Slashdot Mirror


DDR4 May Replace Mobile Memory For Less

Lucas123 writes "The upcoming shift from Double Data Rate 3 (DDR3) RAM to its successor, DDR4, will herald a significant boost in both memory performance and capacity for data center hardware and consumer products alike. Because of the greater density, 2X performance and lower cost, the upcoming specification and products will for the first time mean DDR may be used in mobile devices instead of LPDDR. Today, mobile devices use low-power DDR (LPDDR) memory, the current iteration of which uses 1.2v of power. While the next generation of mobile memory, LPDDR3, will further reduce that power consumption (probably by 35% to 40%), it will also likely cost 40% more than DDR4 memory."

145 comments

  1. Excellent by DWMorse · · Score: 3, Funny

    With RAM that fast and cheap, 640kB ought to be enough for anyone!

    Whoops, I mean 6.40 x 10^7 kB. THAT ought to do it.

    --
    There's a spot in User Info for World of Warcraft account names? Really?
    1. Re:Excellent by arth1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Fast and cheap are well enough, but cool and reliable are important factors too.

      From TFS, it looks like it may run cool, but I'll wait with the hallelujah until I've seen something about reliability. Especially because with die shrinks for flash, reliability has gone way down from the last generation - I hope that won't be the case with RAM too.

    2. Re:Excellent by iamhassi · · Score: 2

      Reliability is the reason I havent gone SSD yet. Every time I'm about to upgrade I read the reviews on newegg of some guy losing all his data. Guess if it's only for the OS and you clone it nightly that's not a big deal.... actually, that's not a bad idea, a small cheap ssd for the OS so it boots fast, then keep files on reliable hd and make clone of ssd to backup drive so u can still boot if the ssd dies....

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    3. Re:Excellent by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      That's why there is ECC.
      Why anybody runs without it is beyond me.
      With EDAC I see occasional ECC errors on many systems.

    4. Re:Excellent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reliability is the reason I havent gone SSD yet. Every time I'm about to upgrade I read the reviews on newegg of some guy losing all his data.

      I have used an SSD for my windows box for about 2 years now without problems. Meanwhile 2 younger spinning platter disks have died on me (No problem, I had backup on all important data.) and co-workers have had a couple of spinning disks die on them where one of them didn't have backup.

      If you are worried you should try an SSD as a system disk, you can always re-install if it breaks.
      Personally I am more worried about the spinning disks breaking down on me, all problems I have heard about SSDs were firmware problems that have been fixed. (Well, one of the spinning disks had that problem too.)
      The problem with mechanical wear on spinning disks and their sensitivity for vibrations fells like a larger problem, but then again, I'm not that worried since I have backups.

    5. Re:Excellent by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      That's what I did for my htpc (I Wanted to keep the inside as solid state as possible, as It's so small).

      I use a pair of 2.5 inch USB drives for reliability, and lack of cords for /home and backup.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    6. Re:Excellent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish this meme would die. The part of that which you're forgetting is that it refers to the way that they opted to split the 1MB of RAM that they were working with. And 640kb at that time was indeed enough for anybody since they couldn't use the entire 1MB in one piece.

      And it was never intended to apply to the future, nobody at that point dealing with computers would be foolish enough to say that they would never need more than 640kb as at that point they had already created computers with more than that.

    7. Re:Excellent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why anybody runs without it [ECC] is beyond me.

      Combination of cost (ECC costs more, partly because it's used less, partly because it needs more RAM chips), availability (fewer places carry it), and support (Intel only allows it on Xeon systems; AMD supports it on all their chips, but only a few motherboards will take it - and they tend to be the more expensive ones.)

      I agree, mind you - this is one of the reasons (not the only one) I sprung for a Mac Pro shortly after their last refresh - but parity (and ECC) RAM is dead in the general consumer market. Blame the almighty buck.

    8. Re:Excellent by kyrio · · Score: 1

      I've been using my 10k RPM Raptor for over 8 years now. All tests show that it's still in perfect condition.

    9. Re:Excellent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      your source is missing. but i guess it's hard to hyperlink your asshole.

    10. Re:Excellent by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1

      The real point is that, at the time he said it, even Bill Gates could only afford 64k. Most Minicomputers only had 32k address space, and the idea that anyone could actually afford 640k was laughable.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    11. Re:Excellent by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Reliability is the reason I havent gone SSD yet. Every time I'm about to upgrade I read the reviews on newegg of some guy losing all his data

      If 'some guy losing all of his data' is your reason for not buying an SSD, does it also stop you from buying a hard disk?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    12. Re:Excellent by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I've found it interesting how this has been repeated and justified in so many ways over the years. The first time I heard this quote was the mid '80s, and it was '64KB ought to be enough for anyone', not 640KB. Back then, it was apparently related to a hard-coded limit in Microsoft BASIC, which limited it to 8-bit computers. The alleged context was that this was Bill Gates' facetious reply when asked about this limit with regards to the new 16-bit microcomputers. As I recall, early versions of Microsoft BASIC on the IBM PC only supported 64KB, even though the machine could address ten times as much.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    13. Re:Excellent by jd · · Score: 2

      Actually, they could. The processors of the time used two interwoven 16-bit registers with a 12-bit overlap. (This meant some memory locations had multiple addresses.) The total sort-of-linear address space was therefore 20 bits, or 1 megabyte.

      Plenty of extended memory cards existed at the time, which used a memory banking system to produce the illusion of larger machines. The only restriction with banked memory is that it slows the machine down as the CPU can only see one bank at a time. Well, that and reads/writes can't span multiple banks.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    14. Re:Excellent by jd · · Score: 2

      Sir Clive Sinclair gave very similar reasons for using the 68008 (the 8-bit version of the 32-bit 68000) - he stated that nobody needed a 32-bit computer, but that you needed a machine to be advertisable as a 32-bit system to compete with the Mac and Atari ST.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    15. Re:Excellent by Kergan · · Score: 3, Informative

      The part that you're forgetting is that Gates never said it:

      http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bill_Gates#Misattributed

    16. Re:Excellent by arth1 · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's why there is ECC.
      Why anybody runs without it is beyond me.

      In the case of HHC, which TFS mentions, likely because you need to both buy, fit and power the extra circuitry. Added development costs, production costs, size requirements and larger power drain is a hard sell.

      On a PC, the main reason is that Intel only supports it on Xeon CPUs. A secondary reason is consumerism, where people pick the cheapest system that has "comparable" specs, without understanding minute differences, or caring about longevity.

      For servers, can you even buy them without ECC? Every single IBM or Dell system I've purchased over the last few years always came with ECC RAM. But the mind boggles when some expensive RAID controllers come with non-ECC RAM!

