4GB RAM in your next Smartphone? Samsung makes it possible.

octoberasian

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
4,082
(This feels more like it belongs here than the memory sub-forums.)

http://global.samsungtomorrow.com/?p=31752

World's first LPDDR4 (low-powered DDR4) DRAM developed by Samsung with 3.1Gbps bandwidth.

Samsung’s new high-speed 8Gb LPDDR4 mobile DRAM will provide the highest level of density, performance and energy efficiency for mobile memory applications, enabling end users to have faster, more responsive applications, more advanced features, and higher resolution displays while maximizing battery life.

The 8Gb LPDDR4 is fabricated on 20-nanometer (nm) class* process technology, and offers 1 gigabyte (GB) on a single die, which is the largest density available for DRAM components today. With four of the 8Gb chips, a single 4GB LPDDR4 package can provide the highest level of performance available today.

- See more at: http://global.samsungtomorrow.com/?p=31752#sthash.wTzUSebc.dpuf
via Engadget.
 
How did I know that DDR4 was going to be available on ARM platforms before x86?
 
it actually means low power, sometimes using as low as 40 percent of the non low power version.

this will be a decent step up in performance versus older LPDDR3, but it's on the same node. I'd expect some growing pains with this in the phone market but not as much in the tablet. You also need soc support for it.
 
DDR4 already from Samsung? And it's based on the 20nm process as well. Wow.

Can we finally see a lag-free Samsung smartphone?

I thought LP stood for low performance.

LP stands for Low Power (this is specifically meant for mobile devices like smartphones and laptops).
 
The question is, which devices get first crack? I suspect that Samsung will focus on tablets first, since it's easier to justify the expense on a device like that. Would be great if the Galaxy S 5 came with 4GB of RAM, but that may be expensive (especially if combined with a 2560x1440 display). Stranger things have happened, mind you.
 
The question is, which devices get first crack? I suspect that Samsung will focus on tablets first, since it's easier to justify the expense on a device like that. Would be great if the Galaxy S 5 came with 4GB of RAM, but that may be expensive (especially if combined with a 2560x1440 display). Stranger things have happened, mind you.

My best guess would be higher end smartphones and tablets get them first to justify the higher cost of DDR4. Probably a year after the first devices get it, mid- to lower range phones and tablets would get it next when LPDDR4 is more commonplace and costs have come down. I'd assume anything using the new and upcoming 64-bit Exynos 6 would be paired with LPDDR4, which would make perfect sense since it's supposedly starting production early next year.

If it's going to be anything like DDR4 for the desktop and laptop market, I would not be surprised this costs quite a lot initially.
 
Can we finally see a lag-free Samsung smartphone?

I doubt it. Hardware is only as good as the software allows it to run and if Samsung's previous Android skins are any indication, their next revision will be another case of too many absurd features running on your phone to the point of causing the UI to lag plenty regardless of what hardware is running it.

They really need to just start from scratch, but I highly doubt that's feasible for them. They already have such a high customer base, they can't risk changing everything or dropping features even if they're useless else it may be taken as a step backwards on paper and Samsung can't have that. :rolleyes:
 
Wow.. that's just silly. Talk about supid inflated numbers just for the numbers sake.

Android really don't need more than 1Gig of RAM. 2 is more then plentiful. 4 is Overkill. (like the 16 in my gaming box, that was a bit of an oops)
 
Android really don't need more than 1Gig of RAM. 2 is more then plentiful. 4 is Overkill. (like the 16 in my gaming box, that was a bit of an oops)
Actually, Androids do need more than 1 GB of RAM to make it feel like an iDevice or WP device in terms of smoothness and response.
 
Last edited:
Wow.. that's just silly. Talk about supid inflated numbers just for the numbers sake.

Android really don't need more than 1Gig of RAM. 2 is more then plentiful. 4 is Overkill. (like the 16 in my gaming box, that was a bit of an oops)

Android smartphones, especially those from Samsung and LG, have so many software features that they require more than 1GB of RAM. Even 3GB RAM on the Galaxy Note 3 doesn't feel smoother than an iPhone 5S.

4GB DDR4 RAM may be a game changer though, but we'll see. If Samsung adds too many features, and also because of that 1440p display rumored to be utilized in the Galaxy S5, lag issues may still persist, however I'm pretty sure Samsung will figure out how to make their devices as smooth as Apple's devices now.

