×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Samsung Develops Power-Sipping DDR4 Memory

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the continue-to-enjoy-the-treadmill dept.

Power 152

Alex writes with this excerpt from TechSpot: "Samsung Electronics has announced that it completed development of the industry's first DDR4 DRAM module last month, using 30nm class process technology, and provided 1.2V 2GB DDR4 unbuffered dual in-line memory modules (UDIMM) to a controller maker for testing. The new DDR4 DRAM module can achieve data transfer rates of 2.133Gbps at 1.2V, compared to 1.35V and 1.5V DDR3 DRAM at an equivalent 30nm-class process technology, with speeds of up to 1.6Gbps. In a notebook, the DDR4 module reduces power consumption by 40 percent compared to a 1.5V DDR3 module. The module makes use of Pseudo Open Drain (POD) technology, which allows DDR4 DRAM to consume just half the electric current of DDR3 when reading and writing data."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

152 comments

How much power comparatively? (2)

HockeyPuck (141947) | more than 3 years ago | (#34762892)

In a typical notebook, how much power does memory actually consume compared to other components (CPU, HD, screen, wireless transmitter etc..)?

Re:How much power comparatively? (1)

BagOBones (574735) | more than 3 years ago | (#34762936)

Leave your laptop in Sleep mode.. It will last many hours but it will eventually get critically low and shut down..

Re:How much power comparatively? (-1, Offtopic)

Aboroth (1841308) | more than 3 years ago | (#34763008)

Your response was in no way helpful in answering his question.

Re:How much power comparatively? (3, Informative)

NoSig (1919688) | more than 3 years ago | (#34763060)

Sleep mode leaves the ram powered but powers down most other things, is what I think he is saying. So ram may be the most significant power consumer for sleep mode.

Re:How much power comparatively? (1)

Jurily (900488) | more than 3 years ago | (#34763518)

So ram may be the most significant power consumer for sleep mode.

Not to mention when it's sleeping because the battery is low.

Re:How much power comparatively? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34763070)

The cpu and graphics dont use too much power when in sleep mode if at all. The only thing that stays on is the RAM to keep the data alive.

Re:How much power comparatively? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34763140)

I don't agree - at all. You must ignore what he's speaking about?

Re:How much power comparatively? (2)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 3 years ago | (#34763176)

It was completely helpful. When in sleep mode, the RAM is powered up, but most everything else is turned off. Thus you can develop an intuition of how much power RAM takes compared to the other components.

I can't say for sure the power draw from all the components, especially since they vary, but this processor draws 600 watts [topfoodpro...views.info]. Now that's what's known as an unhelpful response.

Re:How much power comparatively? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34763304)

It was completely helpful. When in sleep mode, the RAM is powered up, but most everything else is turned off.

You stupid nigger. That tells you how much all the turned-off stuff uses. It tells you nothing about the ONE UNCHANGED FUCKING VARIABLE which is the ram that is still powered up whether in sleep mode or not. Stupid reading comprehension failure jackass. Fuck off and go spell "were" like "where" you douchebag.

Re:How much power comparatively? (1)

Rennt (582550) | more than 3 years ago | (#34763552)

That tells you how much all the turned-off stuff uses.

Does it? Lets say you have a laptop with a 7800mAh battery that lasts on sleep mode for 18 hours. Wouldn't that would mean the RAM draws 433mA ?

Re:How much power comparatively? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34763644)

this is a lower limit, since more power is used when ram is actively being written to /read from

Re:How much power comparatively? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34763520)

but the excerpt tantalizes us about the new memories power sipping during reading and writing memory

Re:How much power comparatively? (1)

Fri13 (963421) | more than 3 years ago | (#34763392)

I have seen Mac laptops what can last over month in sleep. But PC's what eats their battery in few days or even hours. Even that they do have same capacity on batteries and almost identical CPU model.

I have older memories (heh) of power consumes being in active use a 1-1.5W but in sleepmode something like 0.2W.

Re:How much power comparatively? (1)

fbjon (692006) | more than 3 years ago | (#34763940)

I highly doubt that those sleep modes are the same. Mac hardware is not magical, so I'd assume it automatically goes into hibernation after a while.

