HyperCloud branding should suggest a better RDIMM

A reader commented on a problem that end-users face when presented with HyperCloud as a solution – firstly that it is not qualified on the server that THEY use, and secondly that the HyperCloud naming/posturing is not immediately suggestive of an RDIMM-compatible product which may have made them consider it even though it was not qualified on their server.

What does qualification mean ?

Firstly, there is a slight problem with the comment above – and that is that despite something being an RDIMM it would STILL require qualification.

This is because most users of 384GB on a 2-socket server would want the memory to be tested extensively under various temperature and operating conditions.

That is what “qualification” accomplishes.

So even if an RDIMM can be used on a server, qualification is still required.

Qualification on many servers requires some expense and plenty of time – to test under all conditions.

On servers which are unlikely to yield sufficient volume, qualification may be non-interesting for both Netlist (which is a small company), and the server maker.

This was esp. true of the 16GB HyperCloud which is viable in the 3 DPC niche – qualifying this would only be worthwhile on the very high volume servers – from companies like IBM and HP.

When 32GB HyperCloud becomes the mainstream 32GB memory module because of performance, latency, price and IP advantages, the decision will become easier for both OEMs and Netlist.

https://ddr3memory.wordpress.com/2012/07/09/hypercloud-to-own-the-32gb-market/
HyperCloud to own the 32GB market ?
July 9, 2012

There is an exception to the above – and that is with companies which use a lot of servers (Google, Facebook) – these entities may be in a position to qualify the memory themselves if they find it attractive.

Branding HyperCloud as a better RDIMM

HyperCloud is RDIMM-compatible, yet that is a feature which is not obvious from it’s name or it’s posturing.

So is HyperCloud a poor choice of words ? Perhaps.

In fact the IBM naming (HCDIMM) and the HP naming (HDIMM) are still better names.

While this distinction may become clear at the 32GB level – when 32GB HyperCloud will be the preeminent product in performance, latency, price and IP ownership, this is a feature which should be highlighted in the naming as well.

The HyperCloud name is suggestive of better performance but not of compatibility.

Posturing HyperCloud as a better RDIMM may simplify it’s explanation.

Netlist website tutorial

Netlist website should also include a tutorial explaining the differences between 32GB HyperCloud and 32GB RDIMMs and 32GB LRDIMMs.

It will not cost much to do so, and will resolve many questions that will emerge as end-users start looking at HyperCloud.

Advertisements

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

2 responses to “HyperCloud branding should suggest a better RDIMM

  1. Pingback: The Curious Case of Google vs. Netlist | ddr3memory

  2. Pingback: Inphi to report July 25 | ddr3memory

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s