JEDEC reveals DDR4 roadmaps and specs

http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/1017/23080710.jpghttp://img706.imageshack.us/img706/4321/kaigai102.jpg

Quote:

---

At a recent MemCon conference in Tokyo, Japan, Bill Gervasi, vice president of engineering at US Modular and a member of the JEDEC board of directors, revealed that the target effective clock-speeds for DDR4 memory would be 2133MHz - 4266MHz, an increase from previously discussed frequencies. Apparently, JEDEC and memory manufacturers decided that the progress of DDR3 leaves no space for DDR4 data rates below 2133Mb/s.

The designers of DDR4 memory are looking forward 1.2V and 1.1V voltage settings for the new memory type and are even considering 1.05V option to greatly reduce power consumption of the forthcoming systems. It is expected that manufacturers of dynamic random access memory (DRAM) will have to use advanced fabrication technology to make the DDR4 chips. The first chips are likely to be made using 32nm or 36nm process technologies.

At present JEDEC expects to finalize the DDR4 specification in 2011 and start commercial production in 2012. Actual mass transition to the next-generation memory is projected to occur towards 2015.

---

English source: http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/memory/...Hz_Report.html

More extensive japanese-english google translation report with lots of slides: http://translate.google.com/translat...ml&sl=ja&tl=en

where can i get ddr3 2133 @1.25v?
and the dates are really confusing, are they saying that they will have all the speeds availible by 2015, or thats when all platforms have transitioned, idk what to think, and the translator isnt the best

EDIT, i actually like some of the images
like this one:
http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/img/pc.../kaigai-09.jpg
and
http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/img/pc.../kaigai-08.jpg

Lol @ DDR3 2133 1.25v

Honestly though... Ram isn't a major energy eater right?
It only uses what 5W?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eXa

Lol @ DDR3 2133 1.25v

---

looking at the roadmap, its due out early 2012

Funny how DDR2 is shown as 400 to 800. There's a lot of high bins out there.

As everyone else has said, DDR3 2133 @ 1.25v!? WTF. My ECO kits are 1600 & run at 1.35v and I figured that was low for the aggressive timings.

Has Intel or AMD even mentioned a socket using DDR4 at this point?

guys i posted the roadmap for a reason.

the initial arrow chart is a horrible representation of their schedule

To my defence, i posted before your edit :P

Edit: Hmm.... timestamps says otherwise, but i swear, i didnt see the roadmap before i posted.

lol, no biggy, i just wish they had a smaller version cause we dont care about anything pre 2005

2015 is sooo far away.

Interesting stuff. I'm more excited to see that we can start expecting realistically priced 4GB DDR3 modules next year.

DDR3 has at least 2 years life span...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [XC] Synthetickiller

As everyone else has said, DDR3 2133 @ 1.25v!? WTF. My ECO kits are 1600 & run at 1.35v and I figured that was low for the aggressive timings.

---

You need advanced process tech for that. For example Samsung just started their 3X nm RAM chip production in July, they claim to produce DDR3-2133 @1,5V:

Quote:

---

Samsung's 30nm-class 2Gb Green DDR3 chips provide the highest performance solution in the industry, based on an innovative circuit design. For server applications, memory modules can reach up to 1.866 gigabits per second (Gbps) at 1.35 volts, while PC modules can run at up to 2.133Gbps (1.5 volts), which is 3.5 times faster than DDR2 and 1.6 times faster than 50nm-class DDR3.

---

http://www.samsung.com/us/business/s...o?news_id=1180

Expect some nice DDR3-2133 modules in 2011. Maybe they will already be ready with the introduction of sandy bridge in Q4.

Will Rambus have a say (licensing fees) on DDR4?

For those reading the chart wrong, DDR4 will be introduced 2012, with its life ending sometime 2015. Expect DDR3 to get up to bins around 2500 before the end of its life.

