DDR4 May Replace Mobile Memory For Less 145
Lucas123 writes "The upcoming shift from Double Data Rate 3 (DDR3) RAM to its successor, DDR4, will herald a significant boost in both memory performance and capacity for data center hardware and consumer products alike. Because of the greater density, 2X performance and lower cost, the upcoming specification and products will for the first time mean DDR may be used in mobile devices instead of LPDDR. Today, mobile devices use low-power DDR (LPDDR) memory, the current iteration of which uses 1.2v of power. While the next generation of mobile memory, LPDDR3, will further reduce that power consumption (probably by 35% to 40%), it will also likely cost 40% more than DDR4 memory."
Excellent (Score:4, Funny)
With RAM that fast and cheap, 640kB ought to be enough for anyone!
Whoops, I mean 6.40 x 10^7 kB. THAT ought to do it.
Re:Excellent (Score:4, Insightful)
Fast and cheap are well enough, but cool and reliable are important factors too.
From TFS, it looks like it may run cool, but I'll wait with the hallelujah until I've seen something about reliability. Especially because with die shrinks for flash, reliability has gone way down from the last generation - I hope that won't be the case with RAM too.
DRAM Cell Area (Score:3)
With Micron purchasing Elpida, Micron gonna get to make DDR4 DRAM with cell area of 4F2.
On the other hand, Samsung's DRAM is still occupying cell area of 6F2.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
That's what I did for my htpc (I Wanted to keep the inside as solid state as possible, as It's so small).
I use a pair of 2.5 inch USB drives for reliability, and lack of cords for /home and backup.
Re:Excellent (Score:5, Insightful)
Reliability is the reason I havent gone SSD yet. Every time I'm about to upgrade I read the reviews on newegg of some guy losing all his data
If 'some guy losing all of his data' is your reason for not buying an SSD, does it also stop you from buying a hard disk?
Ya no shit (Score:5, Insightful)
Also there's the fact that the people who post things like that are the whiny ones who had problems. I've never posted my SSD experiences before, because I'm happy, but here they are:
I have 3 256GB SSDs, one in my laptop, two in my desktop. All have worked without flaw since their purchase 11 months ago. Thus I never felt the need to go whine online about them. I've suffered no failures, no data loss. They just work.
Now, do SSDs die? Sure. So do HDDs. In terms of personal HDDs I've had about 5 fail on me over the course of my 20ish years using computers. At work, I've seen hundreds fail. Some are dead on arrival, some fail within hours of install, some fail after months or a year, some are still going strong 10+ years later.
SSDs are fine. You need to back up your data, but then that is true of anything. If you don't back up your data and have never lost anything to HDD failure that is luck, not because HDDs don't fail.
If you want an SSD the only issue should be cost. They are expensive, about $1/GB at best and as much as $3/GB for some of the really high performance/lots of write cycles stuff. HDDs are more like $0.08/GB. However if the price is acceptable, then get one. Back up the data on it to a HDD (since HDDs are cheaper, and a different technology) and you are fine. Could it die? Sure, if it does, RMA it, get a new one, and go back to what you were doing.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm.... insightful?
Can you say "Selection bias"?
I've just jumped out of a 20 story building, after 10 floors, everything is fine, so I don't expect it to be any different after another 10......
Now, if you could point to a study showing that the failure rates of SSDs vs HDDs are no different.
Point me to one that says it is (Score:2)
Here's the problem: You are mad about the selection bias of my story, but ok with the selection bias of some dude whining on Newegg? I've never seen a test showing SSDs are more reliable or unreliable, and I suspect neither have you (since I suspect none have been done).
Given the lack of such evidence, you simply have to go on other things you use normally to buy components like brand reliability and warranty. Well, in the warranty department, SSDs are fine, 3 years is the norm, 5 years is available from so
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the problem: You are mad about the selection bias of my story, but ok with the selection bias of some dude whining on Newegg? I've never seen a test showing SSDs are more reliable or unreliable, and I suspect neither have you (since I suspect none have been done).
Many have been done. Google is your friend. No, not just for searching, but Google has quite a bit of experience with both HDDs and SDDs in their data centres.
Given the lack of such evidence, you simply have to go on other things you use normally to buy components like brand reliability and warranty. Well, in the warranty department, SSDs are fine, 3 years is the norm, 5 years is available from some manufacturers. That's fairly similar to HDDs. Also, good chance they figure most SSDs will live at least 3 years if they warranty them for that long, as they don't want to be paying for replacements.