    17. Re:Excellent by galanom · · Score: 1

      I've never lost any SSD (since the first SLC days) and most of my traditional hard disks have failed, some of them with total loss of data.
      Now you got my feedback go by an SSD.

      God, you remind me the LP people who did not buy CDs, because it somehow, in a magical way, LP sounded better to them.

    18. Re:Excellent by monkeyhybrid · · Score: 2

      I've been using HDDs for the last 20+ years and I think every single one I have owned has survived past the day I retire them (typically 3 - 5 years). I'm aware that statistically I've been rather lucky but the tipping point for me is whether I can buy an SSD, of decent size, that stands a good chance of surviving for at least 3 years, preferably a bit more. I've been watching this space for months / years and am still left with enough uncertainty to have prevented me from going SSD, until now anyway. I'm going to be purchasing a new laptop soon as my main machine I'm seriously considering taking the plunge with SSD (that speed is hard to resist!).

      And yeah, I know backups are essential, regardless of storage tech, and I do have a very good and trusted backup routine, but for me that doesn't really effect my decision. Replacing a drive and restoring from a backup loses me time and money that I'd like to avoid where ever possible.

    19. Re:Excellent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that a hard disk failure corrupts a little bit of data. A SSD failure corrupts the whole thing.

    20. Re:Excellent by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Really? The only hard drive failures I've ever seen have resulted in a completely unreadable drive.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    21. Re:Excellent by macromorgan · · Score: 1

      Intel makes some pretty reliable drives. I've had a 320 series (120GB) for a year and it's been perfect. Furthermore, if you have anything on any drive you're afraid to lose, always make a backup... all geeks know this.

    22. Re:Excellent by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      Agree. However AMD supports ECC on almost all CPUs.

    23. Re:Excellent by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 1

      Depends on what fails and how. I've seen everything from a completely dead drive (no detection, no spinning of platters) to drives that SMART tripped but otherwise worked fine. As to what failure state you're gonna get, it's something of a crap shoot.

      Moral: It doesn't matter what the basket is made of, don't put all your eggs in one. Have two copies of everything even remotely important, and at least three of anything critical*, with the third somewhere far away from the first two.

      (*Examples: Stuff to run your business. Stuff the government wants to see. Baby pictures that your wife will kill you if you lose. These are the three things I have had people literally beg me to try recover off a dead drive. Well, okay, one didn't beg me, she begged Jesus to make me recover it. Jesus didn't feel like giving me a clean room and a platter reader for free, I guess.)

    24. Re:Excellent by tedgyz · · Score: 1

      There is a decent hybrid solution available for SSD. With the Intel Z68 chipset, you can setup an SSD as a cache for the primary hard drive. It is configured similar to RAID. This allows me to get the capacity of an HD with the performance gains of an SSD. However, I have not been able to easily quantify the performance gains.

      --
      "No matter where you go, there you are." -- Buckaroo Banzai
  2. Yay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't wait until my iPhone 4 is yet another generation behind, and every other phone is better than mine... Then I will laugh at my colleagues who spend $200 on a phone when mine still does more than I need...

    1. Re:Yay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      mine still does more than I need...

      I gave up talking about "need" when it comes to mobile phones long ago. It is really about "want" (for all but a very few folks who have a real need for work - most who think they "need" it for work, don't). It took me awhile to move from an old dumb phone to a smart phone. But I was finally honest with myself - and damn it I wanted one. I got one and was thrilled with all the things I can do with it. I still wholeheartedly consider smart phones a luxury - but I am glad I can afford one and finally talked myself into parting with the money and monthly payment for a data plan (I'm sort of a cheapskate). The whole family of four has them now, three of us on our second generation of them.

      Go ahead and laugh. Your phone does more than I need too. But it doesn't do more than what I want.

    2. Re:Yay by BradleyUffner · · Score: 1

      And people with "normal" phones will continue to laugh at you because they spend $50 on a phone that does more than /they/ need...
      People have different needs.

    3. Re:Yay by beckerist · · Score: 1

      ... shit's gettin' smaller son...deal with it

    4. Re:Yay by beckerist · · Score: 1

      p.s that was both pedantic and shallow....and also a smidge of sarcasm

    5. Re:Yay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty much the same calculation I made a few months ago.

      When I ran across Ting though, I couldn't resist. I figured I'd be happy with a cheap Android (and I am). The phones we got (Otimus S - yep, bottom of the barrel) are (now) $170 each (plus tax and shipping but "activation" is included).

      The base charge is $6/line for service. Then you pay for the "bucketized" usage of a pool shared among all your devices (<=100 minutes is $3/month; <=100 MB is $3/month; <=100 txt msgs is $3/month -- if you use zero of any category I think you pay nothing).

      Primary service is on Sprint. Data and Text roam at no charge to Verizon (that's hard to beat). Data roaming is not offered and data coverage is not as good as going with native Sprint because native Sprint seems to have data roaming agreements that Ting does not seem to share (check coverage maps @ Ting carefully for data).

      So, for two smart phones we paid less than $400 up front and pay as little as $25/month (taxes/fees included) if we use a little, but not much, voice, text, and data.

      It's great if the limitations fit your needs.

      (You can save $25 on your first device by following a referral link -- but, unfortunately, I won't give mine here because it exposes my name to those who follow it.)

    6. Re:Yay by kyrio · · Score: 1

      My Android phone was $70. It does all the things. I pay $17/m for unlimited call and text and maybe other things, I don't know. I barely use the call and text, anyway.

    7. Re:Yay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh, you'll mostly be laughing because they'll have steam-packed some Samsung XXXS Arousal with lots of DDR4 (instead of LPDDR3), a huge screen, specs through the roof, and an impressive 4h of battery life.

  3. Awesome. by bistromath007 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Now we just have to wait for Intel to give a goddamn about it. Quick, somebody tell AMD to be competitive again for a few months.

    1. Re:Awesome. by Baloroth · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If DDR4 is really as power-saving as they say, AMD will be competitive simply by adapting it (more than they already are). At the low-power end, especially low-cost low-power, AMD is pretty competitive with Intel already. If they can push out server DDR4 compatible products first, they could stand to gain quite a lot (Intel isn't planning on offering DDR4 till 2014, so AMD has a year and a half).

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    2. Re:Awesome. by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      Mmmm, 4 way DDR4 - I'd buy a new motherboard for that.

    3. Re:Awesome. by TheEyes · · Score: 2

      Even more interesting is that AMD's APUs are severely memory-constrained; even Llano really needed DDR-1866 or higher (if it existed) to really show what it could do, and Trinity is probably even more constrained. If AMD goes the same route as they did with Phenom II and includes both a DDR3 and DDR4 controller (and makes their chip compatible with both old sockets and new DDR4-compatible ones) they might be able to pull off some interesting design wins in the low power gaming-capable market.