Re:How much power comparatively? (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 3 years ago | (#34764356)

Yeah, my windows notebook does the same. Close the top down, it goes to sleep after 1 hour (configurable) it will go into hibernation. I seriously doubt that any notebook could maintain sleep mode for months. Although a nice feature would be a small solid state drive the same size as RAM to hibernate to in order to speed up the wake-up process. When you have 4GB of RAM, coming out of hibernation takes almost as much time as doing a fresh boot, however with the advantage of not having to restart all your programs.

Re:How much power comparatively? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#34764664)

Yup, he's wrong. Macs use 'safe sleep'. They suspend to RAM and also suspend to disk. If the battery dies, they restore from the on-disk state, otherwise they restore from the in-RAM state. My MacBook Pro will happily resume from sleep after a month, but only if you plug it in. The battery will be flat in well under a week.

Re:How much power comparatively? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34762938)

Better yet, how many watts does DDR4 chew compared to DDR3?

Re:How much power comparatively? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34763276)

Wait, I thought one of the selling points of DDR was that you burned calories while you played the game---exercise disguised as entertainment.
If the new DDR4 doesn't burn through as many watts of biochemical energy, it won't be nearly as useful as an exercise tool!
Was Samsung losing the couch-potato-gamer market?
-os

Re:How much power comparatively? (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34762966)

Good question, I don't have a direct answer however I found a desktop memory review here [legitreviews.com]. Given that they found a 7W difference under full load and power scales to voltage squared (1.64^2) / (1.34^2) = 1.5 you can estimate it draws 14W at low voltage and 21W at high voltage.

Of course in a laptop you'll have a quite different low-power RAM like you have low-power CPUs but I'm guesstimating that yes it's significant. If you have a CPU that draws 30W at max, the RAM probably draws 5-10W too. Divide everything by two for the ULV versions. Also more RAM may mean more get cached so the hard disk rests more and the CPU can get faster back to idle, so the effect on real world power consumption isn't that easy to say.

Re:How much power comparatively? (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34763590)

How about this: you can double the amount of RAM for the same power budget. Batteries are not getting better as fast as we would like to use more RAM.

Re:How much power comparatively? (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#34762978)

Interesting question. Wild guess: up to 5-8 watts?

Some data on what other components [codinghorror.com] consume. Not very rigorously determined, but good to make an idea.

Some other data on how much switching from 1.5V to 1.35V to 1.25V [tomshardware.com] DDR3 type of RAM impacts the power consumption at idle time (scroll to the bottom of the page: 1W).

The RAM power consumption will have, though, an impact on how long you can keep a laptop/notebook on idle (so, little CPU, no HDD and LCD, no graphics) before it shuts down and you loose everything you had in RAM (if this matters to someone).

Re:How much power comparatively? (1)

satuon (1822492) | more than 3 years ago | (#34763220)

So this raises another interesting question - do laptops with less RAM have better battery life and if so, should people refrain from getting laptops with more than 2 GB? That is more than enough for normal usage. Maybe bleeding edge games would require more.

Re:How much power comparatively? (1)

dwinks616 (1536791) | more than 3 years ago | (#34764378)

The moment the hard drive spins up to try and page a program to disk, any power savings is more than negated. I wouldn't consider 2GB as "more than enough", maybe 3 or 4GB, but 2 is barely acceptable for running a modern browser with dozens of tabs open, an office program or two, and a few other productivity apps and maybe something like iTunes.

Re:How much power comparatively? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#34764760)

It depends on the workload. No modern OS that I'm aware of powers down the RAM, so if you have a laptop with 8GB of RAM and are only using 2GB, then you will probably get lower power usage. If you have more RAM, however, the OS will cache more things. That means fewer disk reads, which reduces power usage. It may also reduce the CPU power load, because it may not be able to go into a low power state while handling a page fault.

Re:How much power comparatively? (1)

MachDelta (704883) | more than 3 years ago | (#34762994)

Hardly any. I remember skimming through a study of component power consumption and IIRC memory topped out at something like 5% total draw. So memory with half the power draw will buy you about 10 minutes.
Whoopdeefuckingdoo.

Re:How much power comparatively? (3, Insightful)

galvanash (631838) | more than 3 years ago | (#34763090)

Hardly any. I remember skimming through a study of component power consumption and IIRC memory topped out at something like 5% total draw. So memory with half the power draw will buy you about 10 minutes. Whoopdeefuckingdoo.

