backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 27 comment(s) - last by leexgx.. on Jun 17 at 7:29 PM

Samsung's XDR memory provides the main system memory for the Sony Playstation 3 (Source: DailyTech, Kristopher Kubicki)
PlayStation 3 makes up nearly all current Rambus XDR devices

Rambus this week announced that its customers have shipped over 25 million XDR DRAM (extreme data rate dynamic random access memory) devices worldwide. The XDR memory architecture operates at 4 GHz and provides 8 GB/s of peak memory bandwidth with a single, 2-byte wide XDR DRAM.

“The market is demanding higher performance memory solutions to satisfy the needs of multi-core processing and other compute-intensive applications,” said Sharon Holt, senior vice president of Sales, Licensing, and Marketing at Rambus. “The XDR memory architecture, coupled with our engineering services, gives our customers a competitive advantage in both performance and time-to-market.”

XDR DRAM may be best known as the high-performance memory solution in the Sony PlayStation 3. Rambus explained to DailyTech that each XDR DRAM chip inside the PlayStation 3 counts as a single device, which means that each console would add four to the total tally. With over 5.5 million consoles have shipped worldwide (according to SCEI data), the PlayStation 3 accounts for around 22 million of Rambus’ 25 million XDR DRAM devices shipped. Other applications of XDR DRAM may be found in Cell Broadband Engine-based blade servers from Mercury Computer.

“The XDR memory architecture with its underlying inventions is a key element in creating the rich graphics seen in the Sony PS3 and could lend itself to future graphics-intensive applications such as HDTV,” said Nam Kim, research director at iSuppli Corporation. According to iSuppli’s initial teardown of the PlayStation 3 costs, it pegged the system’s four Samsung 512 Mb memory modules to cost Sony $48.

Rambus current licensees its XDR DRAM to memory companies such as Elpida Memory, Qimonda and Samsung Electronics.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
How about SSD RAM anyway?
By sortitus on 6/13/2007 7:34:09 AM , Rating: 2
Umm, is it faster than DDR3 in every way? Does it cost less? What happened to IBM's RAM project anyway? Could you guys get some info on that stuff, by any chance? I don't like HDDs...




RE: How about SSD RAM anyway?
By sortitus on 6/13/2007 7:35:00 AM , Rating: 1
(Not meant to relate to the article in any way)


RE: How about SSD RAM anyway?
By jithvk on 6/13/2007 8:51:16 AM , Rating: 1
actually, Rambus introduced a ram called Rambus Dynamic RAM (RDRAM) during the time we were using PC133 SDRAM. That time the RDRAM operated in some 2x or 3x speed of the sdram. The RDRAM was not a success because they didnt made that technology public and others who want to manufacture RDRAM was asked to pay loyalties.


RE: How about SSD RAM anyway?
By GoatMonkey on 6/13/2007 9:41:21 AM , Rating: 4
The performance of RDRAM sucked even at 2 or 3 times the clock speed. I remember reading an article about it long ago, it seems like it said RDRAM had some kind of access time issue. I think it was a narrow but high speed bus, that in the real world was slower and more expensive. Plus Rambus was suing everyone and was almost as hated as SCO.


RE: How about SSD RAM anyway?
By Sunner on 6/14/2007 4:56:55 AM , Rating: 2
The major problem was that Intel pushed it onto the market WAY too fast.
Paired up with the Pentium-iii it performed more or less the same as PC-100/133 SDRAM, but at 5-10x the cost.
Compare this to the P4 though, that really made RDRAM shine, and it took a long long time for SDRAM solutions to catch up to the i850/RDRAM combo.
Of course, price was still an issue, but that's always the case with new memory types, it was just a bit more extreme than usual with RDRAM.


RE: How about SSD RAM anyway?
By leexgx on 6/17/2007 7:29:16 PM , Rating: 2
i only ever see dell pcs used it for about 3-6 months before thay whent strate to DDR1 (its there full tower cases that fold open)


RE: How about SSD RAM anyway?
By crystal clear on 6/13/2007 10:11:38 AM , Rating: 1
Its all here-

Slideshow: IBM patents external DRAM box

http://www.tgdaily.com/index.php?option=com_conten...

IBM is pitching the invention as a technology that could provide a cheaper and more flexible way to temporarily upgrade the available memory in computing systems ranging from PDAs to servers. According to the description of the patent, the technology includes three separate parts - a connector, a container to hold RAM as well as a cable that couples the connector to the container.

IBM says that the connector can be inserted into a DRAM slot just like a common memory module, allowing the memory installed in the external box to be addressed by the motherboard as another bank or DRAM. When there is no external RAM module plugged in, no memory is recognized by the motherboard's memory addressing unit, the patent claims.

IBM does not describe the invention as a replacement for typical memory upgrades, but as an option to increase the available memory temporarily and allow users to share RAM upgrades, simply by switching the module from one computer to another – especially in devices where RAM is not easily accessible, such as notebooks. According to the patent, the RAM box can provide up to four memory slots for every DRAM slot within a PC case.

It was unclear which type of cabling IBM intends to use for connecting the connector with the external box.