DDR2 lasted 4.5 years
DDR3 is looking to be 5.5 years
DDR4 ends in 2015, but then its only 3.5 years

so that makes it look like DDR3 is lasting longer than expected, and taking away form DDR4s lifespan

also theres the overlap, which existed for all DDR standards, but they dont show any date based overlap for DDR4, but a massive overlap in speeds,
DDR4 at 1.6Gbit while we would already have DDR3 at 2.1Gbit

i wonder if they are trying to perfect the schedule, instead of predicting what will actually pan out.

im still just gonna wait for platform dates of the next BD, no point for me going to DDR3 now with thuban, and it might not be worth it for AM3+ if the second revision of BD is going to be AM4 only

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ket

For those reading the chart wrong, DDR4 will be introduced 2012, with its life ending sometime 2015. Expect DDR3 to get up to bins around 2500 before the end of its life.

---

Yea correct, it starts appearing on the market 2012 altough at low volume ofc and they expect around 2015 to correspond to the state what DDR3 is in now in volumes & usage etc. I doubt 2015 will be EOL for DDR4 though but probably DDR5 or whatever will start appearing around that time in very low volume production.

The chart shows DDR3 ending in 2015, not DDR4. DDR4 will be virtually all that is produced in 2015 is what it is saying, kind of like DDR3 by the end of next year.

i see ddr3 ending in Q3 2012

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manicdan

i see ddr3 ending in Q3 2012

---

No, it's just around that time production of DDR3 gets slightly lower in favor making room for DDR4 production according to the graph. How logical is it that in like 2 years there would be no DDR3 left, you can still easily find DDR2 today (altough prices and availability sucks). :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kurz

Honestly though... Ram isn't a major energy eater right?
It only uses what 5W?

---

Pretty much, however if you look to the server environment, with a dozen or more DIMM's, you find that the power draw of memory can reach 15% of total system power. For a 300 watt system, that's quite a lot of power.

The only advancement in RAM I am interested in, is higher density at low cost.

http://tof.canardpc.com/preview2/f06...03db6fcf6c.jpg

http://tof.canardpc.com/preview2/b3f...2d90c3e074.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD

No, it's just around that time production of DDR3 gets slightly lower in favor making room for DDR4 production according to the graph. How logical is it that in like 2 years there would be no DDR3 left, you can still easily find DDR2 today (altough prices and availability sucks). :p

---

i think the confusion is that we are not looking at production or sales, but simply when standards are made. you can buy 2133 DDR3 now, but its official JEDEC wont be out for a little while longer.

so in 2012 the standards for DDR3 will stop, the fastest official ram will be established and then they wont go beyond that.

if im reading it correctly, i wouldnt expect DDR4 in production until very early 2013

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manicdan

i see ddr3 ending in Q3 2012

---

It's important to note that the title of this chart is regarding the transition and also take notice of the tapers both on the rising and falling edge of each technology.

http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/img/pc.../kaigai-09.jpg

As you can see above, DDR4 starts trickling into volume production at the end of 2012 by this chart. DDR3 isn't suddenly gone at that point. Instead, you can see that DDR3 begins its decline at that same point--it doesn't suddenly drop dead. Volume DDR3 production doesn't taper off entirely until some time in 2016. Likewise, DDR2 production won't be completely dead until the very beginning of 2012, about 8 months before DDR4 volume production is projected to start. Between those two points in 2012, DDR3 will be virtually all that is produced.

Perhaps it would be more clear if I translated the graph into a textual time line for you.

Late 2007: DDR2 Volume Production Begins Decline, DDR3 Volume Production Begins
Early 2012: DDR2 Volume Production Ends, DDR3 Volume Production Becomes Only Type
Late 2012: DDR3 Volume Production Begins Decline, DDR4 Volume Production Begins
Mid 2016: DDR3 Volume Production Ends, [And Probably DDR4 Volume Production Becomes Only Type]

the table is pretty clear, i was more looking at the BIGGER chart (caps required due to image size, lol)
since alot of what is being talked about is when standards are established, i figured thats what people should be keeping the context about unless otherwise stated.

as far as accuracy goes, it looks a little to simplistic, did ddr3 really come out retail in end of 07?