That is with the display turned on... Most portable devices spend a considerable amount of time with the display turned off to conserve power. To put this into perspective, on an HTC Desire android device with an AMOLED display the screen uses about 50%-60% of total power, memory is probably like you said around 5% (I have never seen hard numbers for the power draw only for memory, but 5% is probably close). If it is 5% with the display on, it would be around 15% or so when it is off, which is quite a bit more significant. Also, memory always uses power - even when it is not storing anything useful... Hence the more memory the device has the more power the RAM draws. Just saying, cutting RAM power use in half can be quite significant. It might be 10 minutes if you are using the device constantly, but it could well be an hour or more of extra standby time depending on how heavily you use the device.

Re:How much power comparatively? (2)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#34763570)

Which is why I think the next big breakthrough (which will make someone Bill Gates rich) will be the ability to selectively turn memory cells off just as we can turns parts of the CPU/GPU off in AMD and Intel chips (from what I understand Nvidia is pretty much "all or nothing" except on Tegra). what one would have to develop is a "smart controller" most likely on the RAM module itself, one that knew which cells were in use and when given the "we are in low power mode" signal by the OS would have the ability to electrically isolate the running cells and power down the non working set.

IMHO it is that which will make the next big leap, not all this DDR slight decreases which IMHO just serve to keep the price of RAM raised. I mean we are just now getting to where DDR 3 is affordable! Besides unfortunately all the mobile devices try to rip off Apple with their iSliver batteries so the public have been pretty well trained to keep a charger handy. Even if you are talking a 20% gain with these micro ultra thin batteries that really won't be much. But the ones that figure out how to selectively turn off cells, they will be the ones to make incredible amounts of money especially if they patent the hell out of it. After all it will be able to have an assload of RAM, yet use almost nothing when sleeping. Who wouldn't want that?

Re:How much power comparatively? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34763650)

DRAMs have suported self-refresh, which is basically what you're proposing, for quite a while. In DRAMs, the majority of the power comes from toggling the IOs, not maintaining the state of the bitcells. Reducing the voltage has a quadratic effect on power consumption.

Re:How much power comparatively? (1)

MBCook (132727) | more than 3 years ago | (#34764468)

Turning off DIMMs can be done. Some high end servers will let you add/remove RAM on the fly, it's basically the same thing except the RAM isn't physically going anywhere.

There are two problems you'd run into. First you'd have to move everything to the DIMMs that you're keeping on. This means that all the pointers would change, so you'd have to have a way to keep track of that. If you moved things and then moved them back when the power came 'back on', that may suffice.

The second is how much stuff is in memory in the first place. Programs keep tons of junk in memory as caches because it's faster than disk (and when not under memory pressure, it's 'free'). You'd have to notify programs (like iOS does) that there is a memory pressure situation and to dump stuff they can recreate so you could turn off more DIMMs. Of course, this means performance would be worse when you came back up because you'd have to recreate that data or load it back off disk. So basically it would feel like suspending to disk, only slightly faster.

This seems most useful if you had a ton of free memory. Right now my Mac has iTunes open, mail, and an RSS reader. It's not doing much, but because of all the data in cache to keep programs opening fast only about 1/6 to 1/8th of my 4GB of memory is totally unused.

Re:How much power comparatively? (2)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#34764794)

First you'd have to move everything to the DIMMs that you're keeping on. This means that all the pointers would change, so you'd have to have a way to keep track of that.

Fortunately, if you come from some time after the 1980s, this is done already. Nothing except the kernel sees physical memory addresses, they see virtual memory addresses. These are mapped to the physical address by the MMU / page tables, and often do change over the apps lifetime (e.g. when a page is swapped out then in, it is not always returned to the same physical page).

Re:How much power comparatively? (1)

ashkante (1714490) | more than 3 years ago | (#34763106)

Every little bit (or watt, as the case may be) counts.
We should now 'encourage' the vendors of CPU, HD, screen... to reduce power consumption. The easiest thing to do is say: "Meh, my component uses way less power than everything else". Then you end up with a laptop power adapter that is larger than the laptop itself and allows you to boil water for coffee.

Re:How much power comparatively? (0, Offtopic)

Hoolang (1946568) | more than 3 years ago | (#34763252)

Now, lets pair this with a ARM core and hope we get a reasonable hack that allows a wireless that does not eat power like the current ones..... LED Tube T8 [hbledlight.com]

Re:How much power comparatively? (2)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 3 years ago | (#34763274)

power consumption = heat that needs to be removed. Heat becomes a bigger problem the smaller the components are. Reduce the amount of heat produced and you've just made it easier to produce even smaller components.

