backtop

Print 52 comment(s) - last by bkiserx7.. on Feb 19 at 2:42 PM

Super Talent's DDR3 module
Memory manufacturer Super Talent partners up with Samsung for some of the first DDR3

Super Talent sends us word that it has completed construction of its first DDR3 prototype modules and will be the first to market for commercial modules. As a member of JEDEC, Super Talent is devoting engineers and time to defining and finalizing the DDR3 specifications.

DDR3 is set to be the next PC memory standard and the successor to DDR2 memory. It holds a number of technological advantages over its predecessor. Power consumption has been decreased to 1.5 Volts, while clock speeds have gone up. Currently, DDR3 frequencies range from 800 MHz to 1600 MHz.

The 512MB module that appeared on Super Talent's website late last night uses a Samsung SKU that has not been publically announced yet.

Physically, DDR3 memory is very similar to DDR2 memory. Both technologies use Fine-pitch Ball Grid Array for their chip package. In addition, DDR3 modules will also use the same 240-pin form factor. They will not, however, be inter-compatible as DDR2 and DDR3 memory chips have the middle notch located at different positions.

Although JEDEC as of yet still needs to finalize the specifications for DDR3, which are expected to be publically available mid-2007, Super Talent has already been busy working on DDR3 prototypes. The recently developed Samsung-based DDR3 prototypes are currently being tested by Super Talent on various test platforms.   

The first motherboards supporting DDR3 are expected to begin appearing once Intel’s Bearlake-family of desktop chipsets launches. The new Intel desktop chipsets will support both DDR2 and DDR3 memory, though both can’t be used at the same time. Intel has already begun sampling its DDR3 memory motherboards, though confirmed ship dates for the boards are still flexible. AMD is expected to adopt DDR3 with the release of its quad-core architecture.  

Super Talent expects to begin shipping its DDR3 modules long before motherboards supporting them are actually released. Current ship time is estimated at mid-2007, but the date is subject to change with demand.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
.
By semo on 2/17/2007 8:31:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Power consumption has been decreased to 1.5 Volts
this statement suggests that voltage is indicative of power consumption.

are these modules going to be available for purchase before mobos and chipsets are available or what.




RE: .
By A5 on 2/17/2007 9:29:37 AM , Rating: 1
V = IR
or
I = V/R

Power (very roughly) = I^2*R
or
(V/R)^2*R
which is the same as
P = V^2/R

Assuming the resistance is the same, lower voltage = less power.


RE: .
By Questar on 2/17/2007 10:14:24 AM , Rating: 3
Chips aren't resistive loads.

The OP is right, voltage is a measure of potential, not consumption.


RE: .
By masher2 (blog) on 2/17/2007 12:32:53 PM , Rating: 1
> "Chips aren't resistive loads....The OP is right, voltage is a measure of potential, not consumption..."

The OP was not correct. The simplest power model equation for a DRAM circuit is P = cfV^2, i.e. power is proportional to the square of the applied voltage, times the device frequency.


RE: .
By semo on 2/17/2007 1:01:43 PM , Rating: 3
oh common just read the statement.
quote:
Power consumption has been decreased to 1.5 Volts


power is not measured in volts and also if the eqation you quote is correct, v^2 is one of the terms and frequency too should be indicative (even more so by the looks of that equation) of power consumption. this of course can only be true for dram and not electronics in general.

i would also imagine power depends more on the memory capacity than voltage (0.5gb vs 2gb module for example). i doubt the ttl chips i used to build binary counters from were power hungry beasts only because i used 5v for the supply rail.


RE: .
By masher2 (blog) on 2/17/2007 1:24:45 PM , Rating: 1
> "power is not measured in volts ..."

True; I don't dispute that the sentence could have been phrased better. Still, voltage is the primary factor controlling power consumption.

> "and frequency too should be indicative (even more so by the looks of that equation) of power consumption..."

A squared term always predominates a linear one. Double the frequency and you double the power consumption....but double the voltage and you quadruple it.