DDR3 launched in 2007 but didn't really become mainstream until maybe 2009. It has only really been ubiquitous as of this year.

Wow, thanks for this. DDR4 seems to be the Future :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Olivon

http://tof.canardpc.com/preview2/f06...03db6fcf6c.jpg

http://tof.canardpc.com/preview2/b3f...2d90c3e074.jpg

---

Am I reading this right? Every DIMM is to have it's own channel?

Kind of. Hard to say what sort of link exists between these "switch fabric" logic blocks and the CPU. Chances are it's smaller than four full DIMM links would be or else there would be little reason to go with the breakout design. DIMMs are already going to be running at what, 1-2GHz? (anyone know if DDR4 is going to use DDR signaling on both a regular and phase shifted clock signal or just regular DDR?) A high frequency link with fewer I/O lines might save you some I/O lines. Dunno if it'd be worth it.

unfortunately the current JEDEC spec for DDR4 lacks the several controversial features that would have make it worthwhile much earlier.

Ya, I'm not sure on the switch fabric either. Seeing the word switch, I'd like to say that it'll work something like a network switch. Hopefully with a larger back-end :p. Off of the desktop platform and off the switch fabrics it looks like 4 independent channels. Quad channel ram? :3

And how is migrating to these faster memory chips beneficial to anyone? Sure benches show the minuscule improvements over each generation, but what real gains are we looking at here besides maybe the lower power draw of DDR4? Front side bus is gone, now we are looking at the QPI's and HTLINKS/HYPERTRANSPORTS and what have you. Microprocessors have been stagnant in megahertz gains for the past 6 to 10 years, outside of overclocking, neither IBM, Intel nor AMD have been able to mass produce 4 gigahertz microprocessors to the public. I know there's the argument that there is a need for faster memory for memory intensive applications, but memory running faster than the logical processor(s) is surely gonna become some sorta bottleneck to the overall platform I'm guessing.

I dunno, with the roadmaps laid out for Intel and AMD for the next five years, is DDR4 even needed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oranuro

I dunno, with the roadmaps laid out for Intel and AMD for the next five years, is DDR4 even needed?

---

Nope, we need faster hard drives :)

Quote:

---

I dunno, with the roadmaps laid out for Intel and AMD for the next five years, is DDR4 even needed?

---

Yes, very much.

Faster DDR3 and DDR4 are essential for AMD Fusion, and maybe for intel's IGP too (if they become serious about graphics speed). Dual-channel DDR3 PC-1600, that should be common place next year, has the same bandwidth than the Radeon HD5750 with it's 128bit 800mhz GDDR5. But this will have to be shared with the CPU, so even the first generation Fusion may be limited by memory speed, and ask for faster bins to have it's potential adequatedly in use. The third generation will surely want DDR4, else it will not even be possible to double the GPU power. And I doubt triple channel memory will grow beyond enthusiats crowd any time soon, if ever.

That besides having to share 512mb+ of ram for IGP, and Windows 7 64bits, whose will make people want 4~8GB in their systems. Memory makers will be busy in comming years.

I think the more important question to ask would be, "Do you really want to stop making memory faster?" To answer in the affirmative would be absurd.

Faster memory is always a good thing. Lower power is also great. Max performance gains may be small, but that's the world we live in anymore. A few percent here and a few percent there add up to offer what performance gains we have. As for what benefits, anything with a large dataset will benefit. Laptops and other battery powered computing devices are going to like this as well.

DDR3 2133 @ 1.25v is possible but only on a case by case basis by underclocking a higher spec bin set. And there are tons of good sets out there for DDR3 2500

Sweet, they're going to a switch fabric system. Presuming this works for this system like it does for others that's pretty positive, definitely an "in" thing to do right now. With larger systems I've seen some fabrics that are fully line-rate, and some that aren't, so it's hard to say how that will work. It might even be that you could buy some that will be full-speed and cost more and others that will be 80% of max speed but much lower in price (and still deliver more than enough bandwidth for most people).