Fuck off! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34762896)

I just bought my Sandy Bridge rig, now they announce this?! Ffffffuuuuuuuuu-

Good news (5, Interesting)

del_diablo (1747634) | more than 3 years ago | (#34762904)

Now, lets pair this with a ARM core and hope we get a reasonable hack that allows a wireless that does not eat power like the current ones.....
Then lets enjoy our ARM-puter: Portable, powerful, and battery for more than a day of use.

Re:Good news (2)

Khyber (864651) | more than 3 years ago | (#34763080)

Not happening. Higher-frequency transmissions need more power to go further. Lower frequencies don't carry as much data, so there's a huge trade-off in play.

Re:Good news (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34763094)

Unfortunately, in that case, the bit that eats power like the current ones is the wireless bit, itself and that's not going to change. To quote a famous TV engineer, we "cannae change the laws of physics". What we need is better battery technology... which is being worked on as well, so, hey, maybe someday.
 

Re:Good news (1)

del_diablo (1747634) | more than 3 years ago | (#34763182)

Can't we bribe god for faster light or something instead? :(
But has battery tech evolved anything at all in the last 10 years? I think IBM thinkpads had 6-7 hours of battery life back in the glory days, the "improvements" in battery tech so far seems to consist of getting rid of the battery decay problem, not adding in more power.

Re:Good news (1)

Crudely_Indecent (739699) | more than 3 years ago | (#34764050)

Can't we bribe god...

He seems to be against that sort of thing.

Proverbs 17:23 The wicked accepts a bribe in secret to pervert the ways of justice.
Ecclesiastes 7:7 Surely oppression drives the wise into madness, and a bribe corrupts the heart.
Isaiah 5:23 Who acquit the guilty for a bribe, and deprive the innocent of his right!

It goes on and on...

Although, prayer might work, I wouldn't hold my breath.

Re:Good news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34763326)

Your wireless access point is going to be constantly spewing out "here I am!" signals anyway, so why not use that? Make a new protocol that allows for one side of the connection to use directional steerable antennas, permitting laptops to stop broadcasting everything. Theoretically, that gets you power savings. Practically, I doubt it's worth the bother.

Re:Good news (2)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 3 years ago | (#34763156)

Or just connect smarter - my n900 connects to wireless networks on demand and auto disconnects when not in use. I can get 1.5 - 2 days of light usage off its battery.

Re:Good news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34763238)

I can get 1.5 - 2 days of light usage off its battery.

If that's what's considered to be a good battery life, you've just put me off buying a smartphone forever.

Re:Good news (1)

TeXMaster (593524) | more than 3 years ago | (#34763268)

I can get 1.5 - 2 days of light usage off its battery.

If that's what's considered to be a good battery life, you've just put me off buying a smartphone forever.

If you get a smartphone, forget about going without recharging for a week or more as you were used to with "dump" phones. 2 days is sadly actually a pretty good battery life for "smart" phones, where 24-30 hrs are the typical durations. Although comparing it to the dum phones battery life makes it look abysmal, consider that it's easily 3 or 4 times longer than the best you get even from the most power-efficient netbook.

Re:Good news (1)

bami (1376931) | more than 3 years ago | (#34763402)

My Nokia E71 (And I guess the E72 too) can run for about a week with moderate browsing, and about 4 days if you use it to listen to music, browse the web all day and use wifi. I also think it qualifies as a smartphone since it can run 3rd party apps, has GPS and can browse the internets.

Re:Good news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34763454)

Many Feature/Dumb Phones can do those things.

Re:Good news (1)

Fri13 (963421) | more than 3 years ago | (#34763464)

It really is little strange how you could speak with 10 years old GSM phones even 5-10 hours and now with smartphones you can talk only a 3-5 hours. Even that screen, GPS/WiFi/3G etc are turned off and the phone has bigger battery.

Something in the GSM chips is changed so we do not get so great talk times. I could understand the difference if the displays would be turned on in smartphones when talking.

Like check out the Samsung Xcover 271 what gives you even a 19 HOURS talk time on 2G networks or 600 hours stand by time what is 25 DAYS! And it has a 1300mAh battery what is very similar for many smartphones and they give just a fractional talk- and stand by time when compared to that phone. Even that when the screen would be turned off and all other wireless functions than just 2G.

