Samsung Begins to Produce 7GHz GDDR5 Memory

Source

Quote:

---

The new GDDR5 memory chips are not only capable of working at up to 7GHz clock-speeds, but also use 1.35V voltage, a reduction from 1.425V – 1.575V voltage of currently available GDDR5 memory chips from Samsung. Moreover, the new GDDR5 devices are cheaper to produce: by adopting 50nm class technology, Samsung expects production efficiency to rise 100% over 60nm class technology.

---

Faster, uses less volts, cheaper to produce, it appears like GDDR5 is finally ready to take over the (graphics memory) world.

oh how sweet it is.. I bet nvidia and ati will both have these on the direct x 11 cards unless one of them enters a contract with samsung.. better bid high nvidia and ati

That's a big jump coming for GDDR4...

lols cheaper to make but how much more to buy (price premium for being the "best") and implement on the GFX cards?

Nice to see the voltage drop. Current GDDR5 is simply horrible in power consumption.

memory is not my strong point really, but i know this is fast, by why is it restrcted to Graphics?

should we not now see this in Motherboards? with maybe intel or AMD designing a chip around this spec?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by soundood

memory is not my strong point really, but i know this is fast, by why is it restrcted to Graphics?

should we not now see this in Motherboards? with maybe intel or AMD designing a chip around this spec?

---

Because it's GDDR5? And the current standard is DDR3?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Katanai

Because it's GDDR5? And the current standard is DDR3?

---

GDDR3 is used as system memory for the X360..


I honestly don't know what the differences are (aside from more rigid standardization values) but it could be used as system memory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by soundood

memory is not my strong point really, but i know this is fast, by why is it restrcted to Graphics?

should we not now see this in Motherboards? with maybe intel or AMD designing a chip around this spec?

---

Power consumption and tracelengths. Plus alot of other issues like density

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by soundood

memory is not my strong point really, but i know this is fast, by why is it restrcted to Graphics?

should we not now see this in Motherboards? with maybe intel or AMD designing a chip around this spec?

---

On a graphicscard, every factor is known, you have one pcb, you have one memory controller, you have the memory soldered to the board, unlike mainboards where you have a selection of controllers, unknown trace length, unknown pcb, slot connectors, that is basically why graphics memory can be a lot faster.

There is nothing preventing GDDR5 from taking over the role of system memory. Someone even wrote an article about it late last year that was rather interesting in which he postulated that it was destined to take over the memory roles of nearly everything that needs memory for various reasons including price and performance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Particle

There is nothing preventing GDDR5 from taking over the role of system memory. Someone even wrote an article about it late last year that was rather interesting in which he postulated that it was destined to take over the memory roles of nearly everything that needs memory for various reasons including price and performance.

---

But having 4GB using some 100W (instead of 2-4W) and soldered on to the board aint really appealing.

I hope these new babies come in high density, so a 256 bit card can atleast have 1 GB default VRAM capacity. :)

with that speed it is almost useless to have a 512-bit IMC

This sounds very promissing, I bet these chips will be highly popular and stay around at least as long as the GDDR3 chips NV uses/used. It's quite likely for both ATI and NV to use something like this for their debut DX11 cards in Q4. I hope they are aiming for a default 1GB VRAM capacity for midrange (2GB for the dual gpu/pcb cards like now) and drop the 512MB for lowend section by then. Price/performance wise this would make most sense IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

But having 4GB using some 100W (instead of 2-4W) and soldered on to the board aint really appealing.

---

what?

Sweet. Always good to hear about faster, cheaper-to-produce tech.

Keep up the good work Samsung.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shiznit93

what?

---

Don't worry about it. It's just nonsense. GDDR5 memory doesn't use nearly that much power.

Another problem with use GDDR as a system memory, is that you need a mammoth of a memory controller to run it. GDDR is highly parallel, each individual chip pretty much requires its own channel, and the amount of traces required would make putting it onto cards you can plug in very difficult.

The Xbox 360 uses the GPU to control the memory. The layout is reversed compared to a normal computer. Instead of the graphics card accessing memory through the CPU, (or the northbridge chipset), the CPU accesses system memory through the GPU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [XC] Lead Head

Another problem with use GDDR as a system memory, is that you need a mammoth of a memory controller to run it. GDDR is highly parallel, each individual chip pretty much requires its own channel, and the amount of traces required would make putting it onto cards you can plug in very difficult.

The Xbox 360 uses the GPU to control the memory. The layout is reversed compared to a normal computer. Instead of the graphics card accessing memory through the CPU, (or the northbridge chipset), the CPU accesses system memory through the GPU.

---

Interesting. Obviously this would be a very hard trend to change (especially since not all computers even have dedicated graphics), but would PCs benefit from this system? How much did the XBox really benefit from this reverse memory access?

Well done, Samsung, keep it up :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [XC] Lead Head

The Xbox 360 uses the GPU to control the memory. The layout is reversed compared to a normal computer. Instead of the graphics card accessing memory through the CPU, (or the northbridge chipset), the CPU accesses system memory through the GPU.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulburner

Interesting. Obviously this would be a very hard trend to change (especially since not all computers even have dedicated graphics), but would PCs benefit from this system? How much did the XBox really benefit from this reverse memory access?

---

I'm not sure about the Xbox360, but DrWho? (from Intel) posted this on the 32nm Westmere thread regarding putting the IMC inside the graphics core of the upcoming Lyndfield and ClarkDale chips. Source

Quote:

---

I see a lot of people wondering why we did put the mem controller on the Gfx, in fact, after 3 years of Study, we came to the conclusion that it does not make any performance difference, in fact, the connection in the Processor packaging are so fast, that it is really less that what we thought. Very very very small, smaller than the most accurate run to run variation of the best benchy.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sdsdv10

I'm not sure about the Xbox360, but DrWho? (from Intel) posted this on the 32nm Westmere thread regarding putting the IMC inside the graphics core of the upcoming Lyndfield and ClarkDale chips. Source

---

We already have the IMC on the GPU today. Its called Q/G965, Q/G31-33-35-40-41-43-45 plus older :)

Nothing new. The Clarkdale westmere chip is simply with something you can compare with moving the G45 chipset onto a E8000 dualcore. And just have 1 MCM CPU package.

Now imagine a 512bit bus with this stuff. The bandwidth would be insane.

a bit late isnt it?