    4. Re:Awesome. by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ya know I just have to laugh at statements like yours because while the reviewers haven't liked AMD that hasn't stopped the OEMs from gobbling up every chip they can handle. hell AMD had to slow down their desktop lines just to give more room to mobile because they kept running out! Take the Bobcats, they haven't had an update in awhile yet the OEMs are slapping them into everything from netbooks to laptops to all-in-ones as fast as they can get them, same with llano. Even the lower end Bulldozers have been selling quite briskly and the reviewers couldn't stand that chip!

      What thing AMD does seem to get is to coin a phrase "Its the GPU stupid". I mean what does the average person DO with their machine? FB, webmail, YouTube videos and movies. Is there a single job on that list that even the lowest bobcat can't do? Nope. Hell I recommended to my dad to get his GF a little Acer with the C60 chip in it which is just a 1Ghz dual core with turbo and she can't stop gushing about the thing! it plays her FB games, let's her chat anywhere without being tied to the cords, she is just tickled to death with it.

      While DDR 4 may give the integrated GPUs in AMD chips a little speed boost frankly they haven't been having too much trouble selling them or having them run pretty much anything you want. Don't take my word for it, look up the Youtube videos on chips like the E350 where they are playing Crysis on it. I have 8Gb of DDR 3 in mine which gives the GPU 1200Mb of system memory and while i don't often game on it i can say that the little E350 stays cool to the touch even after hours of HD video or office work.

      So I don't think you have to worry about AMD friend, once they have gotten rid of the last of their stake in GloFlo they should be doing quite well with Piledriver and Bobcat II. The RAM in TFA will give it a free speed boost but the only ones who seem to care about such things are the reviewers. For everybody else as long as it does the tasks they have with good battery life they'll be quite happy.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    5. Re:Awesome. by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      But gamers are, for the most part, gonna use a discrete rather than an APU and the consumers frankly don't know DDR 4 from a grilled cheese sandwich so other than a few benches I just don't see it making that big a deal. Sure the higher scores will make a nice bullet point but I have one of the E350 APUs and with 1200Mb of DDR 3 1333MHz RAM dedicated to video movies are buttery smooth and the games I play don't jerk and isn't that what matters?

      I've been selling AMDs in my shop pretty exclusively since the Intel bribery and compiler scandals came out and while i thought killing AM3 was a stupid move frankly i haven't had ANY trouble selling the APUs and the reason couldn't be more simple. The simple fact is just about every APU that AMD has, even the lowly C and E series bobcats are frankly overkill for most of the jobs folks have. Hell I even sold my 17 inch laptop for one of the 12 inch AMD EEEs because i found when i'm mobile i liked having the battery life and ease of carry over the big screen and you know what? i honestly don't miss that more powerful CPU.

      So while i'm sure the extra speed will do nothing but help AMD I just don't see what DDR speeds they have now hurting AMD with actual consumers. BTW for those that have C and E series APUs I recommend Brazos Tweaker which will help you drop voltages and get even greater battery life. they have settings that will work on most of the C and E series posted as well as step by step instructions. I added about an hour to mine by using it and honestly I can't "feel" any difference in performance, I just get more time.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    6. Re:Awesome. by dbIII · · Score: 2

      They are VERY competive in some markets:
      64 core 2GHz AMD system 128GB memory - $9000
      80 core 2GHz Intel system 128GB memory - $66000
      There may be some Intel systems around the 60 core mark (six sockets, ten cores), but I've got no idea how much it would be and it would still max out at 2GHz for now. To get speed you've got to go for less cores :(

    7. Re:Awesome. by jd · · Score: 1

      I would imagine DDR4's higher performance will be important to Intel now that they've designed an even faster Itanium chip (8-core, multithreaded). The power requirement probably wouldn't be much of a factor, though.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    8. Re:Awesome. by jd · · Score: 1

      AMD has now low-power cores due out later in the year. I imagine their timing is designed to make it possible to have manufacturers design motherboards with the new memory in mind, rather than have them aim for DDR3 and only develop a DDR4 board later.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    9. Re:Awesome. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about a four way and your mother?

  4. 1.2V of power? by mvdw · · Score: 5, Interesting

    1.2V of power??!! This is supposed to be news for nerds. Nerds should know the difference between voltage and power.

    1. Re:1.2V of power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because computer chips use frequency, power consumption scales with the square of the voltage but only linearly with amperage. Voltage is the biggest reason for power consumption for computers.

    2. Re:1.2V of power? by AdamHaun · · Score: 5, Informative

      Nerds should know Ohms law.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohm's_law

      and that there is no difference between voltage and power.

      Voltage and power are related, but that doesn't mean they're the same. In fact, Ohm's Law says that they're not -- you still need information about the current (or resistance) to determine power dissipation.

      Transistor switching in digital circuits is very different from plain resistance. It's more like charging and discharging capacitors. Energy loss is proportional to voltage squared, at least for dynamic power. That's why lowering the voltage is the most important thing for power consumption.

      --
      Visit the
    3. Re:1.2V of power? by hawguy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Nerds should know Ohms law.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohm's_law

      and that there is no difference between voltage and power.

      I don't think you understand the site you linked to. P = I * V -- If power and Voltage are the same, why are they on different sides of the equation?

      While it's true that voltage is proportional to power *if* current remains the same, you can't make a blanket statement that a new technology that runs at a lower voltage necessarily uses less power. The old Pentium Pro CPU had a TDP of around 35W with a core voltage of 3.3V, but a new Core i7 can have a TDP of 125W with a core voltage less than 1.5V. Half the voltage, 5 times the power dissipation (and a whole lot more transistors to power)

      When dealing with semiconductors, it's likely that lower voltage means less power, but not guaranteed.

    4. Re:1.2V of power? by RandomAdam · · Score: 1

      No difference between voltage and power.....I would have to say you are wrong!

      You can have a potential difference with no circuit, thus no current flow. V=/=P

      --
      @Random_Adam

      Sometimes a sig doesn't have to be funny!!
    5. Re:1.2V of power? by mirix · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Slashdot needs -1, wrong.

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    6. Re:1.2V of power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They need negations of all the positive mods. -1 uninformative for things that contain misinformation. -1 unfunny for dumb jokes. etc.

    7. Re:1.2V of power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wheres the "flamebait" tag?

    8. Re:1.2V of power? by Bengie · · Score: 3, Informative

      Power consumption for computer chips

      C=Capacitance
      F=Frequency
      V=Voltage
      P=Power

      P=VC^2F

      Capacitance is static, so there are only two variables, F and V. As you can tell, amperage doesn't even play into the equation.

      A chip may draw amperage, but that is just a function of C and F.

