Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Transcend Releases 32 GB DDR3 LR-DIMMs, Makes 768 GB of System RAM Possible

By - Source: TechPowerUp | B 23 comments

Transcend is releasing 32 GB DDR3 LRDIMMs which makes massive system memory capacities possible.

Transcend has released its new 32 GB Load-Reduced DIMMs which uses a buffer to reduce the load on the system's memory bus. This allows the system to increase the storage capacity and performance whilst still reducing the system's power consumption.

Standard RDIMM technology has the system's memory bus lead directly to the DRAM chips, with no buffer in between which increases the actual electrical load on the memory bus and consequently limits the memory speeds. Transcend's LRDIMM's buffer acts as a middle man between the memory controller and the DRAM memory, and thus reduces the electrical load on the system memory bus and make it possible to offer much larger storage capacities without compromising performance.

Transcends 32 GB DDR3 LRDIMMs, make it possible to have up to 768 GB of system memory on a motherboard with 24 memory slots. This is a 50 percent increase when compared to RDIMMs, and a 500 percent jump over UDIMMs, which offered 512 GB and 128 GB respectively on a motherboard with 24 memory slots.

Given the exponential growth of memory technology, perhaps it won't be too long before we see systems offering 16 Exabytes (16 x 1018 bytes or 16 million TB), the maximum theoretical limit for 64-bit systems.

The DIMMs are backed by Transcends limited lifetime warranty, with no word on pricing yet.

 

Contact Us for News Tips, Corrections and Feedback

Discuss
Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the News comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 21 Hide
    ibemerson , March 13, 2013 9:31 AM
    And Windows will still complain if you try to disable the swap file.
  • 10 Hide
    f-14 , March 13, 2013 9:53 AM
    iknowhowtofixit"[768GB] is more memory than anyone will ever need on a computer"

    i've heard that before, people used to say that when windows 98 was around " oh you'll never need more that 512MB of memory"
    i heard it before that even with windows 95 " oh you'll never need more than 128MB of memory, why you have that much is just ridiculous"
    guess who was hosting all the Starcraft and Total Annhilation games and other Unit based RTS's?

    ya everybody else only had quadruple the MINIMUM system requirements of 4MB for windows 95 & 16MB for windows 98.

    i can see the need for 768GB of ram right now in just photo and video editing let alone a game of ThermoNuclear War.
  • 10 Hide
    webdawg77 , March 13, 2013 9:27 AM
    There will most likely be an OS of 128bit flavor before we hit the 16EB limit on the hardware.
Other Comments
    Display all 23 comments.
  • 7 Hide
    tokencode , March 13, 2013 7:57 AM
    They will cost so much that it will likely be cheaper to add more servers than to use these DIMMs, of course if you have to scale up rather than out, such as a single SQL server, you don't have much of a choice.
  • 3 Hide
    iknowhowtofixit , March 13, 2013 8:28 AM
    "[768GB] is more memory than anyone will ever need on a computer"
  • 8 Hide
    vmem , March 13, 2013 8:38 AM
    that is preposterous and awesome at the same time... someone needs to make a giant ram-drive, install a full benchmark suite on it along with various OS's and benchmark them lol
  • 3 Hide
    myromance123 , March 13, 2013 9:25 AM
    BigMack70I think it's still safe to see 16 million TB as a long ways off in the future.....

    My thoughts too...
  • 10 Hide
    webdawg77 , March 13, 2013 9:27 AM
    There will most likely be an OS of 128bit flavor before we hit the 16EB limit on the hardware.
  • 21 Hide
    ibemerson , March 13, 2013 9:31 AM
    And Windows will still complain if you try to disable the swap file.
  • 10 Hide
    f-14 , March 13, 2013 9:53 AM
    iknowhowtofixit"[768GB] is more memory than anyone will ever need on a computer"

    i've heard that before, people used to say that when windows 98 was around " oh you'll never need more that 512MB of memory"
    i heard it before that even with windows 95 " oh you'll never need more than 128MB of memory, why you have that much is just ridiculous"
    guess who was hosting all the Starcraft and Total Annhilation games and other Unit based RTS's?

    ya everybody else only had quadruple the MINIMUM system requirements of 4MB for windows 95 & 16MB for windows 98.

    i can see the need for 768GB of ram right now in just photo and video editing let alone a game of ThermoNuclear War.
  • 3 Hide
    realibrad , March 13, 2013 9:54 AM
    its quite possible that in 20 years, computers as we know them will be so different, than an OS wont mean much of anything.

