- May 2, 2017
- 6,491 (3.45/day)
- Norway, currently in Lund, Sweden
|Processor||AMD Ryzen 7 5800X|
|Motherboard||ASRock Phantom Gaming B550 ITX/ax|
|Cooling||Aquanaut + Laing DDC 1T Plus PWM + Corsair XR5 280mm + 2x Arctic P14|
|Memory||32GB G.Skill FlareX 3200c14|
|Video Card(s)||PowerColor Radeon 6900XT Liquid Devil Ultimate, UV@950mV/2050MHz/180W|
|Storage||2TB Adata SX8200 Pro|
|Display(s)||Dell U2711 main, AOC 24P2C secondary|
|Audio Device(s)||Optoma Nuforce μDAC 3|
|Power Supply||Corsair SF750 Platinum|
|Keyboard||Cooler Master MasterKeys Pro M w/DSA profile caps|
|Software||Windows 10 Pro|
Not at all. As @trsttte said above, 32-bit channels have been in use on PCs for several years already. Also, the DDR5 standard is based around each DIMM having two 32-bit channels. You literally cannot make a DDR5-compliant and compatible controller without making it handle individual 32-bit channels. As there will always be two of these per DIMM, and some DDR5 controllers will also be DDR4-compatible, there is little doubt that these controllers will be similar to combined DDR4/LPDDR4X controllers: One block capable of controlling either a single 64-bit (DDR4) channel, or two separate 32-bit (LPDDR4X or DDR5 depending on the chip in question) channels. This does not make them merged or anything like that - it means that it's a dual-mode controller that can combine its two 32-bit interfaces into a single 64-bit interface when needed. DDR5 does not support or make use of such a combined interface, but bases its specific modes of operations and performance characteristics (such as less actual latency vs. on-paper latency) on these channels being separate.I think the CPU/controller side implementations for separation into smaller independent 32-bit channel are still to come. For the moment, my hunch is there is a simplified pairing option that is being used to manage DRR5 DIMMs as effectively single 64-bit wide channels. Making them more functionally like DDR4 DIMMs. Hence the no-change in channel config in the CPU specs. One step at a time sort of thing.
Open task manager in any LPDDR4X system, you'll find it saying "dual channel" despite having 4 32-bit channels. Why? Clarity of communication. Nothing else.
You really, really need to listen to what I've been saying all along: what is communicated to people, and what is technical reality, are not necessarily identical. There is no direct causal or indexical relation between words and what they signify - especially when we're stacking layers of abstraction like we are here. Often, technically inaccurate communication is better because it more effectively communicates the core characteristics of what is communicated. This is what we are seeing now. And that is what @trsttte said above: for anyone but us here, who actually know the bus width of RAM in PCs (which really takes some doing), this is a distinction without a difference. Whether it's 2 64-bit channels or 4 32-bit channels is immaterial - aggregate bandwidth is the most important value for comparison, both across and within generations of tech. And, as "channels" has been how this has been communicated since the dawn of DDR RAM and multi-channel systems, the only sensible approach to ensuring understandable communication is to abandon technical accuracy in service of communicative pragmatism. Thus, four separate 32-bit channels are then "dual channel", because they are equivalent to previous dual-channel setups. Calling them quad channels would lead people to expect "twice as much" than before; calling them 32-bit channels would cause people to ask "how many bits were my channels before this?".
Remember: even CPU spec sheets are not written to appeal to those seeking in-depth technical knowledge. They are simplifications made in order to communicate the capabilities and requirements of a component at a relatively high level of detail, but are by no means exhaustive.
And this shows exactly that you haven't been listening at all. "Dual channel" DDR5 is quad channel. It will always be. But it won't be called that, because nobody knows the channels are half as wide, making calling it quad channel wildly misleading. It is, therefore, in all communications "dual (equivalent to previous generations) channel".Well, it either is or isn't quad.