    9. Re:1.2V of power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Plus leakage which is dependent on voltage, temperature and process (fast corner parts have a lot more leakage than slow corner parts).

    10. Re:1.2V of power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Also, the voltage was written 1.2v, while the correct format (in the SI system) is 1.2 V, with a space before the unit.

    11. Re:1.2V of power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ohm's law just describes the behaviour of resistors. Not everything is a resistor.

    12. Re:1.2V of power? by mvdw · · Score: 2

      That is all true, but the units for power are "watts", not "volts". You wouldn't say your car goes 33mpg fast, would you?

    13. Re:1.2V of power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you understand the site you linked to. P = I * V -- If power and Voltage are the same, why are they on different sides of the equation?

      I don't think you understand how equations work.

    14. Re:1.2V of power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ohm's law just describes the behaviour of resistors. Not everything is a resistor.

      Pffft. Quitter.

    15. Re:1.2V of power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF are you smoking???

    16. Re:1.2V of power? by SwedishPenguin · · Score: 1

      I'm not an electrical engineer, but isn't pretty much everything but superconductors essentially resistors in the sense that they have resistance? For instance wood obviously has a very high resistance, thus why it's not very conductive to carrying electricity.. How would you calculate power where there is zero resistance though? Using Ohm's law, power becomes undefined at that point, and even if resistance in superconductors only approaches zero, would that mean power approaches infinity?

    17. Re:1.2V of power? by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Slashdot needs -1, wrong.

      Not nearly as much as it needs -2: Stupid.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    18. Re:1.2V of power? by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      I'm not an electrical engineer,

      That is obvious. Everything may have resistance, but most things have other relevant properties too. Electrical energy can be stores in two ways, capacitatively, and inductively. The determine current every bit as much as resistance in AC circuits. If a significant percentage of the energy is stored momentarily in either of these ways, then Ohm's law no longer describes what happens.

      In memory chips, almost none of the power is drawn resistively. Memory chips are an array of capacitors which are switched on and off very fast. The power consumption depends largely on the frequency of switching, and the amount of the memory array that is switched to access one word/byte/why. The power consumption may well depend more on the system supplying the power than the memory array, and most certainly depends on things like caching algorithms more than the detailed chip spec.

      what you have here is an argument about the size of the fish they have caught based on the size of the boat they went fishing in. (Car analogy available at extra cost ;-}

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    19. Re:1.2V of power? by subreality · · Score: 1

      You have to consider it as a complete circuit. Current (not power) would reach infinity If you had a zero resistance load and an infinite power supply, but those don't happen. Here are some examples to consider:

      If you have a 10 volt power supply, 0 resistance superconducting wiring, and a 10 ohm load, you would get 1 amp of current x 10 volts = 10 watts dissipated at the load. Since the wiring has no resistance, its dissipated energy is zero.

      If you have a 10 volt power supply, 1-ohm wiring on each side of the load and a 10 ohm load, you would have 12 ohms total which gives you 0.8333 amps x 10 volts = 8.333 watts dissipated total. Each wire will dissipate 0.8333 amps * 0.833 volts (the voltage drop of 0.8333 A through 1 ohm) = 0.694 watts, and the load will dissipate 0.8333 amps * 8.333 volts = 6.944 watts. 6.944 load + 0.694 wire + 0.694 wire = 0.8332 total watts (rounding error from 0.8333), as expected.

    20. Re:1.2V of power? by tttonyyy · · Score: 5, Funny

      there is no difference between voltage and power.

      P = V * I

      For the purpose of illustration, lets make:

      P = pain
      V = hardness of slap
      I = number of slaps

      I'm happy to keep V fixed but increase I until it starts to matter to you too.

      --
      biopowered.co.uk - catalytically cracking triglycerides for home automotive use since 2008. Just say no to big oil!
    21. Re:1.2V of power? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      even if resistance in superconductors only approaches zero, would that mean power approaches infinity

      The superconducting effect breaks down at a fairly low current per area, so it has to be made very thick if you want to have much current. The same applies with electromagnetism since that comes with the current.

    22. Re:1.2V of power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Everyone knows I is the identity, i.e. one, so P = IV => P = V

    23. Re:1.2V of power? by pahles · · Score: 1

      You quoted the post wrong. It said "1.2v of power". Clearly the OP is talking about "the 1.2 version of power". Everybody knows LPDDR uses the 1.2 version of power. Don't you? Please read first and comment later!

      --
      Sig?
    24. Re:1.2V of power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      with a space before the unit.

      Actually, it's a half space. There is a LaTeX package, siunitx, that does this for you if you're writing a paper.

    25. Re:1.2V of power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The P in your equation is expressed in watts which is volts times amps. So amps are right there in the first expression of your equation. Amperage in your equation is a function of C, F, and V. Given the capacity of a typical human I hope you are under 12 years of age.

    26. Re:1.2V of power? by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      We are still working on version 2. According to my pointy haired boss it will be a synergetic enhanced power package for the most advanced enabeled robust business solutions. :)

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    27. Re:1.2V of power? by DeathToBill · · Score: 1

      The complex generalisation of Ohm's law, V=IZ, still describes the behaviour of capacitors and inductors. V, I and Z are assumed in this case to be complex variables of the form e^[j(wt + \phi)], modelling each frequency component independently. w = frequency, \phi = phase offset.

      --

      Slashdot - news for nerds, stuff that matters, in ISO-8859-1.

      --
      Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
    28. Re:1.2V of power? by Twinbee · · Score: 1

      It was only a couple of days ago when I moaned about this very subject.

      Let's standardize on watts (for power), or joules / watthours (for energy). Yes, amps or volts are useful in some situations, but for the average consumer, we only want to hear about raw energy/power something consumes/supplies. Batteries make this mistake too and it only leads to confusion when comparing technologies.

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    29. Re:1.2V of power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just mod "-1, overrated".

    30. Re:1.2V of power? by galanom · · Score: 1

      and that there is no difference between voltage and power.

      I bet you are not an electronics or electrical engineer, right?

    31. Re:1.2V of power? by galanom · · Score: 1

      I have OCD but this was way beyond my conception! Good job!

    32. Re:1.2V of power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Power = Watts, which is Volts * Amps.

      So Volts != Power.

    33. Re:1.2V of power? by hawguy · · Score: 1

      I don't think you understand the site you linked to. P = I * V -- If power and Voltage are the same, why are they on different sides of the equation?

      I don't think you understand how equations work.

      Is there a general equation where identical variables are presented on both sides? I've never seen:

      P = I^2 * R

      Written as

      P / I = I * R

      (unless, of course, I'm solving for something)

    34. Re:1.2V of power? by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      P=VC^2F

      That equation is plain wrong.

      The equation you are looking for P=(V^2)CF which is derived from combining the equations P=IV and I=VCF and provides a reqasonable approximatino for how digital CMOS power consumption will behave.

