34 AM

    quote:Originally posted by Ymaster:
    From Intels point of view if they use Rambus, then they have to make a hard to sell Pentium deals with fellow corps. Would you want to buy a pentium board if you were getting sued by a 3rd party in connection with them? No..!!

    I'm not trying to make trouble, but I'm really having a difficult time understanding the above quote. Could you please restate your point, using different words perhaps?

    Thanks!

    By jtshaw October 19, 2000, 09:33 AM

    Is it true that RAMBUS is now trying to get some royalties off DDR SDRAM because they claim they own anything DRAM? I am not sure if this is true but I have been told it is and that is absolutely rediculous. Anyone with a intro to computer architecture book can figure out what DRAM is easy enough. Rambus should go ahead and make all the money they want on RDRAM but I don't blame Intel from being annoyed that few people are making RDRAM, I won't blame Intel if they switch to DDR SDRAM, and I won't blame ram making if they tell RAMBUS to go jump off a cliff when the come to collect royalties on any type of DRAM other then RAMBUS.

    By Arcadian October 19, 2000, 12:23 PM

    quote:Originally posted by JabberJaw:
    I'm not trying to make trouble, but I'm really having a difficult time understanding the above quote. Could you please restate your point, using different words perhaps?

    Thanks!

    I think he was saying that Intel is trying to make peace with companies such as Micron, who are currently being sued by Rambus. Intel would like Micron to continue doing business with them, I would assume, and I'm sure Berret carefully chose his words in order to suggest that Rambus' policies aren't Intel's policies. That's what Ymaster meant, but he can correct me if I'm wrong. By the way, Ymaster, is English your 2nd language?

    By Arcadian October 19, 2000, 12:29 PM

    quote:Originally posted by jtshaw:
    Is it true that RAMBUS is now trying to get some royalties off DDR SDRAM because they claim they own anything DRAM? I am not sure if this is true but I have been told it is and that is absolutely rediculous. Anyone with a intro to computer architecture book can figure out what DRAM is easy enough. Rambus should go ahead and make all the money they want on RDRAM but I don't blame Intel from being annoyed that few people are making RDRAM, I won't blame Intel if they switch to DDR SDRAM, and I won't blame ram making if they tell RAMBUS to go jump off a cliff when the come to collect royalties on any type of DRAM other then RAMBUS.

    Rambus owns some questionably vague patents such as "Ability to use configuration registers in DRAM". Since DDR uses configuration registers, Rambus sees fit to ask royalties. I think there may be other patents involved, but that is the jist of the controversy. Micron suggests that Rambus can't patent such generalities. Micron also thinks that some of Rambus' patents come from meetings when Rambus was part of JEDEC, the memory standards group. This is ending up to be a weak argument, though.

    On the subject of patents, Amazon.com has a patent on "one click shopping" that became the source of much controversy, as this is a very general concept, and should not have been granted a patent in the first place. The solution to this was for all other stores to offer two click shopping . However, the Rambus case gets a little more complicated, since DDR memory needs configuration registers to work, etc.

    By sww October 19, 2000, 12:38 PM

    I have some friends and other people I know that I wouldn't call friends that work primarily in IP. They claim that the patent office is so underfunded and so inundated with patent applications that they just rubberstamp everything that comes through. Most patents are worthless anyway, and the ones that are worth something are going to end up in court regardless of what the patent office says. IP lawyers are loving it.

    quote:Originally posted by Arcadian:

    On the subject of patents, Amazon.com has a patent on "one click shopping" that became the source of much controversy, as this is a very general concept, and should not have been granted a patent in the first place.

    By Ymaster October 19, 2000, 03:05 PM

    quote:Originally posted by JabberJaw:
    I'm not trying to make trouble, but I'm really having a difficult time understanding the above quote. Could you please restate your point, using different words perhaps?

    Thanks!

    Sorry about that...

    Say you are trying to make a deal with Intel to buy some computer parts and make a system to sell or own ect... Like a laptop or Desktop. But in the mean time Rambus is humping your leg for building dram's of anykind. Would you buy a pentium thats humping your leg? If you do your a sick-o. But You see my point! If they push off deals with Intel for pentium system and go for a non-humper deal. Then Amd looks a like a sweet deal for many. This is where the CEO's at Intel are faced with. They are trying real hard not to look dumb and back out of deals with the honor-less company called RAMBUS!


    By Ymaster October 19, 2000, 03:10 PM

    quote:Originally posted by Arcadian:
    I think he was saying that Intel is trying to make peace with companies such as Micron, who are currently being sued by Rambus. Intel would like Micron to continue doing business with them, I would assume, and I'm sure Berret carefully chose his words in order to suggest that Rambus' policies aren't Intel's policies. That's what Ymaster meant, but he can correct me if I'm wrong. By the way, Ymaster, is English your 2nd language?


    Yes, you are correct. I posted that at 3:45am

    Lets see how will you post at that time after 4 beers.

    By JabberJaw October 19, 2000, 04:10 PM

    quote:Originally posted by Ymaster:
    Say you are trying to make a deal with Intel to buy some computer parts and make a system to sell or own ect... Like a laptop or Desktop. But in the mean time Rambus is humping your leg for building dram's of anykind. Would you buy a pentium thats humping your leg?

    Are you talking about companies who build systems using chipsets purchased from Intel, and memory that they fab in-house, which Rambus is suing them for? For example, Micron components division gets sued by Rambus, so they blame Intel and switch their PC's chipset/mobo to use AMD instead of Intel processors?