With DDR4 technology, there are no excuses to not make a smooth device.
 
DDR4 already from Samsung? And it's based on the 20nm process as well. Wow.

Can we finally see a lag-free Samsung smartphone?



LP stands for Low Power (this is specifically meant for mobile devices like smartphones and laptops).

No. I have a Galaxy S4 and it's lag free only since I installed the Google Edition ROM. How bloated is the Samsung stock Roms? Upwards of 1-2gigs. The Google one is 300mb.

It's just like a name brand PC, always reinstall the OS for the best performance.

Android smartphones, especially those from Samsung and LG, have so many software features that they require more than 1GB of RAM. Even 3GB RAM on the Galaxy Note 3 doesn't feel smoother than an iPhone 5S.

4GB DDR4 RAM may be a game changer though, but we'll see. If Samsung adds too many features, and also because of that 1440p display rumored to be utilized in the Galaxy S5, lag issues may still persist, however I'm pretty sure Samsung will figure out how to make their devices as smooth as Apple's devices now.

With DDR4 technology, there are no excuses to not make a smooth device.

4.4 KitKat is buttery smooth. They optimized it for low RAM devices. The issue is the aforementioned bloat. XDA developers usually get each device running really smooth.
 
No. I have a Galaxy S4 and it's lag free only since I installed the Google Edition ROM. How bloated is the Samsung stock Roms? Upwards of 1-2gigs. The Google one is 300mb.

It's just like a name brand PC, always reinstall the OS for the best performance.



4.4 KitKat is buttery smooth. They optimized it for low RAM devices. The issue is the aforementioned bloat. XDA developers usually get each device running really smooth.

This Samsung bloat is what makes Samsung devices sell so well though.

Without features like Air View, S-Pen, smart camera features, etc then Samsung would be like any other Android device.

And many Android devices add their own bloatware too, but not the right type.
 
...Samsung bloat is not what make it sell so well. It's the massive marketing...
 
This Samsung bloat is what makes Samsung devices sell so well though.

Without features like Air View, S-Pen, smart camera features, etc then Samsung would be like any other Android device.

And many Android devices add their own bloatware too, but not the right type.

Actually, it'd be more practical to argue that Samsung sells well because it matches good hardware with massive marketing campaigns and extremely deep channel distribution. It was the official sponsor of the 2012 summer Olympics, and there are places in the world where Samsung's marketing is virtually inescapable. It's also one of the few large phone makers that you can find almost anywhere in the world; Apple may not have a presence in Burkina Faso, but Samsung probably does.

My beef with TouchWiz is that it primarily exists to feed that marketing machine -- Samsung wants a long feature checklist, and it doesn't mind if those features are half-broken so long as they sound good in a TV ad.
 
I find TouchWiz to be a lot more user-friendly than the stock Android experience. Google has never (ever!) done well with anything UI-related. Just look at the UI disaster that is any of their websites.
 
I find TouchWiz to be a lot more user-friendly than the stock Android experience. Google has never (ever!) done well with anything UI-related. Just look at the UI disaster that is any of their websites.
And with that comment, I don't believe anyone would question me now when I call you a Sammy fanboy...
 
This Samsung bloat is what makes Samsung devices sell so well though.

Without features like Air View, S-Pen, smart camera features, etc then Samsung would be like any other Android device.

And many Android devices add their own bloatware too, but not the right type.

It's the mass marketing and blackmailing on other brands that makes them sell, not the hardware or software that is doing the job.
 
It's the mass marketing and blackmailing on other brands that makes them sell, not the hardware or software that is doing the job.

Samsung is the only major smart phone maker left that includes expandable storage on nearly all their devices and especially their high end ones. Samsung is the only company that has removable batteries on most of their devices. With all this they still have thin light phones and they do it with the latest hardware and great screens every time. So yes actually the hardware is selling their phones. This is not an opinionated matter its just raw specs anyone can goto phone arena and see it.

The point is Samsung is doing a lot right and their competitors are screwing up on really simple shit over and over. The marketing certainly helps but its not going to sell as many phones as Samsung sells alone. If it did then apple would have the largest market.
 
Samsung is the only major smart phone maker left that includes expandable storage on nearly all their devices and especially their high end ones. Samsung is the only company that has removable batteries on most of their devices. With all this they still have thin light phones and they do it with the latest hardware and great screens every time. So yes actually the hardware is selling their phones. This is not an opinionated matter its just raw specs anyone can goto phone arena and see it.