SOMETHING is very terribly wrong in smartphones. I would call todays "Smartphones" a "dumb phones" and GSM-only phones as "Smart phones" as they really acts like a MOBILE PHONE by smart way, while "Smartphones" throws all the juice somewhere else than PHONE functions.

Re:Good news (1)

puto (533470) | more than 3 years ago | (#34764478)

I have a Nokia E63, which is considered a smart phone. I didnt want gps(it sucks power) and I can go 5 days on a charge. I only use wifi and bluetooth when I need them.

Re:Good news (1)

Fri13 (963421) | more than 3 years ago | (#34763438)

My ZTE Blade (Super bright TFT, 512 RAM, 5Mpix cam) smartphone gives me a 9½ hour heavy use battery = 100% constant WiFi use by browsing web + installing apps and uninstalling them or 4-4½ hours of talk time.
With light daily use I get 2-3 days use time = read every email what I get daily (about 30 from post-list + random emails about 7-10), make a few calls (30-45 minutes) and send a few SMS (1-3), browse web to check a few web sites over 3G/WiFi what takes about 30-40 minutes and in the background I have MSN/Skype and IRC running all the time for whats I spend maybe 30-50 minutes a day and listen music for 45-60 minutes (train takes 30 minutes to one way). All the times I have 3G(+) connected and when on school/office/home I have WiFi if the connection is over 10Mbits. Otherwise I use 3G what gives me a unlimited speed/amount (7.2Mbits/0.4Mbits) and usually the speed is full.

I dont play games or watch videos (youtube etc) daily, very rare cases for me.

But when I go camping, I get 8-9 day time when I dont talk more than few minutes every second day or send SMS once a day. So I can keep my phone on every day and with me in case of emergency.

And that is very well from 1250mAh battery for TFT screen what resolution is 480x800. Amoled could give me in heavy use a 30-60 minutes more or in daily use 6-12 hours and not change at all the camping time.

It really is nice phone when thinking that I can use phone almost anyway I want the whole day and I need to recharge it just on nights. But as I only do light use I need to recharge every second night.
But by habits is going to be changed as now I added to the contract the service for having a unlimited talk time per day for max 0.99€ (~1.2 dollar) or just 6.6 cents a minute (what gives me 15 minutes until the max .99€ limit comes and then I can just continue talking).
So I am expecting I need to recharge at evening because if I make a 2-3 hour talks at daytime.

 

CPU, HDD, WiFi - RAM doesn't matter (0)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 3 years ago | (#34762964)

Most power goes to the CPU, HDD and WiFi devices. The power consumption of the RAM is minimal.

Re:CPU, HDD, WiFi - RAM doesn't matter (1)

splerdu (187709) | more than 3 years ago | (#34763072)

If they decide the decreased power draw isn't as important, they could could increase performance significantly by running DDR4 at current DDR3 voltages.

"Power Sipping" (5, Insightful)

Aboroth (1841308) | more than 3 years ago | (#34762986)

Does anyone else besides me hate that term?

Re:"Power Sipping" (1)

PatPending (953482) | more than 3 years ago | (#34763028)

Yes. (Well "dislike" instead of "hate"--hate is such a harsh term.) And I dislike it just as much as these:

"Samsung has been actively supporting the IT industry with our green memory initiative by coming up with eco-friendly, innovative memory products providing higher performance and power efficiency every year," Dong Soo Jun, Samsung's president of the memory division, said in a statement.

Add "ecosystem" as well.

Re:"Power Sipping" (2)

nyctopterus (717502) | more than 3 years ago | (#34763588)

In what context do you object to "ecosystem"? What word would you prefer we use for the system of biological interdependency?

Re:"Power Sipping" (1)

PatPending (953482) | more than 3 years ago | (#34763766)

There's only one appropriate usage and that is (as you indicated): biological.
These are inappropriate usage, taken from the first page search results querying /. for 'ecosystem':
  • Java ecosystem
  • FLOSS ecosystem
  • to make sure that what we do maximizes innovation and investment across the ecosystem
  • 'Open Web App ecosystem.'
  • Microsoft Server ecosystem
  • "Drools (sometimes called 'JBoss Rules') is a Business Rules Engine and supporting ecosystem"
  • SDK ecosystem
  • PostgreSQL ecosystem
  • Internet ecosystem
  • what if Oracle bought up the entire open source ecosystem?
  • the President's Cyberspace Policy Review, calls for the creation of an online environment, or an Identity Ecosystem as we refer to it in the strategy

Only one story had acceptable usage: "Another fear is that geo-engineering, as techniques like this are called, could have unforeseen consequences on the weather, ecosystem and agriculture."