    By Ymaster October 19, 2000, 05:21 PM

    quote:Originally posted by JabberJaw:
    Are you talking about companies who build systems using chipsets purchased from Intel, and memory that they fab in-house, which Rambus is suing them for? For example, Micron components division gets sued by Rambus, so they blame Intel and switch their PC's chipset/mobo to use AMD instead of Intel processors?

    Yes

    By Revilre October 19, 2000, 06:34 PM

    I think I said this would happen about 2 months ago and I was told Intel was in bed with RAMBUS and was going to continue to shove it down our throats. I was even saying well before Intel anounced DDR products.

    By Arcadian October 19, 2000, 08:31 PM

    quote:Originally posted by Revilre:
    I think I said this would happen about 2 months ago and I was told Intel was in bed with RAMBUS and was going to continue to shove it down our throats. I was even saying well before Intel anounced DDR products.

    You 'da MAN!

    By Bateluer October 19, 2000, 08:46 PM

    quote:Originally posted by Arcadian:
    Very likely, Rambus will benefit the Playstation 2. It is still a good memory standard. Berret explains that Rambus did not benefit Intel because they were not able to execute a successful launch to get memory manufacturers excited enough to ramp volumes. Low volumes induced cost, which made Rambus inaccesable to most PC users. In a niche market such as for the Playstation 2, these costs do not impact as much, and the performance attainable through Rambus' high bandwidth will help the Playstation 2 to perform very well.

    Rambus blows! Rambus memory has failed in every single area that it has been applied to. The Rdram based video cards forced benchers to time quake benches with calenders! When tried on the PC with the i820
    it barely outperformed an equililent VIA APA, which also cost 1/3 the price!
    Don't believe me? Check the public benches on !!!!!INTEL'S WEBSITE!!!!! between the 815 and the 820!!!! RAMBUS BLOWS!
    Also, IF RAMBUS is soooo great, why do they have to sue ALL of their competitors and anyone who supports their competitor's techology? Answer that.

    By 100%TotallyNude October 19, 2000, 10:12 PM

    quote:Originally posted by Bateluer:
    Rambus blows! Rambus memory has failed in every single area that it has been applied to. The Rdram based video cards forced benchers to time quake benches with calenders! When tried on the PC with the i820
    it barely outperformed an equililent VIA APA, which also cost 1/3 the price!
    Don't believe me? Check the public benches on !!!!!INTEL'S WEBSITE!!!!! between the 815 and the 820!!!! RAMBUS BLOWS!
    Also, IF RAMBUS is soooo great, why do they have to sue ALL of their competitors and anyone who supports their competitor's techology? Answer that.

    You're right, and here the detail on why:
    1) Just becuase you sue some one doesn't make you right.
    2) DDR (Double Data Rate) DRAM, in case you didn't know, well addresses the needs Rambus technology was supposed to address by supplying higher bandwidth at the nozzle than current RAM technology at a negligible cost difference, whereas Rambus is significantly higher coast, and does the same thing. Arguably it can deliver even higher bandwidth than DDR with its multiplexing gates at each memory chip "ideally" multiplying as the number of gates grows but the technology is so complex & expensive that DDR's pin limitation seems to pale, at least to me and a lot vendors, apparently.
    So, really, whats so cutting edge about Rambus when you can deliver nearly the same performance at much less cost?

    By JabberJaw October 20, 2000, 03:50 AM

    quote:Originally posted by 100%TotallyNude:
    You're right, and here the detail on why:
    1) Just becuase you sue some one doesn't make you right.

    True... it's Winning your lawsuit that makes you right, in the eyes of the law. That's justice. Win or lose, it's up to the courts to decide - based on evidence, argument, precedence, and juris prudence. 'Trial' by public opinion is simply mob prejudice - not justice.

    While my opinion has consistently supported Rambus's right to have their 'day in court', I think some of their business decisions have just plain sucked, and the results of those decisions continues to cost us consumers, and a large portion of the industry in general, a great deal more than we care to absorb. Unfortunately, it is what it is, and the industry has to 'pick up the pieces' and make the best of this bad situation. Which they are, as answered by your next point.

    quote:
    2) DDR (Double Data Rate) DRAM, in case you didn't know, well addresses the needs Rambus technology was supposed to address by supplying higher bandwidth at the nozzle than current RAM technology at a negligible cost difference, whereas Rambus is significantly higher coast, and does the same thing. Arguably it can deliver even higher bandwidth than DDR with its multiplexing gates at each memory chip "ideally" multiplying as the number of gates grows but the technology is so complex & expensive that DDR's pin limitation seems to pale, at least to me and a lot vendors, apparently.

    So, really, whats so cutting edge about Rambus when you can deliver nearly the same performance at much less cost?

    All valid.

    My point here addresses your last statement. DDR is a cheap substitute for the real thing. Will we be stuck with it, or will Intel be able to 'pull a rabbit out of their hat' ? They're rich, maybe they should consider buying Rambus outright, and forging ahead with the real deal.


    Contact Us | www.SharkyForums.com

    Copyright 1999, 2000 internet.com Corporation. All Rights Reserved.


    Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46




    HardwareCentral
    Compare products, prices, and stores at Hardware Central!


    Copyright 2002 INT Media Group, Incorporated. All Rights Reserved. About INT Media Group | Press Releases | Privacy Policy | Career Opportunities