      But it's only an approximation for a couple of reasons

      1: I=VCF gives an average current. P=IV is true for instantanious voltage and instantanious current It is only correct for average current if votlage is a constant. Assuming that voltage is constant is an approximation of reality.
      2: I=VCF assumes that all the current gpes to charging and discharging capacitance. In relality some also goes to leakage and some may also go to shootthrough especially at higher voltages.

      Capacitance is static

      Not really. The total capacitance may be fixed but what matters for the equation is the ammount charged on each cycle and that can change heavilly with what the chip is doing.

      A chip may draw amperage, but that is just a function of C and F.

      No, current is a vital step in understanding the limitations of the equation you are using.

      P.S. maybe it's an american thing (but i'm a brit) but to me using the term "amperage" rather than current makes you sound like you don't have a clue.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    35. Re:1.2V of power? by walkerp1 · · Score: 1

      Nerds should know Ohms law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohm's_law [sic] and that there is no difference between voltage and power.

      To put it simply, voltage is to power as force is to work. That is to say, there is a difference.

    36. Re:1.2V of power? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      That is all true, but the units for power are "watts", not "volts".

      The thing is, the EE post-docs who are designing chips find the terminology useful. So, being pedantic here just makes things worse, not better.

      If it helps, we often talk about a 3GHz chip as being faster than a 2GHz chip. Everybody knows that's not always true, but we all know the assumptions, so it's still a useful conversation.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    37. Re:1.2V of power? by snowsmann · · Score: 1

      ^^ Why troll? This is kinda funny...

      --
      timeo Danaos, et dona ferentis
    38. Re:1.2V of power? by hawguy · · Score: 1

      ^^ Why troll? This is kinda funny...

      Oftentimes when moderators don't get the joke, they mod the post down.

    39. Re:1.2V of power? by Metabolife · · Score: 1

      Breaking math on /. gives you an obligatory troll status.

    40. Re:1.2V of power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I am still hoping for the -5 comments. I want to see a -5 informative one day.

    41. Re:1.2V of power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can she slap? How can she SLAP!?

    42. Re:1.2V of power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When dealing with semiconductors, it's likely that lower voltage means less power, but not guaranteed.

      Except with high switching frequencies, higher voltage always means more waste heat.

      The higher power usage of a Core i7 is a result of it having significantly more transistors than a Pentium Pro CPU. The fabrication scale and methods of the Pentium Pro CPU would use considerably more than 125W, if scaled up to match a Core i7. Vice versa, the Core i7 technology would use less than 35W, if scaled down to the number of transistors a Pentium Pro had.

    43. Re:1.2V of power? by hawguy · · Score: 2

      When dealing with semiconductors, it's likely that lower voltage means less power, but not guaranteed.

      Except with high switching frequencies, higher voltage always means more waste heat.

      The higher power usage of a Core i7 is a result of it having significantly more transistors than a Pentium Pro CPU. The fabrication scale and methods of the Pentium Pro CPU would use considerably more than 125W, if scaled up to match a Core i7. Vice versa, the Core i7 technology would use less than 35W, if scaled down to the number of transistors a Pentium Pro had.

      Why did you cut out the part where I said that the Core i7 had more transistors to replace it with your point that the Core i7 has more transistors? But at least you didn't copy the part where I said 125W is 5 times greater than 35W! I'm surprised no one called me out on that, usually slashdotters are quick to point out typos and trivial mistakes.

      In any case, my point was that lower voltage doesn't mean anything. You can't look at voltage alone to make the determination that a new technology will use less power. Maybe the new technology uses more transistors to make it faster or more reliable, so the gain from lower voltage is more than compensated for by having more transistors to power. It's completely conceivable that a new memory technology will use more transistors than an older technology if it can provide more performance or other features with those additional transistors.

      If you had two identical pieces of technology, one powered by lower voltage than the other, then you might be able to make the argument that it is guaranteed to have lower power, but as soon as you start comparing different technologies, all bets are off. Lower voltage does not always mean lower power.

    44. Re:1.2V of power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, conventional measurements of resistance are only accurate over a small voltage range when using an ohm meter (usually the resistance at 9V).
      Because most materials do not make linear resistors.

      With a high enough voltage anything (including wood) can conduct electricity.

      A superconductor has no resistance, in theory. From what I've read, running enough current through it will heat it up, so there are still some losses. The losses along the superconductor have to be compensated for or else the temperature rises above the point where it stops being a superconductor.

      I like to think of a superconductor as just a single, massive molecule. It has fewer losses, but (probably) gravity, and/or material defects make it less than a perfect conductor.

    45. Re:1.2V of power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real problem with the article is the voltage drop (and power drop, and price increase) really isn't because of the new DDR4 standard, it's because they're implementing it on better process technology. The DDR3 spec has already included more than one voltage as process technology has progressed. The main reason DDR4 will allow lower power is because it's going to have some low power modes that DDR3 doesn't.

      They're also WAY off in their assessment of mobile memory LPDDR3 vs. DDR4. For the same density there shouldn't be a 40% price difference once DDR4 is out of the early prototype/early production stage. Even now the mobile and desktop memory are really the same chips, you just run them in slightly different modes and lower voltages for mobile and have smaller DIMMs. Remember, this is just the interface to the DRAM, most of the chip (90%+) is taken up by the actual DRAM cells which are the same for a given process technology and company, and so cost about the same to make.

    46. Re:1.2V of power? by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      In DC systems power = I squared time R. I^2 * R or (E^2)/R. the formula i=E/R is used to derive the two on the left.

      With alternating currents, there can be a phase difference between E and I, so Power is not necessarily E*I. (I^2)*R

      Depending upon the angle of difference when E is at a max, I may be at zero and vice versa.

      You may look up what the effective power consumption would be. It is a challenge to the reader.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
  5. Obligatory units complaint by Macman408 · · Score: 1

    Volts are not a measure of power. Watts are.

    More importantly, energy to accomplish a particular task is what really matters. Though usually, we're just given average or typical power numbers. But your mobile device's battery stores energy, not power or potential.

    At least the voltage is proportional to power and energy...

    1. Re:Obligatory units complaint by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      At least the voltage is proportional to power and energy...

      Fail.
      P=V^2/R.
      E=P*T=V^2*T/R.

    2. Re:Obligatory units complaint by Junta · · Score: 1

      More importantly, energy to accomplish a particular task is what really matters

      Actually, power also matters in many scenarios. If you need more than ~10 amps from a 110V circuit, that's not real practical for home use regardless of the kWh-efficiency the solution gets. Also, for interactive tasks idle power matters critically because most of the time is not bound by performance of your computer bits, but by the human considering what's on the screen. Cell phones mostly fall into the latter category.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    3. Re:Obligatory units complaint by Macman408 · · Score: 1

      OK, I was playing fast and loose with my English. I should have said that "there is a positive correlation between voltage and power and energy" or something to similar effect. As opposed to no correlation (or a negative one).