Except that the warranty covers defects in manufacturing; it doesn't cover wear and tear. If your drive wears out, you won't get a new one.
I just don't get where the mistrust for SSDs comes from. Near as I can tell, it is just from whiny people. Some dude gets an SSD, it fails, he gets crybaby and posts bad reviews on Newegg, Amazon, his blog, and so on. This happens a few times and it is "common knowledge" that SSDs are unreliable despite no actual evidence of that.
They have a finite number of write cycles[*]. And the new generation (TLC) are even worse than the last (MLC). SLC drives aren't available anymore because they cost too much.
[*] According to Centon [centon.com], SLC gives
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on what fails and how. I've seen everything from a completely dead drive (no detection, no spinning of platters) to drives that SMART tripped but otherwise worked fine. As to what failure state you're gonna get, it's something of a crap shoot.
Moral: It doesn't matter what the basket is made of, don't put all your eggs in one. Have two copies of everything even remotely important, and at least three of anything critical*, with the third somewhere far away from the first two.
(*Examples: Stuff to run y
Re: (Score:3)
I've been using HDDs for the last 20+ years and I think every single one I have owned has survived past the day I retire them (typically 3 - 5 years). I'm aware that statistically I've been rather lucky but the tipping point for me is whether I can buy an SSD, of decent size, that stands a good chance of surviving for at least 3 years, preferably a bit more. I've been watching this space for months / years and am still left with enough uncertainty to have prevented me from going SSD, until now anyway. I'm g
Use SSD's, mirror them (Score:2)
Reliability is the reason I havent gone SSD yet.
My experience is that SSD's fail more often than hard drives, more catastrophically, and without warning, especially on the low end.
But I still use them because they're super fast. Put them in a mirror. Use SLC where it's really important to not have a mirror half fail.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a decent hybrid solution available for SSD. With the Intel Z68 chipset, you can setup an SSD as a cache for the primary hard drive. It is configured similar to RAID. This allows me to get the capacity of an HD with the performance gains of an SSD. However, I have not been able to easily quantify the performance gains.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That's why there is ECC.
Why anybody runs without it is beyond me.
With EDAC I see occasional ECC errors on many systems.
DDR / DDR2 / DDR3 (Score:2)
Below please find a table listing DDR / DDR2 / DDR3
http://chipdesignmag.com/images/idesign/misc/defazio_table1.gif [chipdesignmag.com]
Does anyone have the numbers for DDR4 ?
Re:Excellent (Score:4, Informative)
That's why there is ECC.
Why anybody runs without it is beyond me.
In the case of HHC, which TFS mentions, likely because you need to both buy, fit and power the extra circuitry. Added development costs, production costs, size requirements and larger power drain is a hard sell.
On a PC, the main reason is that Intel only supports it on Xeon CPUs. A secondary reason is consumerism, where people pick the cheapest system that has "comparable" specs, without understanding minute differences, or caring about longevity.
For servers, can you even buy them without ECC? Every single IBM or Dell system I've purchased over the last few years always came with ECC RAM. But the mind boggles when some expensive RAID controllers come with non-ECC RAM!
Re: (Score:2)
Agree. However AMD supports ECC on almost all CPUs.
Re: (Score:1)
your source is missing. but i guess it's hard to hyperlink your asshole.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Excellent (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Sir Clive Sinclair gave very similar reasons for using the 68008 (the 8-bit version of the 32-bit 68000) - he stated that nobody needed a 32-bit computer, but that you needed a machine to be advertisable as a 32-bit system to compete with the Mac and Atari ST.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, they could. The processors of the time used two interwoven 16-bit registers with a 12-bit overlap. (This meant some memory locations had multiple addresses.) The total sort-of-linear address space was therefore 20 bits, or 1 megabyte.
Plenty of extended memory cards existed at the time, which used a memory banking system to produce the illusion of larger machines. The only restriction with banked memory is that it slows the machine down as the CPU can only see one bank at a time. Well, that and rea
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The part that you're forgetting is that Gates never said it:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bill_Gates#Misattributed [wikiquote.org]
Awesome. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Awesome. (Score:4, Interesting)
If DDR4 is really as power-saving as they say, AMD will be competitive simply by adapting it (more than they already are). At the low-power end, especially low-cost low-power, AMD is pretty competitive with Intel already. If they can push out server DDR4 compatible products first, they could stand to gain quite a lot (Intel isn't planning on offering DDR4 till 2014, so AMD has a year and a half).
Re: (Score:2)
Mmmm, 4 way DDR4 - I'd buy a new motherboard for that.
Re: (Score:3)
Even more interesting is that AMD's APUs are severely memory-constrained; even Llano really needed DDR-1866 or higher (if it existed) to really show what it could do, and Trinity is probably even more constrained. If AMD goes the same route as they did with Phenom II and includes both a DDR3 and DDR4 controller (and makes their chip compatible with both old sockets and new DDR4-compatible ones) they might be able to pull off some interesting design wins in the low power gaming-capable market.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
AMD has now low-power cores due out later in the year. I imagine their timing is designed to make it possible to have manufacturers design motherboards with the new memory in mind, rather than have them aim for DDR3 and only develop a DDR4 board later.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
64 core 2GHz AMD system 128GB memory - $9000
80 core 2GHz Intel system 128GB memory - $66000
There may be some Intel systems around the 60 core mark (six sockets, ten cores), but I've got no idea how much it would be and it would still max out at 2GHz for now. To get speed you've got to go for less cores
You really think it is so easy? (Score:4, Informative)
You think all Intel has to do is say "Hey! We'd like to support DDR4," and it just happens?
Not so much, actually. First off it has to actually, you know, be a real specification. The spec isn't final and released yet. They can't really start to use something that isn't final and subject to change.
Once it is actually out comes the harder part. They have to redesign the memory controller, which is on the chip now, to accommodate it. DDR4 isn't "DDR3 but faster," it is a different spec that works differently. Big different is no more RAM channels with multi-sticks. It is a point-to-point memory interface. So that is going to require a different setup, particularly to support large numbers of memory sticks. Also along with that the motherboards will have to be redesigned to accommodate the new RAM. Again given the point-to-point nature, the wiring would be different even if all the connectors were the same (which they aren't).
Then of course those new chips have to be fabbed, tested and made ready for sale, and those boards have to be rolled out. After all that, they still need memory. The memory manufacturers will have to retool their lines and get DDR4 chips and sticks produced in quantity to be sold.
When all that is done, then DDR4 can hit the market and go in your computer (if you purchase a new board, and processor).
So, maybe give it 6-12 months, rather than just bitching at Intel for not "giving a damn"? Just because you don't understand how something works, doesn't mean it is easy to do. Implementing a new RAM spec isn't something you just snap your fingers on, it isn't a tiny patch for software. It is a pretty major thing.
You'll probably see it in systems next year. Intel's roadmap says it will be coming to Haswell-EX server chips first, I haven't seen what AMD's plans are.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because you don't understand how something works, doesn't mean it is easy to do.
There's a Dilbert for that!
(good post)
Re: (Score:2)
Samsung announced it had completed development of its first 4Gb DDR4 DRAM module in January of 2011, and started shipping 2Gb DDR4 samples in December of 2010; Hynix demoed its own DDR4 technology in February of 2011.
Re: (Score:2)
I would imagine DDR4's higher performance will be important to Intel now that they've designed an even faster Itanium chip (8-core, multithreaded). The power requirement probably wouldn't be much of a factor, though.
1.2V of power? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:1.2V of power? (Score:4, Informative)
C=Capacitance
F=Frequency
V=Voltage
P=Power
P=VC^2F
Capacitance is static, so there are only two variables, F and V. As you can tell, amperage doesn't even play into the equation.
A chip may draw amperage, but that is just a function of C and F.
Re: (Score:1)
Plus leakage which is dependent on voltage, temperature and process (fast corner parts have a lot more leakage than slow corner parts).
Re: (Score:3)
It's the way chip power is talked about (Score:2)
Again because as the grand parent said, the equation is one of capacitance, frequency, and voltage. So when you produce something of equal frequency, with lower voltage, it'll use lower power. Watts isn't normally specified because that depends on the specific frequency you are using, how many chips, etc. As a designer you can compare the voltage differences to tell you what kind of power savings you can expect. The specifics of that translated to watts is based on your design.
It may not be technically corr
Re: (Score:2)
No, it still doesn'e make sense. The outcome may be the same, but the terminology used is incorrect. From the summary:
"Today, mobile devices use low-power DDR (LPDDR) memory, the current iteration of which uses 1.2v of power. While the next generation of mobile memory, LPDDR3, will further reduce that power consumption (probably by 35% to 40%)"
Which would be much better stated as:
"Today, mobile devices use low-power DDR (LPDDR) memory, the current iteration of which runs at 1.2V. The next generation o
Re: (Score:2)
That is all true, but the units for power are "watts", not "volts".
