Micron has DDR5 in the works...

d3athf1sh

Gawd
Joined
Dec 16, 2015
Messages
529
Anyone else notice this page on Micron's site https://www.micron.com/products/dram/ddr5-sdram

also if you look at one of their blog posts, they say "As CPU core counts continue to increase, bandwidth per core cannot continue to scale with DDR4. New memory architectures are required to meet next-generation bandwidth per core requirements in x86 CPUs. Enter DDR5."

just thought was kind of interesting. personally i always thought ddr4 was gonna kind of suck. i mean if we look into the past. it's the odd numbered DDR's that are the game changers. well sort of. like how ddr2 had over double the latency of ddr and I don't think there was a single stick of ddr2 that could run at 1T. i'm pretty sure you had to hit at least 800MHz with low latency DDR2 to beat DDR400 but when it first came out they were pushing DDR2 400/533 like it was the next big thing.
 

IdiotInCharge

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
13,265
The first iterations usually do suck, as they don't usually provide a bandwidth uplift and come with more latency.

Once they get production figured out new memory technology usually starts to scale pretty quickly and real latency starts to approach if not eclipse previous technologies, while bandwidth increases significantly.
 

Nightfire

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 7, 2017
Messages
2,040
The first iterations usually do suck, as they don't usually provide a bandwidth uplift and come with more latency.

Once they get production figured out new memory technology usually starts to scale pretty quickly and real latency starts to approach if not eclipse previous technologies, while bandwidth increases significantly.
Yep and I am thinking it will be even longer than usual to get similiar throughput/$ in the next gen as we do now.

We now have 3600c14 kits for DDR4 which is smoking fast.

The onboard ecc looks very interesting and might be the most attractive aspect.

Having 8-64GB device capacity is great for midrange and high end builds, but might be less attractive for the system builders as even the low end builds will need 16GB of ram to run dual channel. Even in the coming years, this will still be an overkill for home media builds.

Now you are comparing the price of 16GB of DDR5 vs 8GB of DDR4 for practically no benefit in such uses.
 

JosiahBradley

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 19, 2006
Messages
1,766
And I'm sitting here with DDR3 @ 2400 CL 10. Wonder if I'm really slowing my games down or not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: viivo
like this

Lumpus

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 2, 2005
Messages
306
I couldn't tell from the original article...
Will DDR5 work in existing DDR4 sockets (with a BIOS update, of course), or will everyone need a new MB for these?
:/
 

d3athf1sh

Gawd
Joined
Dec 16, 2015
Messages
529
Yep and I am thinking it will be even longer than usual to get similiar throughput/$ in the next gen as we do now.

Having 8-64GB device capacity is great for midrange and high end builds, but might be less attractive for the system builders as even the low end builds will need 16GB of ram to run dual channel. Even in the coming years, this will still be an overkill for home media builds.

Now you are comparing the price of 16GB of DDR5 vs 8GB of DDR4 for practically no benefit in such uses.
i don't think many of the people that are reading this thread are worried/complaining about an "overkill" of performance. even if that includes "home theater" builds. especially when it will prob be the same price.

we are building computers here not dvd players... oh... right...

look, if DDR5 is what we need to move computing into the future. then so be it. i'm sure most of us will welcome it w/ open arms. bout time we got an upgrade in memory perfomance. so,
if you ask me, when it comes to performance, better to have too much, than not enough.

PS. if you are only worried about a media box, do you really need dual channel? from what was explained you can get dual channel off one stick anyway.
 

drescherjm

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
14,644
Will DDR5 work in existing DDR4 sockets (with a BIOS update, of course), or will everyone need a new MB for these?
Everyone will need a new motherboard and new CPUs. For AMD and Intel this will happen in 2020 or 2021. For AMD we are not sure if this will happen at Zen3 or Zen4 or whether there will be a Zen2+
 

d3athf1sh

Gawd
Joined
Dec 16, 2015
Messages
529
Just as DDR4 prices became affordable, now they want to make DDR5? They can go fuck themselves.
in all fairness ddr5 is looking to finally give us a nice boost in memory performance. especially for multi-core processors. DDR4 is basically just DDR3+. same w/ GDDR4, you didn't see many graphics cards ever use it because they all said GDDR4 sucked (becuase of high latencies) and moved on to GDDR5. prob be the same with the desktop version. they just want to milk as much money as they can off their DDR4 r&d.