The point is Samsung is doing a lot right and their competitors are screwing up on really simple shit over and over. The marketing certainly helps but its not going to sell as many phones as Samsung sells alone. If it did then apple would have the largest market.

While I do think hardware is key, the problem is that there's no evidence to suggest that removable batteries and storage are what sell Samsung's hardware. If you have proof, I'd love to see it! Correlation doesn't imply causation, especially when many general smartphone buyers aren't especially picky.

Speaking of a lack of evidence, you've bought into the common misperception that Apple outspends everyone on ads. The truth is that Samsung and Microsoft both spend a lot more. If anything, the reality suggests that marketing plays more of a role in Samsung's success than technical achievements.
 
This Samsung bloat is what makes Samsung devices sell so well though.

Without features like Air View, S-Pen, smart camera features, etc then Samsung would be like any other Android device.

And many Android devices add their own bloatware too, but not the right type.

Not really. Samsung would still have phones with both removable batteries and microSD expansion not to mention decent internal memory that usually starts at 16gb and goes up to 64g in many cases.

Those features alone mean that Samsung is likely going to be getting a lot of buyers that value these features, like me, for quite some time as other players seem content to drop these features.

And with that comment, I don't believe anyone would question me now when I call you a Sammy fanboy...

TouchWiz is what it is but Google's recent code updates with Maps and Youtube show that they're not all that concerned with UI. At this point, Samsung might do a better job with Youtube and Maps than Google is. At least half-assed features are there rather than previously-working-just-fine features removed.
 
While I do think hardware is key, the problem is that there's no evidence to suggest that removable batteries and storage are what sell Samsung's hardware. If you have proof, I'd love to see it! Correlation doesn't imply causation, especially when many general smartphone buyers aren't especially picky.

Speaking of a lack of evidence, you've bought into the common misperception that Apple outspends everyone on ads. The truth is that Samsung and Microsoft both spend a lot more. If anything, the reality suggests that marketing plays more of a role in Samsung's success than technical achievements.

Theres no pure evidence to show that sealed batteries is more preferred either. It just so happens that the two most popular handset sellers do one or the other (Samsung replaceable/Apple non). If Samsung comes out with theirs as non-removable and sales take a hit that would be a pretty good correlation.

Apple doesn't spend much on Advertising but they probably do receive the most. They don't offer devices for movies for product placement but since their name comes with a good weight factor movies/shows/stores like to pimp their product.


---
Also, if Samsung were truly selling their stuff "purely" off of advertising, they are failing then. As anecdotal as it sounds I've hardly seen any Samsung adverts except their Christmas commercial compared to that of HTC. Plus both Verizon and ATT show off BOTH products. I highly doubt the massive sales difference has much to do with advertising and more to do with product available and product 'features' to attract customers.

The point is Samsung is doing a lot right and their competitors are screwing up on really simple shit over and over. The marketing certainly helps but its not going to sell as many phones as Samsung sells alone. If it did then apple would have the largest market.

I think if MotoX sticks to their current game plan they can really ROCK the android market. They need to have a development team to release software products for the phone though. It won't be anywhere near the fidelity of iOS but they could really make a killer handset with a dedicated team if they concentrate on one flagship.
 
While I do think hardware is key, the problem is that there's no evidence to suggest that removable batteries and storage are what sell Samsung's hardware. If you have proof, I'd love to see it! Correlation doesn't imply causation, especially when many general smartphone buyers aren't especially picky.

Speaking of a lack of evidence, you've bought into the common misperception that Apple outspends everyone on ads. The truth is that Samsung and Microsoft both spend a lot more. If anything, the reality suggests that marketing plays more of a role in Samsung's success than technical achievements.

You know what is even worse than someone who mistakes correlation for causality? Someone who thinks that because correlation is not causality it means all arguments are wrong. Did you know that scientists publish peer reviewed papers pretty much every day that discuss correlation and suggest cause? It is as stupid as people who completely discount evolution simply because not every detail of evolution of certain systems is worked out or explained.

A correlation is better than what most nay sayers argue which is not a single thing at all. They seem to think that just because the other party does not have indisputable proof that all their arguments are garbage. Some statistics or some correlations are better than nothing at all. No one who actually lives in this world and sees how long and heated posts about removable batteries can get can make the ridiculous claim that it is meaningless. It is not its a very real advantage that Samsung has. Is it 1,10,50% of their sales? No one knows but its there turning people over to Samsung. Between that and the S-Pen in my family alone 7 sales have been made that used to be Apple or HTC users.