To carry it over from larger systems for those who aren't aware, one nice thing about a switch fabric is that you can present it to the CPU by just saying "I'm memory, toss stuff at me without trying to perform any calculations on how to do it best", and typically the fabric will be designed to handle any manipulation/best path calculations/whatever else it may offer in hardware (eg. at full speed). So although the bus itself is like an extra step in the way, it actually saves time in the end by letting the CPU do a bit less work and only delaying information as long as it takes to go through a slightly longer circuit to its ultimate destination.

It's funny how we keep going back and forth between one thing and another. Just like we keep alternating back and forth between serial and parallel data links, we keep moving back and forth between full integration and moving functions out onto discrete dies/chips. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oranuro

And how is migrating to these faster memory chips beneficial to anyone? Sure benches show the minuscule improvements over each generation, but what real gains are we looking at here besides maybe the lower power draw of DDR4? Front side bus is gone, now we are looking at the QPI's and HTLINKS/HYPERTRANSPORTS and what have you. Microprocessors have been stagnant in megahertz gains for the past 6 to 10 years, outside of overclocking, neither IBM, Intel nor AMD have been able to mass produce 4 gigahertz microprocessors to the public. I know there's the argument that there is a need for faster memory for memory intensive applications, but memory running faster than the logical processor(s) is surely gonna become some sorta bottleneck to the overall platform I'm guessing.

I dunno, with the roadmaps laid out for Intel and AMD for the next five years, is DDR4 even needed?

---

Depends for what exactly you are talking about.

In terms of latency sensitive applications. NO

In terms of bandwidth intensive applications. YES

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiwi

Nope, we need faster hard drives :)

---

One of many things that must be improved to improve overall system performance

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manabu

Yes, very much.

Faster DDR3 and DDR4 are essential for AMD Fusion, and maybe for intel's IGP too (if they become serious about graphics speed). Dual-channel DDR3 PC-1600, that should be common place next year, has the same bandwidth than the Radeon HD5750 with it's 128bit 800mhz GDDR5. But this will have to be shared with the CPU, so even the first generation Fusion may be limited by memory speed, and ask for faster bins to have it's potential adequatedly in use. The third generation will surely want DDR4, else it will not even be possible to double the GPU power. And I doubt triple channel memory will grow beyond enthusiats crowd any time soon, if ever.

That besides having to share 512mb+ of ram for IGP, and Windows 7 64bits, whose will make people want 4~8GB in their systems. Memory makers will be busy in comming years.

---

Side channel GDDR4 is also an option but I doubt we will see that for any real serious performance products.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Particle

I think the more important question to ask would be, "Do you really want to stop making memory faster?" To answer in the affirmative would be absurd.

Faster memory is always a good thing. Lower power is also great. Max performance gains may be small, but that's the world we live in anymore. A few percent here and a few percent there add up to offer what performance gains we have. As for what benefits, anything with a large dataset will benefit. Laptops and other battery powered computing devices are going to like this as well.

---

In terms of latency, we are literally at the wall given capacities that are involved. [You need smaller memory to make memory lower latency]

In terms of bandwidth, we can continue to see slow steady progress forward for another decade. Beyond that no one knows.

Anyone else find this to be shady end of the tech business. I swear the screw around with prices so much I'm never jumping into whatever is new with these guys.

interesting graphs...
but they are more of a general overview i think... they dont look very accurate, then again i dont think they were ever meant to be very accurate :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Olivon

http://tof.canardpc.com/preview2/b3f...2d90c3e074.jpg

---

this is already possible with ddr3 afaik... :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nn_step

In terms of latency, we are literally at the wall given capacities that are involved. [You need smaller memory to make memory lower latency]

In terms of bandwidth, we can continue to see slow steady progress forward for another decade. Beyond that no one knows.

