Slashdot Mirror


3D DRAM Spec Published

Lucas123 writes "The three largest memory makers announced the final specifications for three-dimensional DRAM, which is aimed at increasing performance for networking and high performance computing markets. Micron, Samsung and Hynix are leading the technology development efforts backed by the Hybrid Memory Cube Consortium (HMC). The Hybrid Memory Cube will stack multiple volatile memory dies on top of a DRAM controller. The result is a DRAM chip that has an aggregate bandwidth of 160GB/s, 15 times more throughput as standard DRAMs, while also reducing power by 70%. 'Basically, the beauty of it is that it gets rid of all the issues that were keeping DDR3 and DDR4 from going as fast as they could,' said Jim Handy, director of research firm Objective Analysis. The first versions of the Hybrid Memory Cube, due out in the second half of 2013, will deliver 2GB and 4GB of memory."

8 of 114 comments (clear)

  1. Still waiting... by Shinare · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Where's my memristors?

    1. Re:Still waiting... by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Funny

      Your memristors are with my ultracaps, flying car, and retroviral DNA fixes. I think they're all in the basement of the fusion reactor. Tended to by household service robots.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  2. Re:nothing new here by Thagg · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I was working at SGI at the time, late 1991. The cheapest way to buy expansion memory was to buy Indigo's and throw out the rest of the computer. SGI was just feeling the first tickles of the commoditization of computer hardware, and was looking for ways to make their components unique (and keep them expensive.)

    --
    I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
  3. Re:And for faster performance by ArcadeMan · · Score: 5, Funny

    Mac users won't see any difference in 5 years... wink wink

    Posted from my Mac mini.

  4. Latency? by gman003 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Massive throughput is all well and good, very useful for many cases, but does this help with latency?

    Near as I can tell, DRAM latency has maybe halved since the Y2K era. Processors keep throwing more cache at the problem, but that only helps to a certain extent. Some chips even go to extreme lengths to avoid too much idle time while waiting on RAM ("HyperThreading", the UltraSPARC T* series). Getting better latency would probably help performance more than bandwidth.

    1. Re:Latency? by harrkev · · Score: 4, Informative

      I have a passing familiarity with this technology. Everything communicates through a serial link. This means that you have the extra overhead of having to serialize the requests and transmit them over the channel. Then, the HMC memory has to de-serialize it before it can act on the request. Once the HMC had the data, it has to go back through the serializer and de-serializer again. I would be surprised if the latency was lower.

      On the other hand, the interface between the controller and the RAM itself if tighly controlled by the vendor since the controller is TOUCHING the RAM chips, instead of a couple of inches away like it is now, so that means that you shold be able to tighen timings up. All communication between the RAM and the CPU will be through serial links, so that means that the CPU needs a lot less pins for the same bandwidth. A dozen pins or so will do what 100 pins used to do before. This means that you can have either smaller/cheaper CPU packages, or more bandwidth for the same number of pins, or some trade-off in between.

      I, for one, welcome our new HMC overlords, and hope they do well.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
  5. Re:nothing new here by jandrese · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nobody ever accused SGI of sane pricing.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
  6. Ultracaps by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Um... yeah. No. I appreciate that what you have are considerably better than regular caps, but they're nowhere *near* the performance of what we keep being offered. Nanotube infused designs with power to weight ratios around that of batteries, graphene designs, etc. There's a huge wealth of applications waiting for them to hit somewhere around those marks. Electric cars, actual car battery replacements, cellphone power supplies that never die, backup systems for the house with peak powers far in excess of anything we have now but with comparable storage... the ultracap "breakthroughs" are as regular as any other kind (memristors, etc.) and the consistent no-show of actual commercially available units is also consistent. It's the flying car of electronic components, sigh. High voltage, high capacity, high vapor factor, lol.

    Believe me, I've been following the whole ultracap thing for a while. I even keep an eye on EEStor, which I can assure you has been a stupendous exercise in fruitless waiting. As a ham with a full boat of offline powered goodies and the beginnings of a household able to run off backup systems, and more than a little willingness to buy an electric car, actual availability of ultracaps in what I call "the battery range" would truly light me up.

    But that carrot is well and truly still out on the stick.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.