Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Adata Introduces Next-Generation of DDR4 DRAM Modules

Last response: in News comments
Share
September 18, 2013 9:32:26 PM

Patiently waiting for this to hit desktops. iGPUs have been begging for it.
Score
-1
September 18, 2013 11:16:40 PM

BulkZerker said:
Patiently waiting for this to hit desktops. iGPUs have been begging for it.


It's really not about a speed boost, at least not initially, DDR3 has achieved 3000Mhz at 1.65V. So a DDR3 module at 3000Mhz and 1.65v will be faster than these 2133Mhz 1.2v DDR4 modules unless there are more channels for DDR4. DDR4 is about power savings not speed increases. Currently 1.5v is required for 2133Mhz DDR3 I've only seen 1866Mhz using the lower voltage 1.35v DDR3 So 2133Mhz at 1.2v should give some nice power savings and less heat radiated into the case but if you are expecting all this additional speed I wouldn't get your hopes up too high. I could be wrong though maybe DDR4 will quickly scale to beyond 3000Mhz or maybe the cas latencies have improved tremendously.
Score
1
September 18, 2013 11:39:28 PM

I will jump on the first Intel or AMD platform that supports DDR4 memory. This is like watching an extremely slow race.
Score
-1
September 19, 2013 12:16:32 AM

I'm hoping this brings 16GB sticks so I can get 64GB in 4 slots. My RAM disk is lacking a bit.
Score
2
September 19, 2013 12:42:21 AM

As always when we change DDR standard it will take a few months for the new one to beat the previous generation on speed. It will be interesting to see how quickly it will be implemented.
Score
4
September 19, 2013 1:54:01 AM

laststop311 said:
BulkZerker said:
Patiently waiting for this to hit desktops. iGPUs have been begging for it.


It's really not about a speed boost, at least not initially, DDR3 has achieved 3000Mhz at 1.65V. So a DDR3 module at 3000Mhz and 1.65v will be faster than these 2133Mhz 1.2v DDR4 modules unless there are more channels for DDR4. DDR4 is about power savings not speed increases. Currently 1.5v is required for 2133Mhz DDR3 I've only seen 1866Mhz using the lower voltage 1.35v DDR3 So 2133Mhz at 1.2v should give some nice power savings and less heat radiated into the case but if you are expecting all this additional speed I wouldn't get your hopes up too high. I could be wrong though maybe DDR4 will quickly scale to beyond 3000Mhz or maybe the cas latencies have improved tremendously.


Every iteration of RAM was big performance leap. It's the same right now, doubling transfer rates yet again.
This would be a very strange to adapt new memory standard just for marginal power efficiency benefit. If it's only power saving feature ddr4 is very long way from desktop.

Score
-1
September 19, 2013 3:26:13 AM

cypeq said:
laststop311 said:
BulkZerker said:
Patiently waiting for this to hit desktops. iGPUs have been begging for it.


It's really not about a speed boost, at least not initially, DDR3 has achieved 3000Mhz at 1.65V. So a DDR3 module at 3000Mhz and 1.65v will be faster than these 2133Mhz 1.2v DDR4 modules unless there are more channels for DDR4. DDR4 is about power savings not speed increases. Currently 1.5v is required for 2133Mhz DDR3 I've only seen 1866Mhz using the lower voltage 1.35v DDR3 So 2133Mhz at 1.2v should give some nice power savings and less heat radiated into the case but if you are expecting all this additional speed I wouldn't get your hopes up too high. I could be wrong though maybe DDR4 will quickly scale to beyond 3000Mhz or maybe the cas latencies have improved tremendously.


Every iteration of RAM was big performance leap. It's the same right now, doubling transfer rates yet again.
This would be a very strange to adapt new memory standard just for marginal power efficiency benefit. If it's only power saving feature ddr4 is very long way from desktop.



Are you kidding me? Have you followed any DDR technology at all? On release DDR2 Was SLOWER than DDR1, DDR3 was SLOWER than DDR2 (at the same frequency) the timings are always slower! and that kills the performance. It's the same with DDR4. It won't catch up to overclocked DDR3 performance for some time. So he's exactly right, it's about efficiency and future performance scaling, that's it.
Big deal though, you can pick up 1.2V DDR3 modules anyway (not at 2133 though) but who cares a couple of watts saving.. big deal.
Will be interesting at 1500MHz (3000) otherwise.. meh. Can't believe we've been waiting years for this. We need something better than DDR technology already.