---

true... diont you think theres some room for improvement through caching branching and prefetching though? still thats going to happen either in the imc or memory switch chip...

I like to remind people that the end of the world always appears to be just around the corner. Let us not be so short sighted as to think there is a serious chance of progress stopping just because we can't see the way past a point today. Things will continue to get faster, smaller, cheaper, even if we don't see how today. There's sure to be an ultimate end to density, but we aren't getting there in a decade or even two decades.

particle is speaking the truth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Particle

I like to remind people that the end of the world always appears to be just around the corner. Let us not be so short sighted as to think there is a serious chance of progress stopping just because we can't see the way past a point today. Things will continue to get faster, smaller, cheaper, even if we don't see how today. There's sure to be an ultimate end to density, but we aren't getting there in a decade or even two decades.

---

i actually disagree...
there's always a point of diminishing returns, and if you ask me, late ddr2 already reached it... the demand for memory performance grows, sure, but at a veeery slow pace, and for most consumer aps its barely growing at all...
single channel ddr3 is just as fast as tripple channel ddr3 in 90% of todays apps... need i say more?
as if youd even remotely notice a difference between ddr3 1333 and ddr3 2000 without using a benchmark and compare numbers...
why do you think the ddr3 adoption took this long? cause it just didnt make sense to upgrade to ddr3, cause it cost more and nobody would notice the difference between a ddr2 and ddr3 pc...
dont you think if thered have been a notable performance boost people would have wanted ddr3, and oems and shops would have equipped their pcs with ddr3 to have a competitive advantage over other systems?

just look at whats important to have a good pc experience nowadays...
1.) display
2.) vga
3.) ssd
4.) cpu
5.) memory capacity
6.) memory speed

and then theres internet connection which id rate no2 actually, some might actually rate it no1...

anyways, memory speed makes pretty much the smallest impact of system performance these days... and even if ddr7 came out tomorrow, 99% of the people wouldnt even care...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

and if you ask me, late ddr2 already reached it...

---

+1, 800mhz ddr2 running CAS 4 or 5 is fast enough for almost every common task or game. as long as you have the minimum memory required, you do good enough.

I cannot believe how short sighted some of you continue to be. Without us today pursing tomorrow's technology, next week's is never going to come. It just doesn't make any sense to stop unless you're really suggesting that memory is fast enough for the rest of time. That would be the only reason to not advance. Nobody is going to make that claim, so you really have no choice in what action is appropriate. Keep advancing as is economically and technologically feasible or simply die outright--those are the only two options.

Here is another thing to think about. Why do you think CPUs have cache? There is no mystery here, and it is no matter of opinion. Cache is present because system memory is so darn slow compared to the CPU's logic. System memory is in turn present because hard drives are so slow. Hard drives are present because of the ultimate need for capacity. This is a pretty big deal when as much as half of a CPU die is dedicated to SRAM cells. If system memory were as fast as cache instead of where it is now, your CPU wouldn't need cache at all and that extra 50% of the transistor budget might be absent (cheaper CPUs) or used for logic (faster CPUs). It would be better still if it were as fast as the CPU's registers. It's not possible to make system memory that fast of course with the two most obvious problems being physical distance versus clock speed and capacity due to the lower density of faster memory technologies. The closer you can get system memory to that point, however, the better off the design is.

It may not be interesting to you, but it's not a bad thing. I don't get where the determination to dog this technology so hard is coming from.

What Saaya said is where I was going with my post, SDRAM is just SDRAM. No matter what the iteration is it's just memory. You do not get the impression of a performance boost when moving from DDR2 to DDR3, and the power savings you may not even recuperate within 10 years. The move from "SDRAM" to DDR resulted in boosts in performance in most day-to-day applications, I mean you could really see the difference depending on what you where doing, and it is because Both AMD and Intel platforms could use it, both platforms really thrived off of the change.