> "i would also imagine power depends more on the memory capacity..."

Assuming same technology, its linear against memory capacity. But comparisons are done against equal capacity, so this point is moot.


RE: .
By Hare on 2/17/2007 5:48:33 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Still, voltage is the primary factor controlling power consumption.
In your own words. It's a factor, not a power consumption unit like mW. So the OP was in fact correct. Voltage x current = power consumption. Voltage != power consumption.


RE: .
By masher2 (blog) on 2/17/2007 7:13:13 PM , Rating: 1
The OP's implication was that voltage was not "indicative" of power consumption. It is...it's the primary factor, in fact.


RE: .
By semo on 2/17/2007 8:06:34 PM , Rating: 1
2 black boxes, 2 terminals each. all you have is a dvm.
you take measurements of both and each time the reading is 12v to 2 s.f.

which one is the car battery?
next scenario...
my teacher once made an observation that a lot of my fellow students wore watches and other kinds of jewelry. he told me that back in his days, tvs had supply rails in the 10s of kvs. all that metal junk dangling would almost surely get you a nasty shock on occasions when you had to work on live electrical equipment (old crts in this case). iirc rail tracks on the london underground rail are _only_ 600v dc.

bearing in mind that 10000v can give you a "nasty" shock, would you piss on underground rail tracks?


RE: .
By RyanHirst on 2/18/2007 4:45:56 AM , Rating: 2
It doesn't seem anyone aknowledged your correct presentation of the math.
So I, too, weigh in on the side of middle school algebra.

_____________
For the die-hard skeptics, here is your 1AM quick review:
y = a*x^2
is a second order equation. Both a and x may be variable (adj), but x is the independent variable (n).
A is a scalar multiplier.
People can be as willing as they like to bet that other factors are just as, or more important to, the value of y; y is no less a function of x. Today's lesson: if your hunch is at odds with the fundamental theorem of algebra, you are wrong.
_________________
Back to your regularly scheduled programming.
Tonight's headlines:
SONY declares its farts smell like roses. Playstation3 powered by miniaturized man surrounded by a wall of slowly exhaling synthetic vulvas. Product team states idea came to them when high on mescalin.
"I talked to God. He said, 'put a vulva in the ps3'"


RE: .
By bkiserx7 on 2/19/2007 2:42:56 PM , Rating: 3
who cares about all the power talk


RE: .
By Icepick on 2/17/2007 11:00:54 AM , Rating: 3
To put it more simply, Power = Voltage * Current

or

P=VI


RE: .
By semo on 2/17/2007 11:48:21 AM , Rating: 2
please read my comment again and i will not thank you for the elementary ohm's law (and arithmetic) lesson.

i know what the assumptions and you're only supposed to use ambiguity in formal discussions with colleagues or like minded peers that you know they understand you and even then this statement sounds wrong.


RE: .
By VIAN on 2/17/2007 12:04:52 PM , Rating: 2
Power is a term that thrown around quite a bit. There's the real definition of power, P=IV, which is directly porportional to Voltage.

Of course, then if you're buying power drills, power is talked about only as Voltage. Higher Voltage coming from the battery gives the drill more power.

Then there's Vacuum cleaners and lawnmowers where power is talked about only as Amps.

It's all related, but it's all part of marketing. More people would know the voltage of a battery compared to how much current it provides. Same thing with the memory modules. People are only allowed to control the voltage. And higher voltage is synonymous with heat. Heat is synonymous with more power.


RE: .
By ddopson on 2/17/2007 5:02:16 PM , Rating: 2
Except that the battery in my smoke detector is 9V and the battery that starts my car is only 12V.

Oh, I believe someone already said this, but the simplistic formulation for the dynamic power in a chip is P=C*f*V^2, where C is capacitance, f is frequency, and V is voltage. There is also a leakage current which is more resistive in nature: P=V^2/R. Things aren't quite as simple when things like clock gating and dynamic voltage and frequency scaling come into play. However, DRAMs are still pretty simple circuits, basically big transistor + capacitor grids, and the simple formula is pretty accurate. All things being equal, dropping voltage has a huge impact on power consumption due to the second order term in the power equations.