    The clouds are rolling in...
  • 6 Hide
    mchawk , March 13, 2013 10:34 AM
    While this is a cool tech, its nowhere new. Dell has been seeling its 12th generation of server with these modules (32 GB of RAM in a single module, LRDIMM), for over half a year now...
  • 0 Hide
    bunz_of_steel , March 13, 2013 10:48 AM
    I think iknowhowtofixit : was JK... but maybe not lol. 768G ram drive.... yeh right now yer cookin with oil vmem! Although I believe there is software to turn ram into Ramdrive just haven't ck'd now that I got 32Gam with OCZ Vertex 4
  • 6 Hide
    webdawg77 , March 13, 2013 11:40 AM
    BigMack70Agreed... even if this max limit of RAM (768GB) doubles every year, it's still 20 years before 64-bit will be obsolete...


    And with the 128bit OS (if it ever gets here), the maximum would then be 256 (whichever prefix comes into being that is 4 orders of magnitude higher than Yotta) bytes.
  • 1 Hide
    deksman , March 13, 2013 11:44 AM
    Exabyte type systems are possible today in desktop/laptop form factor... the real problem is that it will take time for the market to actually adopt it (and even when it does, it will probably 'cost' too much money, even though the manufacturers will probably be making them for next to nothing - 'cost efficiency' at its finest - has nothing to do with technological ability to make something in abundance with high technological efficiency and minimum expenditure of resources, but more to do with companies spending the least amount of money possible while earning the most).

    Still, even in this day and age, as technology is becoming ever so cheaper, we might see accelerated adoption and much larger leaps (though I somehow doubt it because it would mean potential losses in terms of monetary gain because its more profitable to milk existing outdated technologies and revise the heck out of them instead of releasing the best of what we are capable of - which would actually translate to 60-100 years more advanced technology realistically, if we were to use our latest scientific knowledge which can be applied in practice - but Capitalism never does that).
  • 0 Hide
    madjimms , March 13, 2013 12:17 PM
    I personally only care about power consumption from such high density modules. If they can get 32GB DIMM to use the same power or lower (
  • 1 Hide
    SvRommelvS , March 13, 2013 12:20 PM
    realibrad -- the clouds will need servers. The real question is if these DIMMs can float =)
  • 5 Hide
    derekullo , March 13, 2013 12:51 PM
    Quote:
    "[768GB] is more memory than anyone will ever need on a computer"


    Is actually a quote from Bill Gates referencing DOS's ability to only access 640 kilobytes of ram.
  • 0 Hide
    jn77 , March 13, 2013 1:50 PM
    So which motherboards support this stuff? I am planning a socket 2011 hex core upgrade soon and 128gb or ram would be nice, but I am sure it would require a bios update. I don't want to be stuck with yesterdays 64gb limit.
  • 0 Hide
    s3anister , March 13, 2013 3:49 PM
    Now this is the kind of hardware that would make for a good review, Tom's.
  • 0 Hide
    spentshells , March 13, 2013 4:26 PM
    f-14i've heard that before, people used to say that when windows 98 was around " oh you'll never need more that 512MB of memory" i heard it before that even with windows 95 " oh you'll never need more than 128MB of memory, why you have that much is just ridiculous" guess who was hosting all the Starcraft and Total Annhilation games and other Unit based RTS's?ya everybody else only had quadruple the MINIMUM system requirements of 4MB for windows 95 & 16MB for windows 98.i can see the need for 768GB of ram right now in just photo and video editing let alone a game of ThermoNuclear War.



    windows 95 with 128 of ram?????? Where did you work? You didn't have that at home did you?
  • 0 Hide
    adgjlsfhk , March 13, 2013 4:32 PM
    s3anisterNow this is the kind of hardware that would make for a good review, Tom's.

    It's also the kind of hardware that Tom's can't realistically review because this type of system doesn't really exist yet, not to mention that this amount of ram would not be given to a site to benchmark. Windows 7 supports max of 192 GB, windows 8 is 512 max.
  • 0 Hide
    blazorthon , March 13, 2013 8:45 PM
    adgjlsfhkIt's also the kind of hardware that Tom's can't realistically review because this type of system doesn't really exist yet, not to mention that this amount of ram would not be given to a site to benchmark. Windows 7 supports max of 192 GB, windows 8 is 512 max.


    Server systems with up to 2TiB per system have been around for months if not a year or two. Tom's has benched servers before and systems like this do exist, so Tom's very well could bench this memory. Why we'd do that since being high capacity makes no difference in the performance of the memory itself is a better question to ask.
Display more comments