The thing is, the EE post-docs who are designing chips find the terminology useful. So, being pedantic here just makes things worse, not better.
If it helps, we often talk about a 3GHz chip as being faster than a 2GHz chip. Everybody knows that's not always true, but we all know the assumptions, so it's still a useful conversation.
Re: (Score:2)
P=VC^2F
That equation is plain wrong.
The equation you are looking for P=(V^2)CF which is derived from combining the equations P=IV and I=VCF and provides a reqasonable approximatino for how digital CMOS power consumption will behave.
But it's only an approximation for a couple of reasons
1: I=VCF gives an average current. P=IV is true for instantanious voltage and instantanious current It is only correct for average current if votlage is a constant. Assuming that voltage is constant is an approximation of reality.
2:
Re: (Score:1)
Also, the voltage was written 1.2v, while the correct format (in the SI system) is 1.2 V, with a space before the unit.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's standardize on watts (for power), or joules / watthours (for energy). Yes, amps or volts are useful in some situations, but for the average consumer, we only want to hear about raw energy/power something consumes/supplies. Batteries make this mistake too and it only leads to confusion when comparing technologies.
Re:1.2V of power? (Score:5, Informative)
Nerds should know Ohms law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohm's_law [wikipedia.org]
and that there is no difference between voltage and power.
Voltage and power are related, but that doesn't mean they're the same. In fact, Ohm's Law says that they're not -- you still need information about the current (or resistance) to determine power dissipation.
Transistor switching in digital circuits is very different from plain resistance. It's more like charging and discharging capacitors. Energy loss is proportional to voltage squared, at least for dynamic power. That's why lowering the voltage is the most important thing for power consumption.
Re:1.2V of power? (Score:5, Informative)
Nerds should know Ohms law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohm's_law [wikipedia.org]
and that there is no difference between voltage and power.
I don't think you understand the site you linked to. P = I * V -- If power and Voltage are the same, why are they on different sides of the equation?
While it's true that voltage is proportional to power *if* current remains the same, you can't make a blanket statement that a new technology that runs at a lower voltage necessarily uses less power. The old Pentium Pro CPU had a TDP of around 35W with a core voltage of 3.3V, but a new Core i7 can have a TDP of 125W with a core voltage less than 1.5V. Half the voltage, 5 times the power dissipation (and a whole lot more transistors to power)
When dealing with semiconductors, it's likely that lower voltage means less power, but not guaranteed.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you understand the site you linked to. P = I * V -- If power and Voltage are the same, why are they on different sides of the equation?
I don't think you understand how equations work.
Is there a general equation where identical variables are presented on both sides? I've never seen:
P = I^2 * R
Written as
P / I = I * R
(unless, of course, I'm solving for something)
Re: (Score:2)
^^ Why troll? This is kinda funny...
Oftentimes when moderators don't get the joke, they mod the post down.
Re: (Score:2)
Breaking math on /. gives you an obligatory troll status.
Re: (Score:3)
When dealing with semiconductors, it's likely that lower voltage means less power, but not guaranteed.
Except with high switching frequencies, higher voltage always means more waste heat.
The higher power usage of a Core i7 is a result of it having significantly more transistors than a Pentium Pro CPU. The fabrication scale and methods of the Pentium Pro CPU would use considerably more than 125W, if scaled up to match a Core i7. Vice versa, the Core i7 technology would use less than 35W, if scaled down to the number of transistors a Pentium Pro had.
Why did you cut out the part where I said that the Core i7 had more transistors to replace it with your point that the Core i7 has more transistors? But at least you didn't copy the part where I said 125W is 5 times greater than 35W! I'm surprised no one called me out on that, usually slashdotters are quick to point out typos and trivial mistakes.
In any case, my point was that lower voltage doesn't mean anything. You can't look at voltage alone to make the determination that a new technology will use less p
Re: (Score:1)
You can have a potential difference with no circuit, thus no current flow. V=/=P
Re:1.2V of power? (Score:5, Interesting)
Slashdot needs -1, wrong.
Re: (Score:1)
They need negations of all the positive mods. -1 uninformative for things that contain misinformation. -1 unfunny for dumb jokes. etc.
Re:1.2V of power? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not nearly as much as it needs -2: Stupid.
Re:1.2V of power? (Score:5, Funny)
there is no difference between voltage and power.
P = V * I
For the purpose of illustration, lets make:
P = pain
V = hardness of slap
I = number of slaps
I'm happy to keep V fixed but increase I until it starts to matter to you too.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not an electrical engineer, but isn't pretty much everything but superconductors essentially resistors in the sense that they have resistance? For instance wood obviously has a very high resistance, thus why it's not very conductive to carrying electricity.. How would you calculate power where there is zero resistance though? Using Ohm's law, power becomes undefined at that point, and even if resistance in superconductors only approaches zero, would that mean power approaches infinity?
Re: (Score:2)
That is obvious. Everything may have resistance, but most things have other relevant properties too. Electrical energy can be stores in two ways, capacitatively, and inductively. The determine current every bit as much as resistance in AC circuits. If a significant percentage of the energy is stored momentarily in either of these ways, then Ohm's law no longer describes what happens.
In memory chips, almost none of the power is drawn resistively. Memory chips are an array
Re: (Score:2)
The complex generalisation of Ohm's law, V=IZ, still describes the behaviour of capacitors and inductors. V, I and Z are assumed in this case to be complex variables of the form e^[j(wt + \phi)], modelling each frequency component independently. w = frequency, \phi = phase offset.
--
Slashdot - news for nerds, stuff that matters, in ISO-8859-1.
Re: (Score:2)
You have to consider it as a complete circuit. Current (not power) would reach infinity If you had a zero resistance load and an infinite power supply, but those don't happen. Here are some examples to consider:
If you have a 10 volt power supply, 0 resistance superconducting wiring, and a 10 ohm load, you would get 1 amp of current x 10 volts = 10 watts dissipated at the load. Since the wiring has no resistance, its dissipated energy is zero.
If you have a 10 volt power supply, 1-ohm wiring on each side o
Re: (Score:2)
The superconducting effect breaks down at a fairly low current per area, so it has to be made very thick if you want to have much current. The same applies with electromagnetism since that comes with the current.
Wrong wrong wrong (Score:3)
At least this got modded down, but it's threads like this where you discover how many ignorant 'nerds' there are on /.
Ohm's law does not only describe resistors. While the schoolboy formulation V=IR (also, admittedly, the law Ohm actually published) describes the instantaneous relationship of voltage and current through a resistor, in modern engineering and physics it is generalised in various ways. For circuit analysis, it becomes V=IZ, where Z is the complex impedance, and describes the time-varying rel
Re: (Score:3)
For circuit analysis, it becomes V=IZ, where Z is the complex impedance, and describes the time-varying relationship of voltage and current in resistors, capacitors, inductors and pretty much anything else you will find in a circuit.
Even in plain linear circuit analysis, this is not correct. Voltage and current sources (including dependent sources) are not modeled as impedances. Neither are switches (an admittedly trivial example). Voltage/current decay in inductors and capacitors is usually described in te
Obligatory units complaint (Score:2)
Volts are not a measure of power. Watts are.
More importantly, energy to accomplish a particular task is what really matters. Though usually, we're just given average or typical power numbers. But your mobile device's battery stores energy, not power or potential.
At least the voltage is proportional to power and energy...
Re: (Score:2)
At least the voltage is proportional to power and energy...
Fail.
P=V^2/R.
E=P*T=V^2*T/R.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, I was playing fast and loose with my English. I should have said that "there is a positive correlation between voltage and power and energy" or something to similar effect. As opposed to no correlation (or a negative one).
In any case, at least for a lot of signaling types, P=V^2/R doesn't matter, because R is approximately infinity. What matters more is charging and discharging the capacitance of the traces on the PCB, etc., so E=1/2*C*V^2 is the quantity of interest. With memory, this can vary, as ther
Re: (Score:2)
More importantly, energy to accomplish a particular task is what really matters
Actually, power also matters in many scenarios. If you need more than ~10 amps from a 110V circuit, that's not real practical for home use regardless of the kWh-efficiency the solution gets. Also, for interactive tasks idle power matters critically because most of the time is not bound by performance of your computer bits, but by the human considering what's on the screen. Cell phones mostly fall into the latter category.
I'm confused (Score:2)
This may be the most confusing article summary I've ever read. I read it 5 times before I gave up trying to understand it.
Headline: DDR4 May Replace Mobile Memory For Less
Summary: LPDDR3, will further reduce that power consumption (probably by 35% to 40%), it will also likely cost 40% more than DDR4 memory."
Re: (Score:1)
Uh, it makes sense to me.
DDR4 may be used as opposed to LPDDR3 simply because the power savings may not be considered worthwhile when the RAM is 40% more expensive. What the summary fails to explicitly point out is that DDR4s power envelope roughly matches LPDDR, which I guess is why it's considered "good enough" all of a sudden. Presumably this means cheaper devices may go DDR4 to save a bit of cash, whilst premium devices may opt for the more expensive solution to squeeze a bit of battery life out.
Eithe
Re: (Score:3)
If I understand correctly, LPDDR2 draws significantly less power than DDR3.
DDR4 will be competitive with LPDDR2.
But in turn, LPDDR3 will draw significantly less power than DDR4.
So manufacturers will have the choice of preserving today's mobile power levels by going with DDR4. Or they can use a more expensive LPDDR3 with lower power but, presumably, lower performance.
One picosecond later... (Score:1)
Spec water-torture (Score:1)
What I hate about "New tech XYZ increases throughput by 2x!" is:
Why didn't they simply specify the high transfer rate in the original spec (as in USB)?
Why didn't they simply specify a lower voltage in the first place (for memory)?
Re:Spec water-torture (Score:5, Funny)
Yep, it makes you wonder why we bothered with old technology at all. Why didn't we start using today's computers fifty years ago? Think of all the time and effort it would have saved!
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to read http://www.amazon.com/dp/B006QMT7FA [amazon.com]
Re:Spec water-torture (Score:4, Informative)
In order for a spec to be useful, you need to be able to actually build the specified system. The reason they don't encompass things that they can't currently build in the specs is that they want the specs to be useful.
Re: (Score:2)
Technology to make it work at X speed and Y voltage didn't exist at the time, and for something like a memory module you don't design it to take a range of voltages or speeds.
Re: (Score:3)
As others have noted, the tech wasn't there.
However, in the more abstract sense, you can only extrapolate models so far beyond the furthest point for which you have data before the models break down. But you don't know when that will happen, it depends on how good the model is and you can't know that in advance.
Specs are therefore reasonably conservative. They'll go a little bit beyond what's feasible right now, but only a little. Just enough to give wiggle-room and space for progress, but not to the point
Increment numbers (Score:3)
I'm glad they keep it reasonably simple with DDR(1), 2, 3, and now 4. I dread the arrival of RAM2015 or somesuch nonsense one day.
from the not-dance-dance-revolution dept. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad Hyper was already taken.
Re: (Score:1)
Or they could borrow a page from phone manufacturers: DDR Desire, DDR Sensation, DDR Cruise, DDR Intensity, DDR Vitality, etc.
Costs less? (Score:1)
I don't care if it costs less. What are they selling it for?
Meh (Score:2)
I'm waiting for DDR MAX 2 and DDR Extreme. The difficulty level in the early ones is just- ... Ohhh we're talking about memory here. Carry on, folks. Ignore me.
Why not go to DDR5? (Score:1)
Some graphics cards have GDDR5 in it, why not use that?
Re: (Score:2)
I hope that was a joke. Thats like asking why not use the airplane specification engine in a car, just because the version number is 1 greater than the current car engine versioning system.
If you really want to compare, GDDR5 losely compares with DDR3, and DDR4 is better than that.
Slot form factor (Score:2)
Re:Yay (Score:5, Insightful)
I gave up talking about "need" when it comes to mobile phones long ago. It is really about "want" (for all but a very few folks who have a real need for work - most who think they "need" it for work, don't). It took me awhile to move from an old dumb phone to a smart phone. But I was finally honest with myself - and damn it I wanted one. I got one and was thrilled with all the things I can do with it. I still wholeheartedly consider smart phones a luxury - but I am glad I can afford one and finally talked myself into parting with the money and monthly payment for a data plan (I'm sort of a cheapskate). The whole family of four has them now, three of us on our second generation of them.
Go ahead and laugh. Your phone does more than I need too. But it doesn't do more than what I want.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
And people with "normal" phones will continue to laugh at you because they spend $50 on a phone that does more than /they/ need...
People have different needs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine someone could synthesize some sort of gel which would transport oxygen and 'breath' that instead of air. But that's just getting pedantic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)