DDR5 will prob stick around a lot longer being that it is designed from the ground up for multi-core processors.
 
Last edited:

Red Falcon

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
10,168
Why don't they just make sticks of GDDR6?
If I recall, GDDRX versions have much higher bandwidth, but also much higher latencies than standard DDRX that each generation is respectively based on.
Granted, the PS4/Slim/Pro and XBone X both use a unified memory architecture with GDDR5, but video games and simpler applications (YouTube, Hulu, etc.) do not require lower latencies as much as VMs, databases, HPC, etc. all require for heavy workloads.

So ideally, while this could be done, and would benefit certain applications, it may destroy performance for others - assuming GDDRX is applied across the board.
It would be nice to have the option, though, for sure.
 

Nightfire

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 7, 2017
Messages
2,040
Just as DDR4 prices became affordable, now they want to make DDR5? They can go fuck themselves.
Memory prices are rather volatile so I wouldn't worry about that now. We will not get DDR5 until at least Zen 3 and it is looking doubtful that Icelake will feature it.

The speed looks nice, but I would like to know what the latencies are. Perhaps we will see triple channel memory again as a stop gap until it becomes more refined and cheaper.
 

MangoSeed

Gawd
Joined
Oct 15, 2014
Messages
680
My last build was at the end of the DDR3 generation with a 4c/4t DDR3 2133 setup.

Looks like my next build will be at the tail end of this generation with 8c/16t DDR4 in 2020. That should last till the end of DDR5 :)
 

ManofGod

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
11,531
Sure, now that ram prices are cheap and I do not need any ram. :D (I have 16B in each of my machines at the moment.)
 

DejaWiz

Oracle of Unfortunate Truths
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
19,531
Just as I did with DDR2, DDR3, and eventually DDR4, I'll wait until DDR5 is in mass production and it normalizes at the ideal native speed interval.

DDR-400 --> DDR2-800 --> DDR3-1600 --> DDR4-3200 --> DDR5-6400. Anything natively slower is just volunteering my own wallet to be an early adopter beta tester.
 

DanNeely

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
3,521
If I recall, GDDRX versions have much higher bandwidth, but also much higher latencies than standard DDRX that each generation is respectively based on.
Granted, the PS4/Slim/Pro and XBone X both use a unified memory architecture with GDDR5, but video games and simpler applications (YouTube, Hulu, etc.) do not require lower latencies as much as VMs, databases, HPC, etc. all require for heavy workloads.

So ideally, while this could be done, and would benefit certain applications, it may destroy performance for others - assuming GDDRX is applied across the board.
It would be nice to have the option, though, for sure.
It's not just that GDDR* is heavily optimized for the sort of sequential access where you're streaming large textures/etc into the GPU vs the random IO that general purpose processors do a lot of; GDDR* is only able to reach its much higher bus speeds vs equivalent generation DDR* because it's limited to very short data bus lengths and soldiered connections. GPU makers don't just put the GDDR in a ring around the GPU because the symmetry looks nice, if they tried putting it in multiple rows on a single side of the GPU the ones farther away wouldn't work (or at least would need to be underclocked and have timing loosened).
 

DanNeely

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
3,521
Anyone else notice this page on Micron's site https://www.micron.com/products/dram/ddr5-sdram

also if you look at one of their blog posts, they say "As CPU core counts continue to increase, bandwidth per core cannot continue to scale with DDR4. New memory architectures are required to meet next-generation bandwidth per core requirements in x86 CPUs. Enter DDR5."

just thought was kind of interesting. personally i always thought ddr4 was gonna kind of suck. i mean if we look into the past. it's the odd numbered DDR's that are the game changers. well sort of. like how ddr2 had over double the latency of ddr and I don't think there was a single stick of ddr2 that could run at 1T. i'm pretty sure you had to hit at least 800MHz with low latency DDR2 to beat DDR400 but when it first came out they were pushing DDR2 400/533 like it was the next big thing.
The none could run at 1T snark is basically every generation of DDR. The ability of engineers to make DRM run faster hit the wall about 20 years ago. The actual DRAM in your DDR4-4000 is only running about 2x as fast as the SDR ram in your PC from 20 years ago (PC125 equivalent). Each generation of DDR has done the same thing:

1) Make the data bus run nominally 2x as fast.
2) Double the number of parallel reads/writes from the DRAM to feed the bus.
3) Double all the timing numbers because the number of nano-seconds the DRAM needs to do an operation is unchanged, but the faster data bus means the interval needs 2x as many clocks to complete.
4) Fiddly bits not germane to this discussion (eg lower voltages, moving more of the analog parts of the data bus circuity from discrete components into the memory chips and memory controller, etc) but that are needed to support the headline change of running the database twice as fast.

Then because DDRN is a brand new standard while DDRN-1 has been around for a number of years and has been heavily optimized the fastest initial data bus speeds for DDRN are closer to 50% faster than DDRN-1 than 100%, while the aggregate timings are somewhat looser than strict nanosecond scaling would suggest is possible. This results in the newer ram initially having better troughput but worse latency and overall performance at release being close to a wash. However while the old standard is more or less maxed out in terms of how hard it can be pushed the new one has lots of head room and the next few years see major increases in performance as the new tech becomes as well mastered as the old one. Then as the DRAM clock speeds again run into their fundamental limits a new standard with 2x the data bus speed is created to keep feeding hungrier processors.
 

Ready4Dis

Gawd
Joined
Nov 4, 2015
Messages
741
Well, it's like any other memory in the recent past... performance just doesn't increase that much, especially in random reads/writes where latency is king. Sequential/bandwidth can help tremendously depending on the work load.

Ram CAS Latency
SDR-100 3 30.00
SDR-133 3 22.56
DDR-200 2.5 25.00
DDR-266 2.5 18.80
DDR-333 2.5 15.02
DDR-400 3 15.00
DDR2-400 3 15.00
DDR2-400 4 20.00
DDR2-533 3 11.26
DDR2-533 4 15.01
DDR2-667 4 11.99
DDR2-667 5 14.99
DDR2-800 4 10.00
DDR2-800 5 12.50
DDR2-800 6 15.00
DDR2-1066 6 11.26
DDR2-1066 7 13.13
DDR3-800 5 12.50
DDR3-800 6 15.00
DDR3-1066 6 11.26
DDR3-1066 7 13.13
DDR3-1066 8 15.01
DDR3-1333 7 10.50
DDR3-1333 8 12.00
DDR3-1333 9 13.50
DDR3-1333 10 15.00
DDR3-1600 8 10.00
DDR3-1600 9 11.25
DDR3-1600 10 12.50
DDR3-1600 11 13.75
DDR3-1866 10 10.72
DDR3-1866 11 11.79
DDR3-1866 12 12.86
DDR3-1866 13 13.93
DDR3-2133 11 10.31
DDR3-2133 12 11.25
DDR3-2133 13 12.19
DDR3-2133 14 13.13
DDR4-1600 10 12.50
DDR4-1600 11 13.75
DDR4-1600 12 15.00
DDR4-1866 12 12.86
DDR4-1866 13 13.93
DDR4-1866 14 15.01
DDR4-2133 14 13.13
DDR4-2133 15 14.06
DDR4-2133 16 15.00
DDR4-2400 15 12.50
DDR4-2400 16 13.33
DDR4-2400 17 14.17
DDR4-2400 18 15.00
DDR4-2666 17 12.75
DDR4-2666 18 13.50
DDR4-2666 19 14.25
DDR4-2666 20 15.00
DDR4-2933 19 12.96
DDR4-2933 20 13.64
DDR4-2933 21 14.32
DDR4-2933 22 15.00
DDR4-3200 20 12.50
DDR4-3200 22 13.75
DDR4-3200 24 15.00

As you can see, true latency hasn't changed much in the last 20+ years hovering around 10-15ns, matter of fact for DDR4 still has worse latency than some of the better DDR2... although much increased bandwidth obviously. This is why when you had the choice to go DDR2 or DDR3 with AMD a long while back with their AM2 and AM2+ boards, it wasn't much difference (if i'm not remember incorrectly the boards).

* Sorry, formatting looks fine in the editor, but not quite right when I actually posted.
 
Top