Here is some correlation that suggests removable batteries and expandable storage are important. Samsung began their rise after the hey day of HTC and in that same time slowly but surely almost every high end smart phone maker switched to sealed designs getting rid of 1 or both of those features. In that oddly similar time Samsung went from being a me too cell phone maker to the biggest in the world. I am sorry but advertising alone no matter how much one spends cannot explain that.

Second my personal decision to move every single upgrade in my house to Samsung is because not one single other high end maker in sprints lineup makes removable batteries.

Does any reasonable person think that the removable battery alone is the cause of their success? Nope. Can any reasonable person discount it entirely? Nope the reality is it helps them with some percent of their sales, and that percent turns into positive feedback on sales.

Consider also that the sealed battery craze is something that would take time for consumers to come to terms with. The first time a consumer was flashed a nice looking sealed battery phone they probably said great, in fact that is exactly the mistake I myself made on one family members phones. When numbers suggested I would get good enough battery life. But as the years pass and those consumers deal with dead phones they start to learn and react. The US auto industry saw great profits for a while till consumers caught on too, then it was the Japanese makers time to laugh.

See if you break everything down to oh well correlation means nothing then you throw out half the worlds knowledge. And it goes the same way on the advertising argument why do people seem to think that advertising is all Samsung is about, when actually their only evidence of that is also nothing more than correlation.
 
Last edited:
Problem with your suggestion that Samsung is selling well due to removable batteries is that most people simply don't care. That simply does not correlate. Quite frankly, subsidized cost and successful mass marketing have way more to correlate to Samsung's recent successes.
 
Problem with your suggestion that Samsung is selling well due to removable batteries is that most people simply don't care. That simply does not correlate. Quite frankly, subsidized cost and successful mass marketing have way more to correlate to Samsung's recent successes.

How does it not correlate? Over a similar time that Samsung has gained popularity other major makers have dropped removable batteries. Also what on earth does the subsidized cost of phones have to do with anything last I checked every company does subsidized phones and when you go into any store you find that a high end smart phone cost the same regardless of who makes it. $199 on contract. In fact on sprint, over the last several releases they have charged $50 more than most other phones. And through most of that time the HTC one was cheaper. And many people my self included bought the Samsung phone anyway.

Here go ask your friends and everyone you know how many people selected a Samsung phone because they saw an advertisement. See how that works out.
 
Here go ask your friends and everyone you know how many people selected a Samsung phone because they saw an advertisement. See how that works out.
That. But than most of my friends have the Note 2 or 3, and they got it because of a large screen, which is actually something a large number of people actually require. Removable battery as a requirement is just a niche market.

Majority of people who have Samsung Galaxy S3 or S4 did not buy the phone for removable batteries. They bought it because of price and brand recognition. Good job for Samsung for making great advertisement for their phones' features that their users hardly ever use. "The Next Best Thing Is Already Here" tagline is pretty well-known.
 
That. But than most of my friends have the Note 2 or 3, and they got it because of a large screen, which is actually something a large number of people actually require. Removable battery as a requirement is just a niche market.

Majority of people who have Samsung Galaxy S3 or S4 did not buy the phone for removable batteries. They bought it because of price and brand recognition. Good job for Samsung for making great advertisement for their phones' features that their users hardly ever use. "The Next Best Thing Is Already Here" tagline is pretty well-known.


And this too...:D

samsung-billboard-galaxy-25.jpg
 
A correlation is better than what most nay sayers argue which is not a single thing at all. They seem to think that just because the other party does not have indisputable proof that all their arguments are garbage. Some statistics or some correlations are better than nothing at all. No one who actually lives in this world and sees how long and heated posts about removable batteries can get can make the ridiculous claim that it is meaningless. It is not its a very real advantage that Samsung has. Is it 1,10,50% of their sales? No one knows but its there turning people over to Samsung. Between that and the S-Pen in my family alone 7 sales have been made that used to be Apple or HTC users.

...

Here is some correlation that suggests removable batteries and expandable storage are important. Samsung began their rise after the hey day of HTC and in that same time slowly but surely almost every high end smart phone maker switched to sealed designs getting rid of 1 or both of those features. In that oddly similar time Samsung went from being a me too cell phone maker to the biggest in the world. I am sorry but advertising alone no matter how much one spends cannot explain that.

