| Sunday, August 24 2008 |
The transition between PC memory standards has always relied on changes in PC platforms for effectiveness. For example, the LGA 775 saw transition between two standards, the i915 MCH supported DDR and DDR2 memory, i925 onwards it became mandatory for people to use DDR2 memory as the platform required it. In came DDR3 and it became optional for users to choose it over DDR2. Even now, there is only a gradual transit between DDR2 and DDR3. With Nehalem however, it will become mandatory to use DDR3 memory, both with the LGA 1366 and LGA 1160 socket motherboards in either two or three channel configurations.
Qimonda has already chalked out plans for a smooth transition to DDR4 PC memory. According to Qimonda's development plan, DDR4 would be out by 2012. The memory standard will operate at (DDR) frequencies as high as 2,133 MHz at an approximate voltage of 1.2 V and by 2013, we could be seeing 2,667 MHz memory at 1.0 V, a phase during which there's a transition between the current DDR3 and future DDR4 PC memory standards.
Source: Hardspell
Qimonda has already chalked out plans for a smooth transition to DDR4 PC memory. According to Qimonda's development plan, DDR4 would be out by 2012. The memory standard will operate at (DDR) frequencies as high as 2,133 MHz at an approximate voltage of 1.2 V and by 2013, we could be seeing 2,667 MHz memory at 1.0 V, a phase during which there's a transition between the current DDR3 and future DDR4 PC memory standards.
Source: Hardspell
User comments
and what abouth ram capacity ?
Im sure that will probably go up as well. Whats amazing to me is how low the volts go with each new journey of the ram ICs. I would have expected them to go up in voltage but this hasnt been the case. I cant wait to see what DDR4 looks like in 2012. 1.0-1.2 V is simply unreal.
by: Morgoth;943538
and what abouth ram capacity ?
History shows it's capacity growth been exponential. Right now 2~4 GB is the standard for a performance PC. If 3-channel continues, it's 3 , 6, 12 GB blind guess.
i'm not talking abouth standerd i'm talking abouth for workstation and extreme destkop for like bloomfield
by: Morgoth;943673I'm not talking about 'standard' as in mainstream/mediocre either :) Standard as in the general trend with performance PCs. Today 2x 1GB or 2x 2GB is the standard, gaming PCs aren't greatly helped by 8 GB as yet. With Bloomfield since it's 3 channels, it's going to be 3x 1GB, 3x 2GB (6 GB total), in the coming years 3x 4 GB (12 GB)....24GB....48GB....so on and so forth.
i'm not talking abouth standerd i'm talking abouth for workstation and extreme destkop for like bloomfield
I better not see any ridiculous timings haha. If I had to buy new ram for new plaforms with this cl 9 shit, I'd kick someone's ass lol.
I have a feeling the timings are going to be terrible on first release, but will get better with time.
by: TheGuruStud;943700Do you know how timings work in relation to speed? Its actually not that bad.
I better not see any ridiculous timings haha. If I had to buy new ram for new plaforms with this cl 9 shit, I'd kick someone's ass lol.
Mhz CL ns/cycle total time (ns)
100 2 10 20
133 3 7.5 22.5
333 2.5 3 7.5
400 3 2.5 7.5
800 5 1.25 6.25
As the mhz increases the CL may increase however the actual time it takes still decreases. So even if we're at CL 10 @DDR3 1600 its timing is still as tight as ddr2 with cl5.
by: magibeg;943725
Do you know how timings work in relation to speed? Its actually not that bad.
Mhz CL ns/cycle total time (ns)
100 2 10 20
133 3 7.5 22.5
333 2.5 3 7.5
400 3 2.5 7.5
800 5 1.25 6.25
As the mhz increases the CL may increase however the actual time it takes still decreases. So even if we're at CL 10 @DDR3 1600 its timing is still as tight as ddr2 with cl5.
I know, but the speeds are practically the same when it's first released (ddr2 was slower than my ddr) b/c the timings suck.
It's not cost effective for a while, I guess is what I'm getting at.
Yet, there's no use whatsoever even for the bandwidth DDR3 offers.
:x
Though, IGPs are gonna love it...
:x
Though, IGPs are gonna love it...
The memory standard will operate at (DDR) frequencies as high as 2,133 MHz at an approximate voltage of 1.2 V
2,133mhz:twitch::twitch::twitch::twitch:
you know we could also just increase from a 64bit mem controller to a 128bit single channel controller. That would save us cost of upgrading ram
doest that mean that mainboard get more pcb layers?
yes, but it already does with dual and triple channel anyway
by: candle_86;943978
yes, but it already does with dual and triple channel anyway
Increase in memory bus width = more connections, wiring, layers. M'goth is right.
dual channel does it also.
by: candle_86;944055
dual channel does it also.
Perhaps 128 bit wide single channel isn't as efficient as dual 64 bit wide paths to two modules (?). Besides, 128 bit wide connection to a module would mean more pins, possibly longer memory modules. You can't keep all factors constant, something has to change.
a new pcb architecture ? + fiberglass
by: magibeg;943725exactly. I see a lot of people still complaining about the high timings on DDR3 compared to DDR2, but everyone seems to conviently forget that DDR3 provides higher bandwidth and speed is therefore moving more information per clock cycle than DDR2 does.