Here's an interesting read for ya.

http://www.cadence.com/Community/blogs/ii/archive/2011/11/17/arm-techcon-paper-why-dram-latency-is-getting-worse.aspx

Score
1
September 19, 2013 4:46:24 AM

Quote:
Ryrynz

Quote:
Are you kidding me? Have you followed any DDR technology at all? On release DDR2 Was SLOWER than DDR1, DDR3 was SLOWER than DDR2 (at the same frequency) the timings are always slower! and that kills the performance. It's the same with DDR4. It won't catch up to overclocked DDR3 performance for some time. So he's exactly right, it's about efficiency and future performance scaling, that's it.
Big deal though, you can pick up 1.2V DDR3 modules anyway (not at 2133 though) but who cares a couple of watts saving.. big deal.
Will be interesting at 1500MHz (3000) otherwise.. meh. Can't believe we've been waiting years for this. We need something better than DDR technology already.



Why compare overclocked DDR3 to DDR4? Most people don't overclock their DDR3 ram, so they don't care about overclocked DDR3 versus non-overclocked DDR4, aside from that, comparing over-clock versus non-overclock is not a fair comparison.
Score
-2
September 19, 2013 5:13:54 AM

Ninjawithagun, graphics cards use GDDR5 which is based on DDR3.
Score
2
September 19, 2013 5:49:33 AM

wemakeourfuture said:
Quote:
Ryrynz

Quote:
Are you kidding me? Have you followed any DDR technology at all? On release DDR2 Was SLOWER than DDR1, DDR3 was SLOWER than DDR2 (at the same frequency) the timings are always slower! and that kills the performance. It's the same with DDR4. It won't catch up to overclocked DDR3 performance for some time. So he's exactly right, it's about efficiency and future performance scaling, that's it.
Big deal though, you can pick up 1.2V DDR3 modules anyway (not at 2133 though) but who cares a couple of watts saving.. big deal.
Will be interesting at 1500MHz (3000) otherwise.. meh. Can't believe we've been waiting years for this. We need something better than DDR technology already.



Why compare overclocked DDR3 to DDR4? Most people don't overclock their DDR3 ram, so they don't care about overclocked DDR3 versus non-overclocked DDR4, aside from that, comparing over-clock versus non-overclock is not a fair comparison.


Because it's at the same frequency? You are aware that high speed DDR3 RAM running at higher than 2133MHz is basically overlocked RAM right? Same went for 2133 and 1866 before they were released as a spec. By overclocked I mean everything above 2133Mhz.
Score
-2
September 19, 2013 5:54:57 AM

If it is mostly about power consumption then I can wait. I did not build any of my rigs to conserve power at all. I built them to be fast no matter what. I turn off all of the power saving options on all of my desktop rigs. When I want to use any of my desktop rigs I do not want to have to wait for it to wake up from sleep it should be up at full speed as soon as I touch the mouse.
Score
1
September 19, 2013 6:41:16 AM

Ryrynz said:
cypeq said:
laststop311 said:
BulkZerker said:
Patiently waiting for this to hit desktops. iGPUs have been begging for it.


It's really not about a speed boost, at least not initially, DDR3 has achieved 3000Mhz at 1.65V. So a DDR3 module at 3000Mhz and 1.65v will be faster than these 2133Mhz 1.2v DDR4 modules unless there are more channels for DDR4. DDR4 is about power savings not speed increases. Currently 1.5v is required for 2133Mhz DDR3 I've only seen 1866Mhz using the lower voltage 1.35v DDR3 So 2133Mhz at 1.2v should give some nice power savings and less heat radiated into the case but if you are expecting all this additional speed I wouldn't get your hopes up too high. I could be wrong though maybe DDR4 will quickly scale to beyond 3000Mhz or maybe the cas latencies have improved tremendously.


Every iteration of RAM was big performance leap. It's the same right now, doubling transfer rates yet again.
This would be a very strange to adapt new memory standard just for marginal power efficiency benefit. If it's only power saving feature ddr4 is very long way from desktop.



Are you kidding me? Have you followed any DDR technology at all? On release DDR2 Was SLOWER than DDR1, DDR3 was SLOWER than DDR2 (at the same frequency) the timings are always slower! and that kills the performance. It's the same with DDR4. It won't catch up to overclocked DDR3 performance for some time. So he's exactly right, it's about efficiency and future performance scaling, that's it.
Big deal though, you can pick up 1.2V DDR3 modules anyway (not at 2133 though) but who cares a couple of watts saving.. big deal.
Will be interesting at 1500MHz (3000) otherwise.. meh. Can't believe we've been waiting years for this. We need something better than DDR technology already.

