drescherjm
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2008
- Messages
- 14,941
Only the highest end $1000 processors are considered extreme. To me I really do not care about the word.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
AMD Bulldozer Details Leaked From Gigabyte
- Thread starter AMD_Gamer
- Start date
- Status
Only the highest end $1000 processors are considered extreme. To me I really do not care about the word.
Well, that's because you're not as extremely extreme as the extreme enthusiasts that have Intel 'Extreme' processors running on Intel 'Extreme' motherboards.
Well, that's because you're not as extremely extreme as the extreme enthusiasts that have Intel 'Extreme' processors running on Intel 'Extreme' motherboards.
FX be prepared for the Effects CPUs coming to your Effects motherboard coming @ you in Effects June
EE be prepared for the EXTREME CPUs coming to your EXTREME Motherboard coming @ you in EXTREME January
Actually, it is:
AMD FX: Be prepared for the most F***ing eXtreme processor yet! This June, prepare to be F***ed eXtremely, because it WON'T be F***ing eXpensive, or will it?!
Intel EE: The new Intel Extreme Edition i7 WILL be Extremely Expensive, because, who else ae you going to buy from, AMD?
LOL
But, now back to the topic on DDR4 and Channels
Well guess what
DDR4 will be Single Channel ONLY!
It is going to be a high-density RAM so you might see like 64GB-256GB on 1 DDR4 Memory Module with that there will be less of a need to EVER have more than 1 DIMM slot on a desktop
Activate: AMD
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2004
- Messages
- 1,994
well, triple channel or no, X58 had some not-insanely priced CPUs that were better performing than 1156. I doubt the majority of people buying 1366's thought to themselves "I really wanted an i3, but I need triple channel so I'd better buy this i7"
Well, that's because you're not as extremely extreme as the extreme enthusiasts that have Intel 'Extreme' processors running on Intel 'Extreme' motherboards.
AMD isn't innocent either.. remember the FX-53 or whatever.. those puppies were $1k and only ran on socket 940!
Where did you get this info from? I highly doubt it will be single channel, more than likely single dimm per channel, similar to DDR3, where you can use only dimm per channel at speeds over 1866.
http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/column/kaigai/20100816_387444.html
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/memory/2010/08/26/ddr4-what-we-can-expect/2
They are going to a point<-->point connection
and for the high density stuff
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/memory/2010/08/26/ddr4-what-we-can-expect/3
Last edited:
Cyberbeing
Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2007
- Messages
- 570
How does that differ from the Unganged Memory option on AMD CPUs today?
if you have 2 RAM Sticks in separate banks you are already in unganged single channel
if you have 4 RAM Sticks filling the slots you have Two Memory Modules Ganged still(Instead of having all 4 RAM sticks in one long line, basically you just get two smaller lines)
It's close to it but it still uses dual-channel thinking
Explain then...don't troll
Maybe I showed the wrong picture and described it wrong but oh well
What I was taught:
Mem 1 and 2 are in the same Bank
Dual Channel makes those 2 sticks of RAM basically 1 stick of RAM with the punishment of increased latency but with the benefit of increased bandwidth
Last edited:
So, in a nutshell, it is similar to SMI on Nehalem-EX and Westmere-EX systems, which could be a plus, since DDR2/3 compatibility can be had with translation hubs (if possible).
Also, in the Bit-tech article, it states 'single dimm per channel' not 'single channel'.
Each side of a DIMM is a rank, depending on the DRAM architecture (SDR/DDR/2/3), you can have from 1 to *32 ranks (up to 16 slots for SDR, 16 ranks or 8 slots for DDR/2/3) per channel.
For example, Socket G34 Opterons support up to (depends on motherboard):
8 slots per channel @ <800MHz for a total of 32 slots
4 slots per channel @ 800/1066 for a total of 16 slots
3 slots per channel @ 1333MHz for a total of 12 slots
Single-slot dual channel was used with RDRAM, though you still needed a minimum 2 RIMMs
EDIT1: According to the diagram at AnandTech: http://www.anandtech.com/show/3851/...now-about-sdram-memory-but-were-afraid-to-ask, each DRAM device is made of 8 banks, 8/16/32 DRAM ICs make up one Rank (side).
EDIT2: The main reason for dual/triple/quad/octa channel memory subsystems is to increase bandwidth without increasing latency.
Last edited:
I noticed that and that is what single channel is
Single Channel
1 Memory 1 Bank
Dual Channel
2 Memory 1 Bank (making it 1 Memory virtually, even though it's 2 Mem sticks)
Triple Channel
3 Memory 1 Bank (making it 1 Memory virtually, " " " 3 " ")
and so on
-------
We are talking about the Large Address Bank(No idea what it is called) whatever....lol 1 stick of ram = 1 bank in it..... unless your dual channel which it would see two sticks and say oh well that is 1 stick of ram = 1 bank
each line = 1 bank
2 sticks of ram in 2 banks(4 ram sticks in dual channel mode making them 2 sticks in 1 bank)
Last edited:
rampantandroid
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 1,962
Bittech has this to say: DDR4 will become a point-to-point bus and the parallelism is being left with the memory controller itself with multiple memory channels.
Basically, Dual channel and triple channel are parallel - meaning each bank has multiple DIMMs. Now each DIMM will have it's own channel. Their analogy to PCI express makes total sense.
We're not going single channel. We're giving every DIMM it's own channel and leaving the memory controller handle the rest.