Fast forward to today, three generations later and the performance margins are much smaller than what DDR brought to the table. Will the new iteration bring lower prices of SDRAM to the market?(even high density which is much needed), will it force current microprocessor and chipset producers to change their architectures to really utilize and unleash the proposed power of DDR4? As many of you have already said, DDR3 can already meet these specs or better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Particle

I cannot believe how short sighted some of you continue to be. Without us today pursing tomorrow's technology, next week's is never going to come. It just doesn't make any sense to stop unless you're really suggesting that memory is fast enough for the rest of time. That would be the only reason to not advance. Nobody is going to make that claim, so you really have no choice in what action is appropriate. Keep advancing as is economically and technologically feasible or simply die outright--those are the only two options.

Here is another thing to think about. Why do you think CPUs have cache? There is no mystery here, and it is no matter of opinion. Cache is present because system memory is so darn slow compared to the CPU's logic. System memory is in turn present because hard drives are so slow. Hard drives are present because of the ultimate need for capacity. This is a pretty big deal when as much as half of a CPU die is dedicated to SRAM cells. If system memory were as fast as cache instead of where it is now, your CPU wouldn't need cache at all and that extra 50% of the transistor budget might be absent (cheaper CPUs) or used for logic (faster CPUs). It would be better still if it were as fast as the CPU's registers. It's not possible to make system memory that fast of course with the two most obvious problems being physical distance versus clock speed and capacity due to the lower density of faster memory technologies. The closer you can get system memory to that point, however, the better off the design is.

It may not be interesting to you, but it's not a bad thing. I don't get where the determination to dog this technology so hard is coming from.

---

nobody is saying we should stop ddr4 research :D
once we need it, it will be ready, im sure... actually its much more likely that itll be ready BEFORE we need it :D

what im saying is that:
1.) itll be quite a while before it comes out
2.) i wouldnt expect any notable performance boosts from ddr4 once it does...

why has memory become a minor perf boost? back in DDR1 days it was pretty noticeable, have new instructions relied more on cache than memory chips?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

nobody is saying we should stop ddr4 research :D
once we need it, it will be ready, im sure... actually its much more likely that itll be ready BEFORE we need it :D

what im saying is that:
1.) itll be quite a while before it comes out
2.) i wouldnt expect any notable performance boosts from ddr4 once it does...

---

Looks like we're on the same page then. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manicdan

why has memory become a minor perf boost? back in DDR1 days it was pretty noticeable, have new instructions relied more on cache than memory chips?

---

I'd say the boost was more significant due to these three pressures:
- Caches on CPUs were smaller and slower leading to the core being starved more often

- The memory technologies were much slower than what we have today. It's easy to be wowed by gains at the low end of a technology like with CPUs in the Pentium/Pentium II days because it's a lot easier to notice. Remember being impressed by CPU upgrades back then in terms of how much faster a system felt? That just doesn't really happen anymore since the CPUs of yesteryear are already so fast for general purpose activities. Same concept.

- The gains were larger, too, due to a switch from SDR to DDR signaling. That alone gets you a virtually free doubling of throughput at the same frequency without sacrificing latency. We don't get to do that again since we're already using it. We can add more phases of clock cycles, but QDR is about the practical limit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

interesting graphs...
but they are more of a general overview i think... they dont look very accurate, then again i dont think they were ever meant to be very accurate :)


this is already possible with ddr3 afaik... :)

true... diont you think theres some room for improvement through caching branching and prefetching though? still thats going to happen either in the imc or memory switch chip...

---

caching is already being done [Performance significantly limited by Cache sizes and working set]

pre-fetching is already being done [AMD and Intel perform this extensive where possible]

Not to mention those two technologies are not new and have been implemented in systems since 1972.

The only improvements left in memory are bandwidth based. Unless of course new revolutionary memory types are used [or using Z-RAM with its 3ns claimed response times]

Which is alright if we don't expect single thread performance to continue to climb much. Since multi-core systems are bandwidth hungry and more tolerant of weaker latencies.

QDR or even HDR ... they wont ever stop and i dont ever want them to stop ... faster silicon always travels down to other area of social activities .... + its also cheaper in the end that way with the current tech cycle of life ....