Re:"Power Sipping" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34763660)

as opposed to "POWER SUCKING"?
hmmmm that has a certain ring to it....

Re:"Power Sipping" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34764012)

Yeah, I hate it. It's too vague.
Every generation of computer technology has used less power than the last on average.

And there's something about the "s" sound. The S Is For Sucks.

Pseudo Open Drain (POD) technology (3, Funny)

PatPending (953482) | more than 3 years ago | (#34763000)


PatPending (talking to friend on phone during a bash help session): It's called Pseudo Open Drain (POD) technology
Friend: Okay, I'll try that...
Friend(typing): sudo open drain
Friend: Argh! I hate this command line bullshit!

Re:Pseudo Open Drain (POD) technology (2)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 3 years ago | (#34763032)

It didn't work because it's Pseudo science./

Re:Pseudo Open Drain (POD) technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34763084)

> sudo science

sumdumass is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.

Pseudo-open drain? (1)

AdamHaun (43173) | more than 3 years ago | (#34763026)

What's up with the pseudo-open drain? Is that new and exciting or just marketing speak? I know what open drain is, but how do you have a "pseudo" open drain?

Re:Pseudo-open drain? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34763100)

it's an extension to a push-pull coupling.

POD explained (5, Informative)

overshoot (39700) | more than 3 years ago | (#34763506)

In a classical open-drain connection, the active device pulls down and the bus termination pulls up. For a pure transmission line, this works just fine -- the current wave from the turn-off of the driver is effectively identical to the current wave from the turn on. In practice, open-drain uses more static current than a push-pull driver against a center termination and since the line isn't a pure transmission line (lumped capacitances, stubs) the rising edge is slower than the falling edge.

POD addresses this by actively pulling up at the beginning of a rising edge, then releasing the pullup to avoid a bus contention later. This reduces the termination current (at some cost in impedance mismatch, but it's already a sloppy line) and improved switching symmetry.

Roll a troll (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34763036)

DDR6 with built in sandwich maker. 512GB modules for only $499 plus 50% teabag tax. Coming from Troll Computers with Windows 9 Ultimate edition in 2015 when linux has 0.9% market share as usual.

Re:Roll a troll (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34763074)

You're a faggot.

Re:Roll a troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34764104)

And you play a faggot.

Blow that pipe some more!

Re:Roll a troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34763422)

... in 2015 when linux has 0.9% market share as usual.

Yes but what you don't know is that in 2012 a freak anomaly occurs and every man on Earth becomes spontaneously pregnant. Thus with a booming population of 22 billion people (triplets were very common) a 1% marketshare* equates 220 million people - quite a respectable figure.

* of total populace since every person now has a computer.

Idle power reduction? (1)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 3 years ago | (#34763050)

One thing not mentioned in the article or summary is whether or not this technology reduces standby power consumption in DRAM. Under normal use, especially if you have a lot of memory in your system, the standby power consumption is going to matter as much as read/write, if not more.

Re:Idle power reduction? (1)

Jayemji (1054886) | more than 3 years ago | (#34763320)

Have the RAM dump into a non-volatile solid state chip? (eg. flash) It would allow for very fast power on/off while keeping the power draw really low.

Re:Idle power reduction? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34763598)

Take a look at the write speeds on cheap flash and realize that even laptops are coming with 4GB of RAM these days before you make a suggestion like this.

Nope (3, Informative)

overshoot (39700) | more than 3 years ago | (#34763514)

One thing not mentioned in the article or summary is whether or not this technology reduces standby power consumption in DRAM.

POD by itself doesn't reduce power consumption in standby, since both POD and SSTL turn off the bus drivers then. The older POD technologies from the GDDR families use Thevenin termination, though, so the terminators draw a lot of unnecessary current when they're enabled (as distinct from the result with a dedicated termination supply.)

If you really want to know how this all works, JEDEC [jedec.org] has the DDR4 standard available for free download. Follow the "free standards" link.

Meh (4, Insightful)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 3 years ago | (#34763130)

I'd rather have them finally mass-produce 8 and 16 GB modules for the desktop market.

Re:Meh (2)

war4peace (1628283) | more than 3 years ago | (#34763186)

Sir, you have my vote.
Actually, less swap means less HDD churning, so the power consumption might be the same even with addition of more RAM.

