Slashdot Mirror
DDR4 RAM To Hit Devices Next Year
angry tapir writes "Micron has said that DDR4 memory — the successor to DDR3 DRAM — will reach computers next year, and that the company has started shipping samples of the upcoming DDR memory type. DDR4 is more power-efficient and faster than DDR3. New forms of DDR memory first make it into servers and desktops, and then into laptops. Micron said it hopes that DDR4 memory will also reach portable devices like tablets, which currently use forms of low-power DDR3 and DDR2 memory."
... I'm still stuck on good ole DDR2
Realistically, while there are benefits for "faster", it's no substitute for reducing inefficient bloatware.
Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
I predict a 33% performance increase going from DDR3 to DDR4 based on my own super-secret analysis of the press release.
I'll be impressed when they finally get around to changing DDR to TDR or QDR.
What is the expected latency of this new RAM? I've noticed that as the RAM technology has progressed, it has favored pure throughput to latency, but this is not always ideal. Is DDR4 going to help with this, or is this yet another advance that comes at the expense of added lag? Just curious on this. I didn't think RAM bandwidth was a problem, but latency could starve these current ultra-fast processors.
today is spelling optional day.
Slightly lower power consumption. Slightly faster memory. Sorry, but it's looking to me like just another way of obsoleting my portable faster, without significant performance improvement.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Isn't it time to drop the "D" in DDR? Double what? Double of DDR3?
It's actually double 1990's technology, as DDR 1.0 was specified in 2000! Good thing this isn't a mass consumer product, because the FTC might go after a company claiming "double" in comparison to product that was produced potentially prior to the birth of the purchaser.
It reminds me of the mistake computer and software companies would make in the 80's of calling the second version of a product the "plus" version, and then the subsequent versions would be "plus 2.0", "plus 3.0" etc.
I just bought a new computer with DDR3 in it yesterday.
Where can I get it?
They should license timecube technology from Gene Ray.
Then they could simultaneously transfer four datas at the same time.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Just saying DDR4 is better is just lazy. How about some specs, aka details. We don't need slashdot to tell us that 4 is better than 2 and 3.
Ha, if the gov't decided it was going to be in business distributing computers 'fairly' and whatnot, you'd never see this sort of innovation. Where would we be? Still using Altairs, running MS basic on them? Nobody would have iPhones and iPads an laptops and normal desktops, the computers would still be size of a large box, with little improvement. They'd be subsidised, so the costs would be going up every year, nobody would be able actually to afford them except the very rich. Just like AT&T beige phones were rented and not sold, these computers also wouldn't be your property, they'd be property of the State or whatever monopoly that'd have the license.
Your taxes would go up year to year, just to ensure that every new kid gets this machine, the prices would always go up, of-course, not even in tune with normal gov't inflation, but instead the way prices go up where there is inflation and direct subsidy - there would be more and more laws created directing the use of computers and so more and more departments would have been added.
Obviously the work-force would have been completely unionised, so the cost cutting in work force wouldn't have been possible. Full pensions would be mandated, whatever else the gov't backed unions provide, excellent stuff. Too bad you'r hand held device would look like 3 large suitcases - 1 with the super-fast 2MHz computer, complete with a 80x12 ASCII screen and the other 2 suitcases would be filled with batteries.
We should all be thanking the lucky stars that the gov't didn't try to make computers 'affordable'. The bubble in computers would have been pretty big, maybe not as big as in housing though, but who knows.
You can't handle the truth.
What a surprise they neglect to inform us of the cost to the average geek of these Thuper-Duper improvements. Whats so hard about saying the MSRP is projected to be $$$/GB. I can do the street price discount on my own.
There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
http://www.techspot.com/news/48066-intel-to-introduce-ddr4-with-high-end-server-cpus-in-early-2014.html
Intel isn't even going to begin supporting ddr4 till 2014.
It is a well known fact that Con Kolivas has inhaled too much anesthetic. The second link is to some page by a clueless guy who wouldn't know how to handle a benchmark if it involved a park bench and some paint.
My Linux box turns on in under 10 seconds (from sleep mode - didn't have that in the IBM PC/XT days) and I get right to work. All of my apps are already open and ready to go, and Internet Connectivity is up and running (You remember the Internet and WiFi from the 80's right?). Try booting an IBM PC/XT with DOS and opening a Spreadsheet someday, then get back to me.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Obligatory Onion .
Never shake hands with a man you meet in a fertility clinic.
But type and location. DRAM has worse access times than SRAM for various reasons. Also there is simply the distance from the processor. When you start wanting super low access time, distance matters. That's why L2 and L3 are on CPU dies these days. For L1, even that isn't enough, it has to be near the core to get the kid of speeds you want there.
The good news is with judicious use of caching, you can have your cake and eat it too for the most part. You can use cheap DRAM for most of your memory, but get overall performance in the 95% range of the SRAM you use for cache.
...that the difference between DDR3 and DDR4 isn't as disappointing as the difference between USB2 and USB3
Exactly what I was thinking! MOD THIS GUY UP!
Great, now can you get my hard drive to keep up?
I don't use RAM available to me, because assuring that I'm not using as much as possible at any given time is a good use of my RAM.
Intel has already confirmed that the 2013 "tock", Haswell, will still use DDR3.
Not sure about AMD's position, but this sounds like DDR4 will wait on desktops and laptops for 2014 or 2015.
Which gives me an idea. Hats, on Steam, from MS, when you send them the scores from the Windows Experience program.
I am John Hurt.
How will DDR4 be different from DDR3? I recall the changes involved moving from SDR to DDR1, then DDR1 to DDR2 - separate CLK and CLK# signal. In DDR 3, looks like the signal count increased, which is why the packaging went from TSOP to BGAs. So now what's changed? And if they want to save power, does it require that they have multiple/split phases of a clock so that several different slow signals can be issued w/o increasing power consumption? What exactly are the details?
Until we get ECC memory as a standard for all PCs I don't really care.
I know I can get that if I buy server a motherboard and a CPU that can't be overclocked, but those are business limitations, which work mostly because the average consumer is ignorant about this stuff. There are no good technical reasons to keep ECC as a premium feature.
I'm still stuck on good ole DDR2. I THINK it is enough to me now. The price of flash memory updated very fast. For personal use, there is latest general quotation information from http://www.usbflashdrive.biz/
I remember the big thing for ddr4 was it was suppose to get rid of dual or tri channel configurations and it was suppose to be point to point or multi channel meaning it will increase the bandwidth depending on how many sticks of ram installed. Did they scrap that because that would have been cool for systems with decent integrated graphics on chip like the hd4000 or or trinity.
I'm not really sure why we need ddr4 over ddr3? I mean for the average geek, the cpu is never fast enough, and the hard drive is never fast enough. I don't think i've once thought, in the last 10 years: "hey, wow, my memory is so slow doing this task, I wish it was much faster".
I think I can happily live with ddr3 for the next several years, just keep giving me cheaper and fast cpu's and discs.
"Everyone knows that vi vi vi is the number of the beast" -- Richard Stallman