RE: .
By JeffDM on 2/18/2007 10:32:01 AM , Rating: 2
That's better than my bicycle, that can only do three square yards to the mile. The units are related but they aren't the same and don't necessarily make sense.

Yes, units matter. The sentence was just wrong at least one way. It could have been better stated by saying:

quote:
Power consumption has been decreased through a voltage reduction.


The concept is what was intended without looking ignorant. Power and voltage are related, but the original sentence basically tried to say they were the same thing. As such, it's either a grade school error in science, a grade school error in English, or both.


RE: .
By MrTeal on 2/19/2007 9:46:53 AM , Rating: 2
Voltage is the main determinant of the chip's power consumption, but the phrase still should be reworded to something like "Power consumption has been decreased by the move to 1.5 volts"
Also, because volts are named for a person, the word is spelled with a lowercase v. The abbreviation is uppercase (1.5 V).


Upgrade bug
By Icepick on 2/17/2007 11:09:10 AM , Rating: 2
I'm going to be bit by the upgrade bug again and want to get some of these new babies into my rig. That means I'll need a new mobo too and maybe even a CPU. And the cycle continues...

Guys - Can someone tell me why I'm not able to vote on the quaility of these posts anymore? I was able to do this when Dailytech first started and lately the option is not available. What happened?




RE: Upgrade bug
By Warren21 on 2/17/2007 3:49:48 PM , Rating: 2
As soon as you post you can no longer rate/vote other people's comments. Similarly, once you post your previous votes on the article are negated.


RE: Upgrade bug
By SunAngel on 2/18/07, Rating: -1
RE: Upgrade bug
By johnsonx on 2/19/2007 5:55:27 AM , Rating: 3
No, it's not because you commented in the wrong way on a Sony related article, at least not directly. Your comment rating is only .52, which is apparently too low to be allowed to rate other comments. I don't know exactly what the required score is, but I'd hazard a guess it's 1.0. I think KK once said it's actually a scale; the higher your score the more votes you get.

Now, it may well be those poorly considered Sony comments that got your score so low; I wouldn't know. There do seem to be some people who get instantly modded down no matter what they say (including yourself perhaps, and Michal1980 too, though he deserves it more often than not), while others bring it on themselves each and every time (Beenthere, cornfedone, pirks, others - you know who you are)



RE: Upgrade bug
By johnsonx on 2/19/2007 6:00:53 AM , Rating: 2
Awhile back they implemented a minimum comment score and number of comments to be able to vote. Your score is fine, but you've only got 10 posts.

I have no idea what exactly the minimums are; I think KK was purposely vague it when he blogged about the new system.

All I know is that since I spend way too much time typing largely useless drivel here, but get modded up more often than down, I could vote on just about every comment on every article... but of course my votes wouldn't get counted, as I can't resist running my mouth (err... keyboard).


A DDR1 module? maybe not...
By lotharamious on 2/17/2007 1:37:02 PM , Rating: 2
Just a random observation, but doesn't the picture look like the module could support the huge DDR1 chips eventhough the smaller, new-gen RAM chips are shown on the module?




RE: A DDR1 module? maybe not...
By ss284 on 2/17/2007 3:09:02 PM , Rating: 2
No, there arent any pads for tsop chips. DDR1 can also be packaged in BGA though.


RE: A DDR1 module? maybe not...
By ADDAvenger on 2/18/2007 12:31:11 AM , Rating: 2
Hmm, could this possibly mean lower-height memory sticks in the future, or even doubling up the chips (ie 16 on each side) for cheap high-capacity sticks?


RE: A DDR1 module? maybe not...
By ADDAvenger on 2/18/2007 12:31:12 AM , Rating: 2
Hmm, could this possibly mean lower-height memory sticks in the future, or even doubling up the chips (ie 16 on each side) for cheap high-capacity sticks?