Here's an interesting read for ya.

http://www.cadence.com/Community/blogs/ii/archive/2011/11/17/arm-techcon-paper-why-dram-latency-is-getting-worse.aspx



Of course timings get worse but that's to be expected... you get two rams and same fequency one with higher timings will perform worse. Did you follow DDR at any point beside release ?
From your stand point DDR2 was worse than DDR1 and DDR3 is worse than DDR2 therefore... DDR1 is much better than DDR3, right ? Cool story bro.
This may be only true in situation when all rams run on 200 Mhz clock, the thing is DDR3 easily reaches 10 times that... where DDR bottomed out at 500 Mhz overclocks.
DDR4 was specified to run a lowest clock of 2133 (now we know they will produce slower models) where DDR3 entered at 800 Mhz.

When production gets better ddr4 is expected to hit numbers beyond 4k (as spec not O/C)
Score
1
September 19, 2013 8:02:43 AM

cypeq said:
Ryrynz said:
cypeq said:
laststop311 said:
BulkZerker said:
Patiently waiting for this to hit desktops. iGPUs have been begging for it.


It's really not about a speed boost, at least not initially, DDR3 has achieved 3000Mhz at 1.65V. So a DDR3 module at 3000Mhz and 1.65v will be faster than these 2133Mhz 1.2v DDR4 modules unless there are more channels for DDR4. DDR4 is about power savings not speed increases. Currently 1.5v is required for 2133Mhz DDR3 I've only seen 1866Mhz using the lower voltage 1.35v DDR3 So 2133Mhz at 1.2v should give some nice power savings and less heat radiated into the case but if you are expecting all this additional speed I wouldn't get your hopes up too high. I could be wrong though maybe DDR4 will quickly scale to beyond 3000Mhz or maybe the cas latencies have improved tremendously.


Every iteration of RAM was big performance leap. It's the same right now, doubling transfer rates yet again.
This would be a very strange to adapt new memory standard just for marginal power efficiency benefit. If it's only power saving feature ddr4 is very long way from desktop.



Are you kidding me? Have you followed any DDR technology at all? On release DDR2 Was SLOWER than DDR1, DDR3 was SLOWER than DDR2 (at the same frequency) the timings are always slower! and that kills the performance. It's the same with DDR4. It won't catch up to overclocked DDR3 performance for some time. So he's exactly right, it's about efficiency and future performance scaling, that's it.
Big deal though, you can pick up 1.2V DDR3 modules anyway (not at 2133 though) but who cares a couple of watts saving.. big deal.
Will be interesting at 1500MHz (3000) otherwise.. meh. Can't believe we've been waiting years for this. We need something better than DDR technology already.

Here's an interesting read for ya.

http://www.cadence.com/Community/blogs/ii/archive/2011/11/17/arm-techcon-paper-why-dram-latency-is-getting-worse.aspx



Of course timings get worse but that's to be expected... you get two rams and same fequency one with higher timings will perform worse. Did you follow DDR at any point beside release ?
From your stand point DDR2 was worse than DDR1 and DDR3 is worse than DDR2 therefore... DDR1 is much better than DDR3, right ? Cool story bro.
This may be only true in situation when all rams run on 200 Mhz clock, the thing is DDR3 easily reaches 10 times that... where DDR bottomed out at 500 Mhz overclocks.
DDR4 was specified to run a lowest clock of 2133 (now we know they will produce slower models) where DDR3 entered at 800 Mhz.

When production gets better ddr4 is expected to hit numbers beyond 4k (as spec not O/C)


Hey buddy, he said "on release" as in initially, not always.
Score
0
September 19, 2013 9:38:27 AM

Thsi is what I have been waiting for DDR4 for.

"The DDR4 specification includes standardized 3D stacking "from the start" according to JEDEC,[39] with provision for up to 8 stacked dies.[36]:12 X-bit Labs predicted that "as a result DDR4 memory chips with very high density will become relatively inexpensive"."

Memory density will increase dramatically in short order after initial release.
Score
3
September 20, 2013 2:03:30 AM

dalethepcman said:
Thsi is what I have been waiting for DDR4 for.

"The DDR4 specification includes standardized 3D stacking "from the start" according to JEDEC,[39] with provision for up to 8 stacked dies.[36]:12 X-bit Labs predicted that "as a result DDR4 memory chips with very high density will become relatively inexpensive"."

Memory density will increase dramatically in short order after initial release.


Only if they decide to put this solution to high volume production not only high end markets.
Score
0
September 25, 2013 11:58:07 PM

cypeq said:


Of course timings get worse but that's to be expected... you get two rams and same fequency one with higher timings will perform worse. Did you follow DDR at any point beside release ?
From your stand point DDR2 was worse than DDR1 and DDR3 is worse than DDR2 therefore... DDR1 is much better than DDR3, right ? Cool story bro.
This may be only true in situation when all rams run on 200 Mhz clock, the thing is DDR3 easily reaches 10 times that... where DDR bottomed out at 500 Mhz overclocks.
DDR4 was specified to run a lowest clock of 2133 (now we know they will produce slower models) where DDR3 entered at 800 Mhz.

