Samsung Develops 30nm-class DDR4 Module

I'm not ready to upgrade my motherboard yet...

lol
damn you technology!

Care to tell us what kind of latencies to expect Samsung?

I hope I can pop in 6x 4GB DDR4 2400 into a X78 motherboard rocking a octocore Sandy.

The speed worries me. Shouldn't it be at 3200?

Well DDR4 wont be ready for mainstream until later next year so I can squeeze another year out of my DDR3 1333 8gb setup. I just want AMD's Bulldozer 8 cores to get announced.

Aww and i just got 16GB of DDR3.. (accidentally ordered 2x8GB)

I have to buy a new motherboard this year just for Bulldozer, now i have to buy another one next year as well because i won't be able to handle not having the best..

I am still on my ddr2 1100 maybe i will just wait to ddr4 ha. =)

Now if we can make native DDR4 Quad channle a standard for 2016.

I second that. I might even wait for DDR5!

I'm pissed that I can't even find a good replacement mobo for my core 2 q6600 with ddr2 anymore. I don't wanna buy DDR3 yet.

Perhaps Intels x68 will be ddr4

Holy O - o

nah they aren't always able to take steady jumps. sometimes they milk a technology first with small speed incremental bumps. there's already ddr3-2100 but ddr3-2000 is more common.
33~66~100~133~166~200~266~333~400~533~667~800~1066~1200~1333~1600~2000~2100~2133->2333->2400->2666, ?DDR5? 2800->3000->3200->3466
just go by the 266,333,400 and add your next multiplier #
ram speeds are pretty predictable for every generation unless they start doubling DDR2 speeds at DDR4/5 Gen which i think more then likely since they're approaching the 22nm barrier by then with DDR5? i know i fouled something up some where but i'm too tired to think this late at night.

I'm puzzled: why not forgo DDR4 completely, just like the GPU makers did and skip right to DDR5 instead?

It took long enough. I remember an article saying it should only be 2-3 years between RAM updates, and that DDR3 was late. This is...what? 3 years late?
But yea, I still have my DDR2 1150 cards, and they do just fine. I'll have them another year or longer.

Making quad channel standard would require 'yet another' CPU socket, with a significant increase in pin count. So much so power consumption would increase.

When new generations of DDR are released they typically start +25% to +33% above the clock speed of the last generation, with latencies that defeat the gain in performance. They're geared towards the notebook segment of the market - as that is the largest growing segment and has been for years.

As for GDDR4 and GDDR5 there are patent issues, ATI made some very intelligent moves in this part of the market a long time ago. Sadly their marketing department is too conservative compared to NVIDIA. They do have a double chipset support advantage though, since Intel isn't licensing tech to NVIDIA any more - NVIDIA thought they'd mention they want to try and make their own CPUs, and may side with ARM when Windows 8 is mainstream. This will just cost them a huge share of the high profit margin market segments.

I'm pretty sure it'll be Z68, and X78 for the unreleased Intel chipsets later in the year btw. Any site talking about X68 is probably making stuff up.

Why not 8x4gb? or any capacity? Why not go Quad-Channel? You saw what performance enhancemnt the Nahnlem offered over dual-channel architecture.

Having a 256-bit memory bus seems logical, especially now that CPU manufacturers seem very keen on making on-die GPUs. A 256bit bus should increase the on board video performance significantly. If you are curios, just crack open you desktop or laptop with on-board GPU, and remove one of the memory modules:

AMD Radeon 4200 with 64 bit bus (1x2GB DDR2 667MHz) - 1670 3dmarks
AMD Radeon 4200 with 128 bit bus (2x2GB DDR2 667MHz) - 2118 3dmarks
AMD Radeon 4200 with 128 bit bus (2x2GB DDR2 800MHz) - 2271 3dmarks

AMD Radeon 5200 with 256 bit bus (4x1GB DDR3 1333MHz) - ???? (hopefully ~ 4500 3dmarks)

I used 3dmark 2006 and the laptop is a Compaq CQ61.

Screw this, I'm gunna now wait for PCI-e 3.0, an affordable 1 TB SSD, DDR4, (8-core) Ivy Bridge, Windows 8 and DirectX12 to come out before I upgrade. When all these pieces fall into place, I'll upgrade. Not until then.

Because it is much cheaper to have 256-bit traces on a daughter board that is optional than forcing it onto much larger and much more costly motherboards - that's why.

Additionally it would not be viable to use Unbuffered, Non-Registered, memory modules in a configuration beyond 6 DIMMs, let alone 4.

If people want such architectures they can pay for it by building a Xeon or Opteron Server/Workstation Hybrid. The motherboards will set you back at least $500.

Also, doubling the memory throughput in the x86 or x64 architecture does not double the performance, since a typical cache has ~ 80% hit rate, and there are several cache tiers in the hierarchy.

For those that want greater performance in 3D then they can use a PCIe 2.0 x16 slot, or multiple of them, and pay for a GPU with far more transistors, etc (It is the same with doubling the interface throughput of PCIe x16 slots, it is only a very small part of the solution, typically only used to load compressed textures into video memory).

You could cost it out, and it would be easily beaten by a modern, yet far more affordable, GPU created using the same fabrication tech (i.e. 32nm).


Or basically, going from very poor graphics performance to 'slightly less than very poor' graphics performance by tripling the cost of the motherboard and adding another 380 pins to the CPU, which will cause it's cost to skyrocket, isn't something that is going to appeal to consumers versus just adding in a daughter-board style video card at 1/10th the cost.

I was expecting DDR5 as the next gen maim memory

Enjoy!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synch [...] AM_history

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GDDR4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GDDR5

The more obvious thing to do with 30nm memory would be to manufacture 5GB or 6GB DIMMs at the cost of a 2GB instead of just doubling capacity each time.

There is nothing wrong with dual-channel memory being 10GB or 12GB instead of the typical 4GB or 8GB is there? (There are not many technical hurdles to this & I've always wondered why they don't).

It would've been most beneficial to have 1.5GB DIMMs prior to x64 becoming popular with consumers.

Sadly the only innovation going on in the market (versus research & development) is OCZ re-branding parts & buying out companies.

Latency has been disappointing with DDR3 and basically sacrificing latency for speed. I hope DDR4 changes this issue.

No, intel will wait a few generations before it starts using new memory.

Actually they really didn't. Well not all of them. ATI had a GDDR4 series, the HD2900 series. It was using a 512bit ring bus to achieve the same memory bandwidth as GDDR5.

But since GDDR5 can get the same using a 256bit interface, it greatly lowers power consumption and cost of the card. That's why we didn't see GDDR4 as much.




Actually I remember Intel saying that they will be moving to DDR4 by 2012 which means that Haswell (Ivy Bridge successor) is probably going to use it.

Of course DDR4 will be expensive to start much like DDR/DDR2/DDR3 but I bet that DDR4 prices will fall even faster than DDR3 which fell to near DDR2 prices withing a year.

That is GDDR5 - Basically some name given by ATI/AMD and not actual DDR5 CPU memory.

I think technology is going too fast these days. I don't think an average consumer would use over Athlon II x4 645. Now they have the re-branded Athlon II x4 650 --->> Phenom II x4 840 w/out L3 @3.2GHz

DDR4? My computer doesn't even have DDR3? Well my laptop does. But my desktop is at its best DDR2-800MHz. DDR4 and Intel x68 is too fast and too furious.

oh what a memory to remember