Too early
By Domicinator on 2/17/2007 9:19:39 AM , Rating: 1
To put it simply, we don't need this yet. AMD's platform just started using DDR2, and they didn't even need to move from DDR yet; they did it for the sake of using a format that has inevitably taken over the market. AMD hadn't even begun to tap the full potential of regualar DDR yet, because their CPUs were efficient enough that that higher bandwidth RAM just wasn't necessary yet.

It's sort of the same thing with Core 2 Duo/Quad and DDR2. A shift to DDR3 is just simply not necessary yet. I realize this stuff won't be usable for awhile yet, but I'm certainly not holding off my next upgrade just so I can get DDR3 as soon as it's available. That's ridiculous.




RE: Too early
By shabazkilla on 2/17/2007 9:38:51 AM , Rating: 1
Your not looking at the power savings that also come with the switch to DDR3. Performance-per-watt is not going to go away anytime soon.


RE: Too early
By VIAN on 2/17/2007 12:12:59 PM , Rating: 2
I think DDR3 will first provide more performance per watt as well as provide more bandwidth. You don't think we need the bandwidth yet, but that's because Quad Core CPUs aren't out yet. They will greatly benefit from any added bandwith.

You may not need Quad Core, but other people will.


RE: Too early
By verndewd on 2/17/2007 5:45:30 PM , Rating: 2
I am not convinced AMD even wanted to use ddr2;with the lag they have shown limiting ddr2 to a one year window before ddr3;it really could be an indication that ddr2 was a forced use.
And that just to try and sedate the masses in the face of c2d.


why 512 MB
By phil126 on 2/17/2007 3:11:18 PM , Rating: 3
I want ot know why memory density has not increased at all since DDR. That was what 5 years ago. I would really prefer standard sticks to be at least a Gig if not 2 by this point. It is hard to ratioanlize 64 bit computing when it is near impossible to even find the memory (with out paying through the tooth) to break the 4 gig barrier on a desktop motherboard.




RE: why 512 MB
By Warren21 on 2/17/2007 3:58:19 PM , Rating: 2
It's a slower process than you think. It all depends on supply/demand for more memory capacity. One major modern catalyst in this department is Vista: many memory manufacturers pledged 2 x 2GB desktop kits would become mainstream in 2007.

Consider the following examples:

-In 2003, a system with 512MB was 'very good', 1GB 'amazing'. Today, 1GB is the new 512 and 2GB the new 1 gig.

-I have two friends with identical Dell E500 systems that they bought in the summer of '05 that shipped with 256 modules.

-DDR2 modules first appeared in 256MB prototypes -- half of this DDR3.

Considering that back in the DDR days of '03, 256MB sticks were mainstream, and the fact that new memories aren't even produced that small anymore I think it shows progress towards higher densities. It just takes time.


less power
By ElJefe69 on 2/17/2007 10:46:59 PM , Rating: 1
ddr3 ram uses less fucking power than ddr2 or ddr1. ddr4 uses less fucking power than ddr3.

crazy shit




RE: less power
By 13Gigatons on 2/18/2007 1:45:53 AM , Rating: 4
DDR5 won't use any power it just feeds on grass and space bacteria. :)


First?
By FrankM on 2/17/2007 7:29:06 AM , Rating: 2
This is just a ready-to-release-prototype, as I see; however, there were some prototypes as early as mid last year, on an expo (sorry, I forgot which), and there were at least two memory makers there with DDR3 prototypes (one was Geil).




RE: First?
By brute1248 on 2/17/2007 7:38:05 AM , Rating: 2
I take it they meant the first to release to market (article reads mid-2007 release).

-------
Chillin


Question
By judasmachine on 2/17/2007 10:57:42 AM , Rating: 2
Are the latencys going to remain the same, get faster, or just matter less?




RE: Question
By masher2 (blog) on 2/17/2007 12:34:37 PM , Rating: 2
It'll essentially be DDR2 all over again. Bandwidth increases, but so does latency. At release, I'd imagine you won't see much of a performance boost, if any, for typical desktop usage patterns.