Re:Meh (0)

alienzed (732782) | more than 3 years ago | (#34763210)

what "Desktop" user needs that much, or even runs an operating system that can address it?

Re:Meh (3, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34763246)

what "Desktop" user needs that much, or even runs an operating system that can address it?

Need we can discuss, but the price difference between Win7 32 and 64 bit versions is ~0 and I've not heard anyone complain about 64 bit drivers anymore. Mac I think is the same and Linux has of course supported 64 bit forever. Unless you're talking about an Atom that's not 64 bit capable, there's no particular reason not to get an OS capable. That is unless you still want to wipe a new box and install XP...

Re:Meh (1)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 3 years ago | (#34763352)

Also note that 32-bit operating systems can still make use of larger system memory sizes. Kernel memory usage is limited, and each process might only see 2GB of it (or more, in some special cases), but the operating system can easily divvy out 8GB+ of RAM between them all.

Re:Meh (2)

Corporate Troll (537873) | more than 3 years ago | (#34764426)

Unless you're talking about an Atom that's not 64 bit capable

So, I'm just imagining running a 330 and D510 with a 64-bit operating system? Now, of course, you can't find Atom motherboards that support more than 4GB RAM and the two I run have only 4GB RAM and some of it is "stolen" by the graphics card.

From what I understood, Atoms can't address more than 4GB though, but running 64-bit instructions is no problem.

Apart from that: yes, modern Atom CPUs do run 64-bit operating systems.

Re:Meh (2)

chichilalescu (1647065) | more than 3 years ago | (#34763312)

kjella was kind enough to discuss the operating system.
now, regarding the use: games, desktop effects, working with extremely large files (highschoolers editing movies), ridiculously large images, and so on. I won't mention actual professions.
Anyway, the first hint is "Desktop" user. someone who only wants instant messaging and facebook will be satisfied with a laptop.

Re:Meh (2)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 3 years ago | (#34763380)

what "Desktop" user needs that much, or even runs an operating system that can address it?

Are you serious? The specs for Windows 7 list 192 GB as within its capabilities and even RHEL v6 had a theoretical limit of 1 TB. But it will be a while until desktops will have to deal with the 256 TB an amd64 CPU's 48-bit address space would allow in theory.

I'm not talking about the usual game kiddies who only want to impress others with system stats which they can't fully utilize anyway. Even if some people don't like to see them grouped with the little toy in a teenager's bedroom, regular professional workstations are still using desktop components.
Areas like professional 3D work eat RAM and CPU cycles for breakfast. And there also are professions like developers and administrators who need to run several virtual machines in the background throughout the day. There certainly is demand

Re:Meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34763546)

As a professional developer who runs several virtual machines in the background throughout the day, I say bollocks.

My current machine is a humble Pentium 4, with just 2 GB of RAM. It has been my main development _and_testing_ machine for years, and will be for the foreseeable future. Let me tell you that I don't see the need for more memory just yet.

If you suffer from penis envy... that's another thing altogether.

Re:Meh (2)

Fri13 (963421) | more than 3 years ago | (#34763556)

Yes, demand is there, even it is small when compared to typical office/game use.
Photographers, artists, 3D modeleres (hobbiest) etc. And of course gamers would already want 8-16Gb of RAM as it just makes everything so much nicer when you do not need to care about RAM use.

Try opening a 50 12Mpix RAW photos open at once and edit them in photo manipulation program...

So where are our cheap 8-16Gb blocks?

Re:Meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34763942)

I would love to be able to run several virtual desktops at the same time and not have it be a big deal. Thus far I haven't found reason to upgrade my old AMD 64, but if they can get memory big enough I might be able to justify needing more cores.

Re:Meh (1)

Fri13 (963421) | more than 3 years ago | (#34764608)

Do you mean virtual desktops or desktop virtualization?
The virtual desktop does not eat RAM more than one. We have had virtual desktops now over a decade.
But desktop virtualization eats RAM and a lot if you run them from VirtualBox or similars.

I currently have a 512Mb RAM and I have 6 virtual desktops without problems. I could have 32 without problems.
But because I only have 512 RAM, I can only run browser and music player at same time without heavy swapping with GNOME. And it does not matter how many virtual desktops I have enabled.
But with that RAM I can not even have single desktop virtualized as it needs at least 1Gb of RAM.

