So I came across this: http://www.crucial.com/promo/DDR4.aspx Does this mean DDR4 is almost here? Is ddr4 worth the wait instead of building a new computer now?
Discuss!
If I recall correctly, Intel was planning on adding DDR4 support in their next generation of CPUs, or the generation after that.
I don't think it's worth waiting for, unless you're doing something involving servers or workstations or stuff like that (vague, I know). For general home use, as well as gaming, I doubt there will be any noticeable increase in performance. For editing there might be a small amount.
This just my speculation though.
DDR4 for servers is already here if I remember correctly. Waiting to build your PC because it may be supported soon? Nope. People were using DDR2 ram for quite some time after DDR3 hit the shelves and the performance difference between DDR3 and DDR4 is supposed to be even smaller than that. It will be the new standard in a few years, but it's not worth upgrading your whole system for or trying to future proof it in any way. For the average user that is.
16GB sticks for the desktop would be pretty fun, that's what I'm excited about for DDR4
That document is actually quite old at this point. I remember browsing that particular page at least a year (if not more) ago. Its coming... slowly, but as Nohrellas points out there will be little performance gain, just density increase.
Anyways since that document went live DDR4 has only been spotted twice outside of a Lab. Once at CES 2014 with Kingston and a up-coming end of 2014 Intel Server platform. (384GB of RAM in 16GB DIMMs running in 6-channel operation)
And before that, again Kingston, at IDF 2013. Where they showed of presumably the same server platform, but only single socket with 192GB of RAM.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om_iGzLzfk0
Build a Xeon/Opteron based system and use DDR3 ECC if you really want 16GB DIMMs
DDR4
- Less power consumption
- More DATA density
- Less voltage [heat] /potentially
- significantly higher speeds
- MORE LATENCY
If you're doing memory intensive stuff that needs mega-bandwidth then it might be worth an upgrade. If you're a normal gamer then sticking with dd3 is a good bet, especially considering where you want to put your dollars. That and LOWER latencies are good for cpus not HIGHER.
That and DDR4 isn't going to be out for consumers for quite some time yet.
This here is why I'm refusing to move to a DDR4 system until they fix that latency, cause all it looks like to me is taking RAM into the speed race instead of the latency race.
When for most use cases latency in ram is much more important than the speed, as long as it's a reasonable speed like 1333Mhz. Fast RAM? idc gimme responsive RAM.
I'm talking 16GB DIMMs for consumers, we might even see 32GB consumer sticks
People made this same arrangement back in ddr2 times. Does it seem logical to still be using ddr2 right now?
don't worry things will change.
I just hope for some sub 8CAS RAM within 4 or so years when I plan to build my "ImGettingSeriousAboutThisRig" Or else, I'm going to clock my CAS Low and liquid cool those DIMMs FOR SCIENCE!
DDR5 obviously already exists as it's in our graphics cards, but the latency on it is horrible, which is why we don't have it for our systems. I think the typical CL on DDR5 is 40+ though that's completely off the top of my head.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820226178 if you're willing to deal with the high voltage.
Wasn't gddr5 designed purely for the bandwidth? From what I read they also use a different memory controller. Found this in bookmarks, can't remember who posted it. http://users.ece.gatech.edu/~pnair6/hpca19/Refresh_Pausing.pdf
Only thing I could find with any real information on ddr4. Mostly talks about refresh rates, and how this is going to add to latency with higher density ram. I don't really understand it, and have been searching for more since I read it six months ago. Damnit. I should have stayed in school.
Depends what you classify as a consumer. A consumer is a person who just uses a computer for entertainment and light work in my mind. Someone who uses a machine for web-browsing, email, watching films, listening to music, word processing etc. Nothing too demanding. In which area there is barley a demand for a system with more than 8GB of RAM.
Hell even in lower enthusiast levels such as gaming purposes, we don't really require more than 8GB of total RAM to run games. If you really wanted 16GB of RAM you can use 2*8GB or 4*4GB. Its only in the upper markets atm where there is a demand for larger memory capacities.
Such as in servers and workstations for data intensive applications. (3D modeling/rendering, film production) at which point they will be most likely using systems that support ECC and where they require the functionality of ECC.
We will see 16GB non-ECC RAM in DDR4 but not as soon as you may think. It will only most probably be towards the end of DDR4 life that we will see 32GB (non-ECC) DIMMs (if we are lucky)
What I am getting at really is, there is NO demand currently from lower markets for 16GB DIMMs. Hell is there even a demand from consumers for heavy RAM machines. With the current market trend moving deeply into tablets with off-loaded processing in the "cloud".
Well I just like the idea of running skyrim and a small data center on the same computer
Its a bit late for all that, hah. All I know is gddr5 basically has twice the bandwidth of ddr3, which has twice the bandwidth of ddr1, which is how they calculate the effective memory clocks on gfx cards. multiply the actual speed by 4. Or i might be horribly wrong and should probably never be trusted. XD
Well the problem of running a "datacenter" out of a single box, is that you start to run out of I/O.
Anyway getting off-topic here. But yes I do agree that would be pretty damn cool!
No there is a difference. g-ddr vs ddr. Gddr has high latency compared to ddr at a MUCH faster speed. Gddr also runs at a lot less volts. Its about 1.5v for ddr3 and 1v for gddr5. There is also a lot of differences in how the modules make bandwidth. Gddr memory increases in bit rate by 32 for every memory module. So to get the 384bit memory on a Gtx 780 would need to have 12 memory chips. To get the 256bit memory on a Gtx 760 you'd need 8 memory chips. On ddr3 memory the cpu has a 64bit memory controller and thats the max bit rate for that processor. You can have 8 dims of 8gb memory on some socket 2011 motherboards and it would all be in 64bit form. If you ram 8 memory modules on a Gtx 760 you'd get 256 bit memory.
This makes much since, thanks for clearing that up for me.