...

Does any reasonable person think that the removable battery alone is the cause of their success? Nope. Can any reasonable person discount it entirely? Nope the reality is it helps them with some percent of their sales, and that percent turns into positive feedback on sales.

Here's the problem: you admitted that you have no real evidence of how important expansion is to Samsung's success, but you're simultaneously claiming that personal anecdotes and statistical coincidences support your theory. Er, no they don't. I know friends who switched to Android, but I also know entire families that went to iOS (some of whom were using Android before). Does that mean I've just proven you wrong? No, it doesn't. You have to show beyond a doubt that expansion support is directly responsible for these patterns on a large scale, or you have nothing.

You've also made a classic mistake of internet geeks: you believe that online comments are a microcosm of the general public. They're not even close. If they were, Nexus phones and Surface tablets would rule the planet. "Heated posts" come from hardcore fans, the kind who both know their subject well and care about it deeply enough to spend hours writing about it for a small community. They'll influence the market a small amount, but that's it -- many of the people who buy these phones don't even know what microSD is, let alone why they'd care to use it.

Advertising isn't the sole factor, of course. As I've mentioned in the past, you need to have a product that's good enough to get customers in the door. But suggesting that major shifts in market share are due to non-essential features? That's a reach.

Marketing is much easier to demonstrate as a factor, because it's a basic, logical truth that people are much more likely to buy a product if they're familiar with it before they reach the store. Samsung is known to carpet-bomb entire cities with marketing campaigns (see London or Barcelona), and it will gladly spare no expense if it thinks an ad is vital (such as its Super Bowl spots, or the recent Galaxy 11 series abroad). It stands to reason that at least some customers are buying from Samsung solely because it's one of the few (if only) mobile brands they know. HTC had a lot of share at one point, but it has always been a smartphone maker and nothing more; it doesn't have the luxury of a larger parent company to support its work, like Samsung Mobile does. I would argue that most other Android partners are shrinking because they can't throw billions of dollars at their products, whether it's for marketing or engineering, and any advantages they have aren't so huge that they attract notice by themselves.
 
How does it not correlate? Over a similar time that Samsung has gained popularity other major makers have dropped removable batteries. Also what on earth does the subsidized cost of phones have to do with anything last I checked every company does subsidized phones and when you go into any store you find that a high end smart phone cost the same regardless of who makes it. $199 on contract. In fact on sprint, over the last several releases they have charged $50 more than most other phones. And through most of that time the HTC one was cheaper. And many people my self included bought the Samsung phone anyway.

Here go ask your friends and everyone you know how many people selected a Samsung phone because they saw an advertisement. See how that works out.

My first Samsung phone was a Note 2 because of that. My Note 2 is also my last Samsung phone due to Samsung's software (Knox).
 
My first Samsung phone was a Note 2 because of that. My Note 2 is also my last Samsung phone due to Samsung's software (Knox).
Just to make this clear, every oem has software like knox. If the cellular company demands it for their subsidized phones they will come with it, if you purchase the phone through the oem or through the dev program it won't come wth it. Typically.

Knox is not on every Samsung phone, he'll is not on every note 3. The more popular the device, the more locked down it will be.
 
That. But than most of my friends have the Note 2 or 3, and they got it because of a large screen, which is actually something a large number of people actually require. Removable battery as a requirement is just a niche market.

Majority of people who have Samsung Galaxy S3 or S4 did not buy the phone for removable batteries. They bought it because of price and brand recognition. Good job for Samsung for making great advertisement for their phones' features that their users hardly ever use. "The Next Best Thing Is Already Here" tagline is pretty well-known.

lol so here you are trying to say that your friends bought the Samsung phone because of a punch line in a commercial.... Funny I have owned a number of Samsung phones and never even had a clue what their tagline was.

Niche advantages add up, people said the phablet was niche, people still say the digitizer is niche, you call it niche, whats niche? 10%, you have no numbers or clue as to what tips people to a phone you are just so sure its not removable batteries or storage. Yet if you subtract that from the equation then you run out of reasons to buy a Samsung phone.
 
My first Samsung phone was a Note 2 because of that. My Note 2 is also my last Samsung phone due to Samsung's software (Knox).

This is a very close minded view.

Every smartphone has something similar to Knox, and not every Samsung phone has Knox.
 
Back
Top