Much like we now have PCIe lanes and each videocard gets it's own bandwidth, now each DIMM will have a direct connection to the memory controller, not shared with any other DIMM. It's n-channel RAM.
If was was trolling, I would have insulted you. Dual channel is about the pipes going to and from a memory bank. Before Dual channel systems we basically had 1 bank of memory which typically held up to 4 dims. With dual channel we have two banks each with its own dedicated pipe. What you seem to be saying is dual channel is when 2 pieces of ram in the same channel, which is not dual channel.
From your slides I am seeing each dimm having its having its own pipe eliminating the concept of memory banks traditionally used. Going further into the slides it looks like the server and desktop memory management will be differant for ddr4. It seems like up to 4 slots can be point to point on a single controller, however servers will have multiple controllers.
From your slides I am seeing each dimm having its having its own pipe eliminating the concept of memory banks traditionally used. Going further into the slides it looks like the server and desktop memory management will be differant for ddr4. It seems like up to 4 slots can be point to point on a single controller, however servers will have multiple controllers.
Either seronx was confused or the way he/she was explaining themselves confused me and you. I do know that there was a mis-interpretation of 'single dimm per channel' and 'single channel memory'
It doesn't matter once DDR4 comes out and 22nm CPUs become big we would be beyond this generation and be thinking about DDR5 and GDDR7
and PCi-e 4.0
and HT 4.0
and sixteen cores and thirty-two cores
and Ray Tracing for light instead of artifical sun beams and relfections
and games turning into simulators where people can work jobs from
and maybe the South bridge might disappear as well
and PCi-e 4.0
and HT 4.0
and sixteen cores and thirty-two cores
and Ray Tracing for light instead of artifical sun beams and relfections
and games turning into simulators where people can work jobs from
and maybe the South bridge might disappear as well
Digital Viper-X-
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2000
- Messages
- 15,125
drescherjm
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2008
- Messages
- 14,941
DDR4 will be single dimm per channel. As for how many channels are used I would expect dual channel and quad channel to be the norm. Either way I would not expect these to be compatible with current chips from AMD or Intel meaning we will need new sockets and new processors to support DDR4 in 2013 or 2014 when DDR4 is finally used for CPUs.
Meh, DDR4 is still 3-4 years away from being used as main system memory. If anyone wants to see the radical redesign of DDR4 DIMMs, here's Samsung's first one from a few months ago: http://www.nordichardware.com/news/75-memory/42010-samsung-makes-worlds-first-ddr4-module.html
Overall it doesn't sound much different from the point to point AMB used on old FB DIMMs. Once the latency and power consumption was decreased, it worked pretty well. By then few cared about supporting it anymore on x86 processors.
Overall it doesn't sound much different from the point to point AMB used on old FB DIMMs. Once the latency and power consumption was decreased, it worked pretty well. By then few cared about supporting it anymore on x86 processors.
Hopefully, that is up to 3.2GHz clock and 4 gigabit DDR SDRAM ICs... 8 ICs per side, 64GB DIMMs.Meh, DDR4 is still 3-4 years away from being used as main system memory. If anyone wants to see the radical redesign of DDR4 DIMMs, here's Samsung's first one from a few months ago: http://www.nordichardware.com/news/75-memory/42010-samsung-makes-worlds-first-ddr4-module.html
Overall it doesn't sound much different from the point to point AMB used on old FB DIMMs. Once the latency and power consumption was decreased, it worked pretty well. By then few cared about supporting it anymore on x86 processors.
drescherjm
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2008
- Messages
- 14,941
Oh wow, I has a moment of stupidity... never mind
Maths fail!!
Digital Viper-X-
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2000
- Messages
- 15,125
Oh wow, I has a moment of stupidity... never mind
Maths fail!!
he could have meant 64Gagabit !
CaptNumbNutz
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2007
- Messages
- 25,100
WTF does DDR4 have to do with the main topic of this thread?
drescherjm
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2008
- Messages
- 14,941
I think we wandered there after discussing the bandwidth need ( or lack of ) for quad channel ram.
CaptNumbNutz
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2007
- Messages
- 25,100
And WTF does quad channel ram have to do with the fake leaked benchmarks in the OP?
drescherjm
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2008
- Messages
- 14,941
We did get off track.. We got into discussing quad channel because Intel 2011 will have quad channel while bulldozer will not. The question that got us there was would 8 core bullodzer be able to compete with 8 core 16 thread lga 2011.
Digital Viper-X-
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2000
- Messages
- 15,125
the real question is, how long till AMD releases a 16 core desktop chip to compete with intel on 2011
?If someone wants 16 core Interlagos, they can just buy a workstation board and server CPU. Both will be pricey and I'm not sure what benefits a desktop user will get from that anyways. There are probably some users who run workstation-like loads and could find that config benefits them.the real question is, how long till AMD releases a 16 core desktop chip to compete with intel on 2011
I'm not seeing LGA 2011 or socket G34 to get quad channel as a draw for most desktop users.
I don't think AMD's enthusiast desktop platform total cost is aiming as high as Intel's, so some corners are going to be cut. Once Intel's 2011 shows up, I'm sure there will be tests where only 2 DIMMs are populated and we'll see how much of a performance hit there is with Dual Channel. Probably not enough % increase in performance to justify % increase in computer costs though.
Digital Viper-X-
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2000
- Messages
- 15,125
one can dream, would still be nice to see the "halo" cpus released. Intel did it with the 6 core extremes. I could always use more cores
rendering 720p / 1080p video out to an SSD RAID array the bottle neck is the cpu.- Status