Do you know how timings work in relation to speed? Its actually not that bad.
Mhz CL ns/cycle total time (ns)
100 2 10 20
133 3 7.5 22.5
333 2.5 3 7.5
400 3 2.5 7.5
800 5 1.25 6.25
As the mhz increases the CL may increase however the actual time it takes still decreases. So even if we're at CL 10 @DDR3 1600 its timing is still as tight as ddr2 with cl5.
for anyone that wants proof as to DDR3 timings vs latency:
you'll find those results are on par with a lot of DDR2 clocked at lower speeds with tighter timings, and I'm only running upper-mid range sticks . . . not the "super clocker" top-tier sticks on the market.
DDR3 can go much higher, and timings can be tightened down a lot more, but you'll have to start worrying about DRAM cooling, though. There's still a lot of potential with DDR3.
As to the DDR4 . . . nice to know when for sure it'll be coming . . . :D
by: imperialreignIt doesn't go quite like that. All SDRAM-DDR irregardless of the generation move the exact same amount of data bits per clock cycle. What makes the difference is DDR2 has higher freq (= more clock cycles per second) than DDR1. And DDR3 pushes even more. And since the length of a clock cycle shortens when frequency goes up, latencies don't become a problem.
DDR3 provides higher bandwidth and speed is therefore moving more information per clock cycle than DDR2 does.
hey guys wait a minute , do you remember before month maybe , crossair release a 2g ram with 2133 fsb but they are say it is ddr3 , but now in the table they say the 2133 is ddr4
by: hayder.master;944778You do have a Corsair kit that operates at 2133 MHz and is DDR3, the point is DDR4 gets there at lower voltage, providing room for higher clock speeds for the manufacturers to make kits with. 2.66 GHz at 1.0 V sounds great.
hey guys wait a minute , do you remember before month maybe , crossair release a 2g ram with 2133 fsb but they are say it is ddr3 , but now in the table they say the 2133 is ddr4
by: btarunr;944814
You do have a Corsair kit that operates at 2133 MHz and is DDR3, the point is DDR4 gets there at lower voltage, providing room for higher clock speeds for the manufacturers to make kits with. 2.66 GHz at 1.0 V sounds great.
wow , looking great , first high performance pc part with low voltage
DDR4?!? WTF! What happened to just going to DDR5?!?
LoL, sorry no one else had done it yet ; )
I'm suprised they are putting DDR4 that far out. With so much hype with DDR5 on GPUs.
LoL, sorry no one else had done it yet ; )
I'm suprised they are putting DDR4 that far out. With so much hype with DDR5 on GPUs.
by: largon;944725damn . . . y'know, I still get confused sometimes as to the intricacies of DRAM operations :p
It doesn't go quite like that. All SDRAM-DDR irregardless of the generation move the exact same amount of data bits per clock cycle. What makes the difference is DDR2 has higher freq (= more clock cycles per second) than DDR1. And DDR3 pushes even more. And since the length of a clock cycle shortens when frequency goes up, latencies don't become a problem.
although, I still rest by my earlier example and bench that I posted showing that solid mid-range DDR3 can tangle with some of the best DDR2 offerings. Yeah, I've seen DDR2 pull some better read/write latencies at lower clock settings; but considering my timings, and the very, very mild OC (1600-stock vs 1800-OC), there's still a fathom of potential left.
Now, I just need to go liquid cooling so I can start fiddling further with 4GHz+ CPU clocks :D
by: Darkrealms;945450
DDR4?!? WTF! What happened to just going to DDR5?!?
LoL, sorry no one else had done it yet ; )
I'm suprised they are putting DDR4 that far out. With so much hype with DDR5 on GPUs.
well . . . technically, there are slight differences between SYS DRAM and GPU DRAM. it's nothing dramatic, really, but the differences equate to GDRAM being developed for use and access by GPUs; they respond faster, tend to be more efficient and are capable of running at much faster speeds than their equivalent SYS DRAM components. The biggest difference between the two varieties, is that GDDR# can turn on a MEM bank and read from it within the same clock cycle, whereas SYS DDR# can't.
Otherwise GDDR# operates at a theorhetical level the same as DDR#.
by: imperialreign;946032
well . . . technically, there are slight differences between SYS DRAM and GPU DRAM. it's nothing dramatic, really, but the differences equate to GDRAM being developed for use and access by GPUs; they respond faster, tend to be more efficient and are capable of running at much faster speeds than their equivalent SYS DRAM components. The biggest difference between the two varieties, is that GDDR# can turn on a MEM bank and read from it within the same clock cycle, whereas SYS DDR# can't.
Otherwise GDDR# operates at a theorhetical level the same as DDR#.
I understand there are differences. I don't know much into the details. I was just saying to the average consumer. In a year they will be looking at GPUs running on DDR5 and still be sitting with DDR3 as the big thing in their systems. Don't we already have enough confusion out their for them. LoL