When production gets better ddr4 is expected to hit numbers beyond 4k (as spec not O/C)


I said ON RELEASE. Go "cool story bro" someone else who can't read. It's the exact same thing with every DDR release.
The point I was trying to make is that purchasing a system merely for improved RAM performance will be pointless at first.
At 2666 it may start to become interesting, but only if the price is be about equal to DDR3.

dalethepcman said:
Thsi is what I have been waiting for DDR4 for.

"The DDR4 specification includes standardized 3D stacking "from the start" according to JEDEC,[39] with provision for up to 8 stacked dies.[36]:12 X-bit Labs predicted that "as a result DDR4 memory chips with very high density will become relatively inexpensive"."

Memory density will increase dramatically in short order after initial release.


Generally speaking, having more than 8GB is a waste anyway, at some point we'll have more than enough RAM..

It's funny how my RAM now is at 4-8 GB levels when 15 odd years ago my system was at 4-8MB levels. I can't see us
upgrading from 8GB to 32GB as quickly as we did from 8MB to 32MB.. RAM size just isn't that important anymore.
But still.. seeing any sort of advance is nice. But I reckon we'll just be upgrading the size of our RAM cos it's cheap
enough to do so, with very little benefit in the process.
Score
0
September 26, 2013 9:47:27 AM

Ryrynz said:
cypeq said:


Of course timings get worse but that's to be expected... you get two rams and same fequency one with higher timings will perform worse. Did you follow DDR at any point beside release ?
From your stand point DDR2 was worse than DDR1 and DDR3 is worse than DDR2 therefore... DDR1 is much better than DDR3, right ? Cool story bro.
This may be only true in situation when all rams run on 200 Mhz clock, the thing is DDR3 easily reaches 10 times that... where DDR bottomed out at 500 Mhz overclocks.
DDR4 was specified to run a lowest clock of 2133 (now we know they will produce slower models) where DDR3 entered at 800 Mhz.

When production gets better ddr4 is expected to hit numbers beyond 4k (as spec not O/C)


I said ON RELEASE. Go "cool story bro" someone else who can't read. It's the exact same thing with every DDR release.
The point I was trying to make is that purchasing a system merely for improved RAM performance will be pointless at first.
At 2666 it may start to become interesting, but only if the price is be about equal to DDR3.

dalethepcman said:
Thsi is what I have been waiting for DDR4 for.

"The DDR4 specification includes standardized 3D stacking "from the start" according to JEDEC,[39] with provision for up to 8 stacked dies.[36]:12 X-bit Labs predicted that "as a result DDR4 memory chips with very high density will become relatively inexpensive"."

Memory density will increase dramatically in short order after initial release.


Generally speaking, having more than 8GB is a waste anyway, at some point we'll have more than enough RAM..

It's funny how my RAM now is at 4-8 GB levels when 15 odd years ago my system was at 4-8MB levels. I can't see us
upgrading from 8GB to 32GB as quickly as we did from 8MB to 32MB.. RAM size just isn't that important anymore.
But still.. seeing any sort of advance is nice. But I reckon we'll just be upgrading the size of our RAM cos it's cheap
enough to do so, with very little benefit in the process.


Focusing at "on release" specs is a bad idea it's obvious rams released even at 2133 will not shine.
There are many other appliactions for ram than games so over 8 gigabytes is not waste.
4 gigabytes is what most damanding games use now very few see benefit of more... but that will change in few years,.. there is nothing wrong with technology comming out ahead of time (same goes for PCI).
with the ram technology it's the slower chips first. Because the majority of consumers don't care, for others quantity is important. we hear that 7-8 stacks are limit now but that means 2-3-4 stacks will be normal production meaning 4 times more ram on you normal die.
I'm happy for ddr4 because of stacks and GDDR that will follow.

Score
0
September 27, 2013 11:21:13 AM

The nice thing about increased memory density is lower cost of production. Once the fab process is matured you could see 16gb single sticks being the mainstream, because there is no point of making a smaller capacity chip with the same inherent cost.

After large amounts of ram become mainstream you could see OS's using ramdisk like technology to drastically increase application performance. I love my 3par storage for enterprise (spinning disk/sdd/ram with demand/load balancing), I just wish my home PC had a viable software/hardware solution to implement the same configuration.
Score
0
!