Re:Meh (2)

thegarbz (1787294) | more than 3 years ago | (#34763330)

As someone who regularly edits images larger than 100 megapixels with multiple layers in 16bbp let me just say, why the heck would you want that much on your desktop?

Re:Meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34763446)

Uh, 200MB per layer, yeah, who cares. Try editing video without touching disk; that's a different story. Or really, just preloading everything so opening applications or playing games does not have to touch the hard drive (if you have ever used a computer with an SSD, you have seen how much a hard drive slows down a computer). Also, the same chips allow smartphones to have a reasonable amount of memory.

Re:Meh (2)

hcdejong (561314) | more than 3 years ago | (#34763574)

3D CAD. My colleagues regularly run into RAM limits with 4 GB.

Re:Meh (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | more than 3 years ago | (#34764038)

Mass produced desktop markets don't run 3D CAD. High-end workstations and servers hardly count and wouldn't be a major driver of the market.

Sure there are plenty of applications for loads of RAM. Multiple huge VMs, 3D CAD, gigapixel photos, but that is a niche. What is a consumer driver for large cheap supplies of RAM?

Re:Meh (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34763604)

I'm going from 4GB to 8GB because I'm running low when running VMs and apps at the same time, and I am allergic to swap (so I have none.) It's not hard to imagine someone using four times as much as I'm using; by my own standards I'm not doing anything all that amazing any more.

Sometimes I want to have a VM or two open and edit an image at the same time while a video encodes in the background. And that's just on three cores! My next desktop system will probably have at least eight, and even this system will probably be upgraded to six before I'm done with it. I suspect it has an upgrade to SSD coming in that time as well. No more RAM upgrades though, since I only have four slots and I'm not planning to re-sell any modules... and don't have anything else they would go into

Re:Meh (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | more than 3 years ago | (#34764064)

You would have to admit though that running two VMs while encoding a movie and editing an image is not something the average consumer would do. Or not even taking into account the average consumer do you think there would be enough people with your (if I may say so) insane and highly taxing use of a computer to justify mass producing a product?

I mean compare like a real catalyst for memory usage such as the release of Vista, where every new computer sold suddenly gobbled up 1.5GB of RAM just displaying the desktop. Back when all computers in the house ran Win XP my computer had 2GB of RAM and the rest 512MB. Now all the computers in the house have 2GB or more because of an OS upgrade (win 7 not vista). But unless the next facebook interface gets even slower I don't see any reason why an entire market would suddenly require huge loads of RAM.

There will always be power users and workstations like 3D CAD, but it's hardly a large and profitable market.

Re:Meh (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34764184)

You would have to admit though that running two VMs while encoding a movie and editing an image is not something the average consumer would do.

Actually, I think it's probably getting to where this kind of thing will be more common. The average consumer is getting more interested in video editing etc. Also many Windows 7 users have a virtual machine manager installed already to provide XP Mode, so it's not much of a jump to believe they might use a VM appliance... or to think they're already running a VM at least part of the time.

do you think there would be enough people with your (if I may say so) insane and highly taxing use of a computer to justify mass producing a product?

Not really, but amusingly, the original suggestion was to produce them "for the server market", I was only pointing out that there ARE desktop users who have these needs. Really, they're needed more for the server market. With that said, I would like more boatloads of RAM, please.

Re:Meh (2)

tygerstripes (832644) | more than 3 years ago | (#34764188)

I'm not judging here, just wondering: have you considered having more than one box? If money is no object then fair enough, but it sounds like you're shelling out a lot for top-notch hardware to do lots of mid-level tasks, when you distribute the work on a KVM setup. You'd save a bundle in hardware, reduce your VM overheads, and introduce some healthy redundancy for when that very expensive rig does something smokey and difficult to diagnose.

Re:Meh (1)

Fearan (600696) | more than 3 years ago | (#34763992)

A decrease in price, increase in DDR5 capacity modules would result in better, more detailed textures in games.

Re:Meh (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34764306)

I already have 8GB in my desktop system, and I'm only interested if they make ECC mandatory in the spec. 8GB of data is just too damn much to blindly assume all is perfect, all the time. Last month I had a single module silently go bad. Random lockups, odd behaviors, and iTunes always rechecking my music database. Not until I ran memtest86 did I realize a huge swath of memory was completely incorrect. So, meanwhile, as the computer assumes everything is perfect, things like my iTunes database was slowly being corrupted. If DDR4 doesn't have ECC, then DDR5 better damn well.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...