I'm not sure it'll go much beyond QDR. It's theoretically possible of course, but timing is a major issue as you add clock phases. It would probably be better just to increase clock frequency, and that's generally what we've seen in the past with DDR2 and later DDR3. The DDR interface just takes advantage of what is essentially a free improvement by transmitting on both the rising and falling edge instead of just one or the other like had traditionally been the case. Generally speaking, in digital logic, reads are done on one edge and writes on the other. To get QDR you have to get another clock signal of identical frequency perfectly in sync with the first and out of phase by 90 degrees. If you want to go 6DR you'd need three that are 60 and 120 degrees, for 8DR you're looking at 45, 90, and 135. And so on. It gets REALLY hard to do compared to increasing frequency. Again, it's theoretically possible, but it's not the low hanging fruit that DDR is.

I've had some experience in this area with some digital logic design work as I've designed and used memory controllers before. I'm not a professional R&D team or anything, but I am at least more familiar than a random person on the street.

Looks like DDR4 will finally allow onboard/die GPU's like amd's upcoming fusion/llano to have the bandwidth they need, especially if the rumors of quad channel controllers are true.

lga1366 uses triple channel, beckton uses quad-channel, magny cours uses dual dual-channel, so someone needs it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manicdan

why has memory become a minor perf boost? back in DDR1 days it was pretty noticeable, have new instructions relied more on cache than memory chips?

---

it seems to me that the biggest bottle neck in computers today is the HDD. it's great to see advances in memory, but i'm not going to rush out and spend $650 on a new memory set again (thinking back to the release of DDR3-2000).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hollo

lga1366 uses triple channel, beckton uses quad-channel, magny cours uses dual dual-channel, so someone needs it

---

indeed, servers need the bandwidth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nn_step

The only improvements left in memory are bandwidth based. Unless of course new revolutionary memory types are used [or using Z-RAM with its 3ns claimed response times]

---

Pfff z-ram.. an ongoing fairy tale... for how long do we here that it will replace sram, dram etc., especial form amd, half a decade?

But fear not T-ram for the rescue...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

Pfff z-ram.. an ongoing fairy tale... for how long do we here that it will replace sram, especial form amd, half a decade?

But fear not T-ram for the rescue...

---

Since 1/19/2006 to be precise.

However this is not surprising given the typical time between invention and market.

And the first batches of DDR4 will cost £300 for 4 Gb of standard Jedec spec versions.

If its anything how DDR3 was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

Pfff z-ram.. an ongoing fairy tale... for how long do we here that it will replace sram, dram etc., especial form amd, half a decade?

But fear not T-ram for the rescue...

---

AMD bought the rights to it and said they'd investigate using it in the future, but the tale that its introduction is immanent is nothing but the fabrication of computer users gossiping, as far as I know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manicdan

why has memory become a minor perf boost? back in DDR1 days it was pretty noticeable, have new instructions relied more on cache than memory chips?

---

ddr1 cut actual latency almost in half, thats why afaik... qdr would be the next step but it was more complex and expensive to implement... with chips its all about being cheap... the cheapest "good enough" tech usually prevails...

the biggest jump in memory performance in my experience was sdr to ddr, and it was accompanied by the fsb going ddr as well, which was probably a notable part of the boost as well. after that the second biggest boost was going ddr single channel to dual channel... everything after that was only measurable in benchmarks for me...

about more bandwidth making sense for more cores, yeah... now we only have to find a way to actually USE those cores :lol:
i think single thread performance will continue to improve, i hope so at least... its going to be at least a decade until single thread performance wont really matter anymore...
lets hope caches grow big enough to provide memory boosts by slowly replacing dram, at least for single thread scenarios...

Yea, in video games there is absolutely minor gain to be had from going from Dual Channel 800 Mhz DDR2 > Triple Channel 2133 Mhz DDR3.

Which is really annoying, considering the speed and bandwidth difference between the two.