      In any case, at least for a lot of signaling types, P=V^2/R doesn't matter, because R is approximately infinity. What matters more is charging and discharging the capacitance of the traces on the PCB, etc., so E=1/2*C*V^2 is the quantity of interest. With memory, this can vary, as there may be termination (e.g. a resistor to ground or some reference voltage), but that depends on the type of memory as well as the specific implementation.

  6. I'm confused by Muerte2 · · Score: 1

    This may be the most confusing article summary I've ever read. I read it 5 times before I gave up trying to understand it.

    Headline: DDR4 May Replace Mobile Memory For Less
    Summary: LPDDR3, will further reduce that power consumption (probably by 35% to 40%), it will also likely cost 40% more than DDR4 memory."

    1. Re:I'm confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Uh, it makes sense to me.

      DDR4 may be used as opposed to LPDDR3 simply because the power savings may not be considered worthwhile when the RAM is 40% more expensive. What the summary fails to explicitly point out is that DDR4s power envelope roughly matches LPDDR, which I guess is why it's considered "good enough" all of a sudden. Presumably this means cheaper devices may go DDR4 to save a bit of cash, whilst premium devices may opt for the more expensive solution to squeeze a bit of battery life out.

      Either way you look at it, we're getting newer better stuff. Tis a good thing. :)

    2. Re:I'm confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DDR4 uses about as much power as current LPDDR. The next iteration of LPDDR will use less power than DDR4, but because it will be more expensive, DDR4 will gain market share in the mobile space.

    3. Re:I'm confused by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 2

      If I understand correctly, LPDDR2 draws significantly less power than DDR3.

      DDR4 will be competitive with LPDDR2.

      But in turn, LPDDR3 will draw significantly less power than DDR4.

      So manufacturers will have the choice of preserving today's mobile power levels by going with DDR4. Or they can use a more expensive LPDDR3 with lower power but, presumably, lower performance.

    4. Re:I'm confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Givent hat devices such as [34]G radios, GPS, bluetooth, and especially modern, large displays consume the lion share of power, is the pragmatic gains of LPDDR3 vs a lower cost DDR4 even worthy of consideration and discussion? Isn't this reallyt he difference of an extra five minutes per day or some other insanely low runtime number?

      Pragmatically, what difference do people really expect to see in runtimes of mobile devices when contrasting these two technologies given power for memory is likely about a bottom rung concern?

  7. One picosecond later... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...a significant boost in software bloat to nullify all that great hardware progress. I'm still stunned as to why anything takes perceptible time on a modern computer. Things should just pop and wink into existence at the merest click.

    1. Re:One picosecond later... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of the issue of slow responses is poor user app programming and design. If people used proper async and threading, all would be well... other than waiting on IO.

    2. Re:One picosecond later... by Kergan · · Score: 1

      If people used proper async and threading, not many programs would work. I'm not sure I know 10 coders who reliably deliver thread-safe code.

  8. Spec water-torture by Compaqt · · Score: 0

    What I hate about "New tech XYZ increases throughput by 2x!" is:

    Why didn't they simply specify the high transfer rate in the original spec (as in USB)?

    Why didn't they simply specify a lower voltage in the first place (for memory)?

    --
    I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    1. Re:Spec water-torture by pushing-robot · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yep, it makes you wonder why we bothered with old technology at all. Why didn't we start using today's computers fifty years ago? Think of all the time and effort it would have saved!

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    2. Re:Spec water-torture by blueg3 · · Score: 3, Informative

      In order for a spec to be useful, you need to be able to actually build the specified system. The reason they don't encompass things that they can't currently build in the specs is that they want the specs to be useful.

    3. Re:Spec water-torture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In order to NEED/use lower voltages, you would need smaller transistors first. Why not go to single atom transistors now instead of 20-ish nm?

      Can't do much when you don't have the fabs nor geometry back in the DDR1 days. All they had was 2.5V node.

      Remember this is a practical trade engineering specs that can be used to build actual products not a white board wish list.

    4. Re:Spec water-torture by batkiwi · · Score: 1

      Technology to make it work at X speed and Y voltage didn't exist at the time, and for something like a memory module you don't design it to take a range of voltages or speeds.

    5. Re:Spec water-torture by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      Or indeed 200 years ago.

      You might want to read http://www.amazon.com/dp/B006QMT7FA

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    6. Re:Spec water-torture by jd · · Score: 2

      As others have noted, the tech wasn't there.

      However, in the more abstract sense, you can only extrapolate models so far beyond the furthest point for which you have data before the models break down. But you don't know when that will happen, it depends on how good the model is and you can't know that in advance.

      Specs are therefore reasonably conservative. They'll go a little bit beyond what's feasible right now, but only a little. Just enough to give wiggle-room and space for progress, but not to the point where there's a serious risk of problems developing.

      Examples of reasons why they need to be careful: both electron tunneling and thermal noise will generating errors, yields at lower scales aren't always predictable, alternative techniques for performing the same function at the higher speed can be incompatible with accelerating the original technique, etc.

      A spec is supposed to work for anything it is a spec for - manufacturers do revise/debug specs but they vastly prefer to release upgraded versions as compatibility issues and implementation details can all be carefully documented and properly presented.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    7. Re:Spec water-torture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Hello NASA? Yes, I'd like one rocket ship capable of blasting off from Earth and reaching distance galaxies... oh and it should operate using a beer can and a couple of bananas for fuel"

      Specs are written based on what can be done at the time (or reasonably developed in a short period) and then produced at a price that will sell.

      It's not simply a case of "no one needs that, so we'll just spec it lower", or even "mmwhahaha we'll spec it for x this year, then (x * 2) next year so the saps will have to re-buy it!!"

  9. Increment numbers by magarity · · Score: 2

    I'm glad they keep it reasonably simple with DDR(1), 2, 3, and now 4. I dread the arrival of RAM2015 or somesuch nonsense one day.

    1. Re:Increment numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like:

      Low Speed
      Full Speed
      High Speed
      Super Speed
      Light Speed
      Ludicrous Speed!!!

    2. Re:Increment numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      somewhat. GDDR could cause a bit of confusion.

  10. there's only two needs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    air and sustenance. i can verify with fact everything else is just a want

    1. Re:there's only two needs by dougisfunny · · Score: 1

      I imagine someone could synthesize some sort of gel which would transport oxygen and 'breath' that instead of air. But that's just getting pedantic.

      --
      This is not the funny you're looking for.
    2. Re:there's only two needs by Kergan · · Score: 1

      You forgot the most important part of that quote: citation needed.