The early adopters will be those who need the reduced power consumption, or those using applications which require ultra high bandwidths.


1GB minium?
By iwod on 2/18/2007 8:20:59 AM , Rating: 2
I dont know if there are any more 256Mb Stick around. But with DDR3 all i wanted is higher capacity at cheaper price. It would be nice to see DDR3 1Gb per stick as minium :)




RE: 1GB minium?
By ThisSpaceForRent on 2/19/2007 8:42:55 AM , Rating: 2
The only downside to a 1 gig minimum is that the manufacturers will charge a premium for that service. I wouldn't be surprised if their profit margin was better selling 2x512 sticks as opposed to a single 1 gig stick. Maybe one day in the future memory will be cheaper. Consumer minded price fixing for the win?


price?
By Loser on 2/17/2007 6:27:09 AM , Rating: 2
no info about price yet?




WTF?
By Enoch2001 on 2/17/07, Rating: -1
RE: WTF?
By bunnyfubbles on 2/17/2007 2:13:53 PM , Rating: 2
LG = Lucky Goldstar
DFI = Diamond Flower Inc


There are a lot of silly names...although it is usually best when they go by an acronym to hide such names.


RE: WTF?
By verndewd on 2/17/07, Rating: -1
RE: WTF?
By Enoch2001 on 2/18/2007 4:04:37 AM , Rating: 2
Oh that's classic. Such a witty reply.

*rolls eyes*


RE: WTF?
By stmok on 2/17/07, Rating: -1
RE: WTF?
By Enoch2001 on 2/18/07, Rating: -1
RE: WTF?
By JohnStopper on 2/18/07, Rating: -1
RE: WTF?
By JeffDM on 2/18/2007 10:11:52 AM , Rating: 2
I don't understand how a bigoted comment could be considered "cheeky". Anyone that throws around "gay" in the negative connotation is just as bad as those that randomly throw around racist epithets trying to be "cute".


RE: WTF?
By Enoch2001 on 2/19/2007 9:09:57 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
I don't understand how a bigoted comment could be considered "cheeky". Anyone that throws around "gay" in the negative connotation is just as bad as those that randomly throw around racist epithets trying to be "cute".


JeffDM,

For starters - you do not know me. So why would you even assume that my comment was bigoted? Because I throw around the term "gay" instead of "silly"? So I think that the name of a company sounds gay. Big. F'ing. Deal. I hardly equate the term "gay" as bigoted, and certainly not a racist epithet. If you are gay as in homosexual, then power to you. However, you need to get off your high horse, open your eyes, and realize that just because someone says something is gay doesn't mean they are taking a swing at you. No more than if I were to say that someone has a bitch'n car does it mean that the vehicle is pregnant canine? It can easily be interpreted how you choose. You choose to see it as racist, which, frankly says more about yourself than anything.

Bigoted, racist, and other terms I care not to speak to you, is what stmok is. In no way were his comments warranted towards me just because of what I said.

Thump your book somewhere else, please.



RE: WTF?
By sc3252 on 2/18/2007 4:51:37 AM , Rating: 1
you know what stmok, companies look like idiots because they don't do the reserch to find out what there stupid name translates to. Why do you think some products struggle so much in foreign markets. Companies need to do research on what there name will be in different languages, so stupid names don't pop up like this.

I didn't know what LG stood for before the other guy mentioned it, but if I knew and went to an electronics store I would never pick up that product. Names mean everything, and if you have a stupid name it can keep your great idea in the dumpster.


RE: WTF?
By ProxyOne on 2/19/2007 9:38:55 AM , Rating: 2
> you know what stmok, companies look like idiots because they don't do the reserch to find out what there stupid name translates to. Why do you think some products struggle so much in foreign markets. Companies need to do research on what there name will be in different languages, so stupid names don't pop up like this.

And I would take your comment with a grain of salt due to your consistent misuse of "there."

However, I do agree with what you said.


"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein

Related Articles










botimage
Copyright 2013 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki