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."
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?
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.
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.
1.2V of power??!! This is supposed to be news for nerds. Nerds should know the difference between voltage and power.
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?
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.
After DDR5, there'll probably be DDRMAX, DDRMAX2, and DDR Extreme, if history is any indication.
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.
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.