Slashdot Mirror
DDR3 RAM Explained
Das Capitolin sends us to Benchmark Reviews for an in-depth feature on DDR3 memory that begins: "These are uncertain financial times we live in today, and the rise and fall of our economy has had [a] direct [effect] on consumer spending. It has already been one full year now that DDR3 has been patiently waiting for the enthusiast community to give it proper consideration, yet [its] success is still undermined by misconceptions and high price. Benchmark Reviews has been testing DDR3 more actively than anyone. ... Sadly, it might take an article like this to open the eyes of my fellow hardware enthusiast[s] and overclocker[s], because it seems like DDR3 is the technology nobody wants [badly] enough to learn about. Pity, because overclocking is what it's all about."
Great, now that I know how well certain DDR3 chips overclock, can I see how DDR3 compares to DDR2 in terms of raw performance and overclocking ability? I'm not an expert on how DDR2 works, so DDR3 could be better explained to me by showing me how it is better than DDR2.
Memory bandwidth is not problem right now. I/O is too slow. We need faster disks and LANs first.
It's always nice to see a tech writer full of teenage enthusiasm, but this article goes a little over the top.
It's supposed to be an article about a performance enhancement, and there's barely any performance values at all (except for the theoretical peak throughputs on page 3, and we know how much that means).
I think what the guy really wanted was to write about planes, not about computer hardware.
Because some value stability over speed.
The problem with sales of DDR3 is probably down to the fact that most computers are being sold with versions of Vista 32. To really make a difference with faster SRAM would probably also mean having a larger amount of SRAM. But the problem is Vista 32 only addresses just under 4GB of SRAM. As many computers for the home market max out by being supplied with 4GB of SRAM as new, the computers are effectively un-upgradable unless a different operating system is used. This leaves an interesting situation:- 1. Run Vista 64 - but then a large portion of hardware and software will not work as you cannot sign unapproved drivers. 2. Run Linux 3. Buy a MAC And there is the problem, the alternatives to using DDR3 are in fact called using a different operating system and adding standard DDR2 memory, which is more cost effective that paying the extra for the DDR3 SRAM. The only area I could possibly see DDR3 technology in the commercial hardware is in cutting edge graphics cards, where performance is everything. Unfortunately, as Vista 32 is already at is technology limit and that many potential users of this technology will baulk at the price, I can see games console manufacturers adopting this technology before the general PC market.
You're still lacking the source for
* BIOS
* BMC
* WLAN Card
* Disk Controllers
etc. pp.
He's like a jet engine supporter immediately after World War II:
"Jet engines are inherrently capable of much greater speeds than propeller engines!"
"OK, so show me one that goes much faster than the prop driven spitfire?"
"Well, uh, there's the Gloster Meteor!"
"It does about 500mph*, right? That's not bad compared to the Spitfire XIX's 460mph. But there are tons of Spitfires out there, available cheaply vs. paying several times the cost for the Meteor for about a 10% speed improvement." *note: F-3 variant, not the "overclocked" tweaked versions that set speed records.
"Well, but the point isn't that it's better today. It's a better technology! It'll be better in the future! Props will never go supersonic. Jets can potentially go several times supersonic."
"That is cool. Doesn't really help me today though, does it? I'm still paying several times the cost for a small improvement, today."
"Yeah, but if you don't buy jets now, how will their prices ever come down? How will we ever reach the heady perfection they're capable of?"
"Again, not helping me today, is it?"
"But! But! It's really cool!"
Yes, the technology shows promise. But its future promise with only small increases today doesn't justify its current high cost.
If more people bought it, the cost would come down over time and more investment would mean unlocking more of that promise. Which is great in the future but gives you very little today in exchange for that high cost.
The argument he seems to be making is that everyone should adopt it right now, not because it actually gets them much for their money but because their investment will enable him to buy even faster stuff for a lower price later.
Not really compelling.
I dont know what retard modded you insightful. Anyone with even the slightest understanding of overclocking knows that you don't overclock to the point of instability.
Way to go Moderators.
This article seems to be paid advertising, with some bending of the facts.
And the fact is that the double prefetch buffer is the sole reason for the double bandwith and the double latency. As a matter of fact the speed of the individual memory chips on the ram module are the same as on ddr2 (see that table in the article, just divide the ddr3 clock by 2 to get the corresponding ddr2 speed) - but instead of reading 1 bit from 4 chips at once into the prefetch buffer (that is four bit prefetch buffer), they are reading from eight at once (so that's the 8 bit prefetch buffer), so double the amount of data can be read in the same time (hence the double bandwidth). However because the memory chips are the same speed as in ddr2, the time needed to program the individual chips stays the same - so because the clock is double the speed, it takes twice as many clocks to tell the individual chips which bit we want to fetch. And that bullshit about lower latencies is also not quite right: ddr3-1600 cl6 is the same latency as ddr2-800 cl3 - and such modules have been sold for years.
Of course ddr3 is better, because it has higher bandwidth, and absolute latency is not worse than ddr2's. Also there are in deed technological advances (e.g. the lower voltage). But this article is still not exactly honest.
I have yet to have a customer offer a contract for a full ECC system, but I expect that type of customer to be ordering in the dozens or hundreds. For one machine or 100 I would still give 48 hours of memtest. For ECC I would still give 48 hours of memtest.
If you can recommend a better test, I am open to suggestions.