  11. DRAM Cell Area by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 2

    With Micron purchasing Elpida, Micron gonna get to make DDR4 DRAM with cell area of 4F2.

    On the other hand, Samsung's DRAM is still occupying cell area of 6F2.

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  12. Costs less? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I don't care if it costs less. What are they selling it for?

  13. from the not-dance-dance-revolution dept. by tepples · · Score: 5, Funny

    After DDR5, there'll probably be DDRMAX, DDRMAX2, and DDR Extreme, if history is any indication.

    1. Re:from the not-dance-dance-revolution dept. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That'd be pleasantly amusing if they do name them that. Not holding my breath though.

    2. Re:from the not-dance-dance-revolution dept. by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      Too bad Hyper was already taken.

    3. Re:from the not-dance-dance-revolution dept. by Kergan · · Score: 1

      Or they could borrow a page from phone manufacturers: DDR Desire, DDR Sensation, DDR Cruise, DDR Intensity, DDR Vitality, etc.

  14. Meh by supersloshy · · Score: 1

    I'm waiting for DDR MAX 2 and DDR Extreme. The difficulty level in the early ones is just- ... Ohhh we're talking about memory here. Carry on, folks. Ignore me.

    --
    "Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
  15. DDR4 won't replace LPDDR3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not convinced.

    Mike Howard claims DDR4 will be 40% cheaper than LPDDR3, but this claim is unsubstantiated in the article. Volume for LPDDR3 will be high, and it's not like there's anything EXTRA on LPDDR3 chips; quite the opposite!

    In fact, LPDDR3 has no I/O termination, no local clock regeneration, and will ship mostly x16 and x32 parts. This all translates to significant energy-efficiency advantages. It also means that it's a bitch to deploy more than a GB or two of LPDDR3, which is why you don't see LPDDRx in servers or desktops.

    I don't doubt that DDR4 will find its way into some low-end tablets, but they'll probably suck. If they compromise on memory, what else did they compromise on? I will be pretty surprised if you see it much in cell phones.

    1. Re:DDR4 won't replace LPDDR3 by kyrio · · Score: 1

      You aren't too current on the last 20 years of RAM prices, are you? LPDDR costs a lot of money compared to DDR.

  16. DDR / DDR2 / DDR3 by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

    Below please find a table listing DDR / DDR2 / DDR3

    http://chipdesignmag.com/images/idesign/misc/defazio_table1.gif

    Does anyone have the numbers for DDR4 ?

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  17. Why not go to DDR5? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Some graphics cards have GDDR5 in it, why not use that?

    1. Re:Why not go to DDR5? by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 1

      I hope that was a joke. Thats like asking why not use the airplane specification engine in a car, just because the version number is 1 greater than the current car engine versioning system.
       
      If you really want to compare, GDDR5 losely compares with DDR3, and DDR4 is better than that.

  18. You really think it is so easy? by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 3, Informative

    You think all Intel has to do is say "Hey! We'd like to support DDR4," and it just happens?

    Not so much, actually. First off it has to actually, you know, be a real specification. The spec isn't final and released yet. They can't really start to use something that isn't final and subject to change.

    Once it is actually out comes the harder part. They have to redesign the memory controller, which is on the chip now, to accommodate it. DDR4 isn't "DDR3 but faster," it is a different spec that works differently. Big different is no more RAM channels with multi-sticks. It is a point-to-point memory interface. So that is going to require a different setup, particularly to support large numbers of memory sticks. Also along with that the motherboards will have to be redesigned to accommodate the new RAM. Again given the point-to-point nature, the wiring would be different even if all the connectors were the same (which they aren't).

    Then of course those new chips have to be fabbed, tested and made ready for sale, and those boards have to be rolled out. After all that, they still need memory. The memory manufacturers will have to retool their lines and get DDR4 chips and sticks produced in quantity to be sold.

    When all that is done, then DDR4 can hit the market and go in your computer (if you purchase a new board, and processor).

    So, maybe give it 6-12 months, rather than just bitching at Intel for not "giving a damn"? Just because you don't understand how something works, doesn't mean it is easy to do. Implementing a new RAM spec isn't something you just snap your fingers on, it isn't a tiny patch for software. It is a pretty major thing.

    You'll probably see it in systems next year. Intel's roadmap says it will be coming to Haswell-EX server chips first, I haven't seen what AMD's plans are.

    1. Re:You really think it is so easy? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Just because you don't understand how something works, doesn't mean it is easy to do.

      There's a Dilbert for that!

      (good post)

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    2. Re:You really think it is so easy? by ffflala · · Score: 1
      Looks like memory manufacturers started shipping DDR4 samples as early as December 2010. http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/05/ddr4-memory-is-coming-soonmaybe-too-soon/

      Samsung announced it had completed development of its first 4Gb DDR4 DRAM module in January of 2011, and started shipping 2Gb DDR4 samples in December of 2010; Hynix demoed its own DDR4 technology in February of 2011.

  19. It's the way chip power is talked about by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    Again because as the grand parent said, the equation is one of capacitance, frequency, and voltage. So when you produce something of equal frequency, with lower voltage, it'll use lower power. Watts isn't normally specified because that depends on the specific frequency you are using, how many chips, etc. As a designer you can compare the voltage differences to tell you what kind of power savings you can expect. The specifics of that translated to watts is based on your design.

    It may not be technically correct, but it is the terminology used and the people who it is relevant to understand it. Also if you think on it a little, it'll make sense.

    1. Re:It's the way chip power is talked about by mvdw · · Score: 1

      No, it still doesn'e make sense. The outcome may be the same, but the terminology used is incorrect. From the summary:

      "Today, mobile devices use low-power DDR (LPDDR) memory, the current iteration of which uses 1.2v of power. While the next generation of mobile memory, LPDDR3, will further reduce that power consumption (probably by 35% to 40%)"

      Which would be much better stated as:

      "Today, mobile devices use low-power DDR (LPDDR) memory, the current iteration of which runs at 1.2V. The next generation of mobile memory, LPDDR3, will reduce the operating voltage, and hence the power used by up to 35 to 40%."

  20. Ya no shit by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Also there's the fact that the people who post things like that are the whiny ones who had problems. I've never posted my SSD experiences before, because I'm happy, but here they are:

    I have 3 256GB SSDs, one in my laptop, two in my desktop. All have worked without flaw since their purchase 11 months ago. Thus I never felt the need to go whine online about them. I've suffered no failures, no data loss. They just work.

    Now, do SSDs die? Sure. So do HDDs. In terms of personal HDDs I've had about 5 fail on me over the course of my 20ish years using computers. At work, I've seen hundreds fail. Some are dead on arrival, some fail within hours of install, some fail after months or a year, some are still going strong 10+ years later.

    SSDs are fine. You need to back up your data, but then that is true of anything. If you don't back up your data and have never lost anything to HDD failure that is luck, not because HDDs don't fail.

    If you want an SSD the only issue should be cost. They are expensive, about $1/GB at best and as much as $3/GB for some of the really high performance/lots of write cycles stuff. HDDs are more like $0.08/GB. However if the price is acceptable, then get one. Back up the data on it to a HDD (since HDDs are cheaper, and a different technology) and you are fine. Could it die? Sure, if it does, RMA it, get a new one, and go back to what you were doing.

    1. Re:Ya no shit by bungo · · Score: 1

      Hmmm.... insightful?

      Can you say "Selection bias"?

      I've just jumped out of a 20 story building, after 10 floors, everything is fine, so I don't expect it to be any different after another 10......

      Now, if you could point to a study showing that the failure rates of SSDs vs HDDs are no different.

      --
      "The best part? I became an ordained minister while not wearing pants." -- CleverNickName
  21. Re: never RMA a hard drive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    never RMA a faulty hard drive.

    They can send me a new one, but they're not getting the platters back unless they want platter dust. Period.

  22. Wrong wrong wrong by DeathToBill · · Score: 2

    At least this got modded down, but it's threads like this where you discover how many ignorant 'nerds' there are on /.

    Ohm's law does not only describe resistors. While the schoolboy formulation V=IR (also, admittedly, the law Ohm actually published) describes the instantaneous relationship of voltage and current through a resistor, in modern engineering and physics it is generalised in various ways. For circuit analysis, it becomes V=IZ, where Z is the complex impedance, and describes the time-varying relationship of voltage and current in resistors, capacitors, inductors and pretty much anything else you will find in a circuit. For things other than circuits, the generalisation J=E\sigma describes the relationship between electric field intensity, current density and conductivity.

    While certain materials are described as 'non-Ohmic', what this really means is that \sigma is not a constant for those materials and depends on something else, usually the value of E.

    --
    Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
    1. Re:Wrong wrong wrong by AdamHaun · · Score: 2

      For circuit analysis, it becomes V=IZ, where Z is the complex impedance, and describes the time-varying relationship of voltage and current in resistors, capacitors, inductors and pretty much anything else you will find in a circuit.

      Even in plain linear circuit analysis, this is not correct. Voltage and current sources (including dependent sources) are not modeled as impedances. Neither are switches (an admittedly trivial example). Voltage/current decay in inductors and capacitors is usually described in terms of exponential time constants.

      In a real circuit you will have electronic components, which are not in any way linear or Ohmic. The "ideal" diode equation is exponential, as is the Ebers-Moll model for BJTs. The simplest MOSFET equation is quadratic. All electronic devices have complex higher-order behavior. You can model them as linear over a small range, but they're still more complex than a simple impedance.

      --
      Visit the
  23. Slot form factor by unixisc · · Score: 1

    Will DDR4 have the same slot pinout, or a different one from DDR3? If I have a PC w/ DDR3, can a DDR4 substitute it, or are we looking @ a change in a whole lot of things, from chipsets to the RAM itself?

  24. Re: never RMA a hard drive by Vegemeister · · Score: 1

    Encrypt your disks, and that won't be a problem.

  25. Use SSD's, mirror them by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    Reliability is the reason I havent gone SSD yet.

    My experience is that SSD's fail more often than hard drives, more catastrophically, and without warning, especially on the low end.

    But I still use them because they're super fast. Put them in a mirror. Use SLC where it's really important to not have a mirror half fail.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  26. Point me to one that says it is by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    Here's the problem: You are mad about the selection bias of my story, but ok with the selection bias of some dude whining on Newegg? I've never seen a test showing SSDs are more reliable or unreliable, and I suspect neither have you (since I suspect none have been done).

    Given the lack of such evidence, you simply have to go on other things you use normally to buy components like brand reliability and warranty. Well, in the warranty department, SSDs are fine, 3 years is the norm, 5 years is available from some manufacturers. That's fairly similar to HDDs. Also, good chance they figure most SSDs will live at least 3 years if they warranty them for that long, as they don't want to be paying for replacements.

    I just don't get where the mistrust for SSDs comes from. Near as I can tell, it is just from whiny people. Some dude gets an SSD, it fails, he gets crybaby and posts bad reviews on Newegg, Amazon, his blog, and so on. This happens a few times and it is "common knowledge" that SSDs are unreliable despite no actual evidence of that.

    I'm just pointing out that those of us that are happy don't normally feel the need to post about it.

    1. Re:Point me to one that says it is by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Here's the problem: You are mad about the selection bias of my story, but ok with the selection bias of some dude whining on Newegg? I've never seen a test showing SSDs are more reliable or unreliable, and I suspect neither have you (since I suspect none have been done).

      Many have been done. Google is your friend. No, not just for searching, but Google has quite a bit of experience with both HDDs and SDDs in their data centres.

      Given the lack of such evidence, you simply have to go on other things you use normally to buy components like brand reliability and warranty. Well, in the warranty department, SSDs are fine, 3 years is the norm, 5 years is available from some manufacturers. That's fairly similar to HDDs. Also, good chance they figure most SSDs will live at least 3 years if they warranty them for that long, as they don't want to be paying for replacements.

      Except that the warranty covers defects in manufacturing; it doesn't cover wear and tear. If your drive wears out, you won't get a new one.

      I just don't get where the mistrust for SSDs comes from. Near as I can tell, it is just from whiny people. Some dude gets an SSD, it fails, he gets crybaby and posts bad reviews on Newegg, Amazon, his blog, and so on. This happens a few times and it is "common knowledge" that SSDs are unreliable despite no actual evidence of that.

      They have a finite number of write cycles[*]. And the new generation (TLC) are even worse than the last (MLC). SLC drives aren't available anymore because they cost too much.

      [*] According to Centon, SLC gives you 100,000 cycles per cell, MLC gives you 10,000 and TLC 5,000.

      SSD drives are also subject to write amplification, unless used with TRIM, which you can't use for RAIDs (and if you want reliable, you want RAID). This write amplification makes GRIO impossible - you can't get the guaranteed minimum rate you can from a fast HDD. The average may be faster, but if you run apps where there are hard deadlines, SSDs are not necessarily a good choice

      That the SSD drives themselves set aside as much as 1/8 of the drive for bad block mapping should tell you something about the reliability. Even when HDDs were really bad back in the Winchester days, there was nowhere near that amount of bad block mapping.

      They're fine for typical consumer use or special use where average speed matters the most (as opposed to guaranteed speed), but for high volume persistent storage, HDD is still the choice.
      For most of the servers I admin, I am willing to put the log journals on SSDs, but rarely the data.