Source-above link


RE: How about SSD RAM anyway?
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 6/13/2007 10:33:00 AM , Rating: 2
Looked around and never found the patent. Didn't seem like TG Daily could be bothered to publish the patent #, so there's not much anyone can do to verify it.


RE: How about SSD RAM anyway?
By Assimilator87 on 6/13/2007 10:49:08 AM , Rating: 2
Wow, XDR-DRAM has a lot of bandwidth. Even with just one single sided DIMM, a stick of XDR using the 4Ghz DRAMs would be capable of 64GB/s of bandwidth. That blows DDR3 out of the water.


RE: How about SSD RAM anyway?
By oopyseohs on 6/13/2007 11:10:48 AM , Rating: 2
I found this article that sort of compares XDR and DDR3
http://hardware.gotfrag.com/portal/story/29948/


RE: How about SSD RAM anyway?
By GoatMonkey on 6/13/2007 1:23:22 PM , Rating: 1
Them's fightin' words. It's a showdown between the daily geek news sites.


RE: How about SSD RAM anyway?
By Von Matrices on 6/13/2007 1:42:29 PM , Rating: 2
If this idea actually comes to fruition and becomes popular, I would expect FB-DIMM sticks or XDR chips to gain significant ground in the market as, while they are rare now, they are the only buses currently mass-produced that are compatible with this external memory box. IBM's device probably includes XDR or FB-DIMM sticks as it needs a serial memory protocol to avoid trace-length issues of parallel memory buses. If only companies can fix the latency issues, then I would fully support serial RAM. However, seeing the atrocious latency of DDR3, the latency of FB-DIMMs and other serial RAM doesn't look so bad anymore.


RE: How about SSD RAM anyway?
By nah on 6/13/2007 12:00:34 PM , Rating: 1
the keys words here are
quote:
a single, 2-byte wide XDR DRAM

That means that RAMBUS are upto their old tricks---in 1999 they forced the downfall of the i820 Intel chipset because of RAMBUS RAM. Back then they had RDRAM of 600 800 and 1066 Mhz speeds, but because they had a width of only 16 bits ( 2 bytes)--same as now, they had to quadruple their speeds to get the same amount of speed as SDRAM. This meant in essence that Dual RDRAM 1066 was only as good as dual DDR 333. The i820 blundered because Intel signed an agreement with RAMBUS which , if worked, would have made RAMBUS a monopoly next only to Intel. Intel's gain ? Windfall from share options of RAMBUS.
In reality, you had to fill all the RAMBUS slots in a chip--so called continuity modules--essentially blanks which still costed USD 10 a pop, the more RDRAM you added the speed decreased, RDRAM latency was upto five times higher than SDRAM, they heated up more quickly than SDRAM, in 1999 they cost x7 as much as SDRAM---even by 2002 the differential was 20 % or more


RE: How about SSD RAM anyway?
By Assimilator87 on 6/13/2007 12:46:54 PM , Rating: 2
Well, perhaps it's a typo, but the article says that each DRAM, each chip, provides up to 8GB/s at 4Ghz. Since DIMMs usually come with eight chips on each side, a single sided XDIMM would have an aggregate bandwidth of 64GB/s. Put that in dual channel and it would be 128GB/s. Can anyone verify if what I just said is true?


RE: How about SSD RAM anyway?
By Hoser McMoose on 6/13/2007 1:41:09 PM , Rating: 2
For what you say to be true they would require separate channels for each and every chip, which is not the case.

XDIMM modules actually use 32-bit setup. Actually it's a bit of an odd design and I'm not sure I quite understand it. Rambus states that each and every one of their XDR chips on the module has a direct connect to the memory controller. Now you can have up to 8 chips on the module and 16-bit connection per chip, all with direction connections, yet there is only 32-bits in total. Somehow it just doesn't add up, and I think it's because Rambus has allowed FAR too much marketing to creep into their technical specs.

Anyway, regardless of the fine details, the end result is the same, 32-bit width for your XDIMM modules. At 4GT/s (500MHz clock speed) you're talking about 16GB/s. This is the exact same bandwidth per module as the 2GT/s (1GHz) DDR3 memory that has been demoed recently at Computex.

In any case, I'd say that XDRAM is pretty much a lost-cause for desktop PC memory, though it just might have a future in video card memory. However with both ATI and nVidia having gone for GDDR4 instead even that seems unlikely.


iSuppli
By Procurion on 6/13/2007 8:49:37 AM , Rating: 2
I have to wonder about anything iSuppli prints/posts. Their numbers are consistently overstated on the breakdowns they give. The 60GB Seagate hard drive in the PS3 is quoted as "costing" Sony $54 and a quick look at Newegg and several other sites show that you can buy an 80GB drive retail for $43. The article they wrote implies that these are "cost" and that Sony loses money on every PS3 sold to the tune of $300+. I find that insulting.




RE: iSuppli
By therealnickdanger on 6/13/2007 8:58:22 AM , Rating: 2
You find that insulting? What?

Anyway, without seeing the BOM (bill of materials) direct from Sony, we'll never really know exactly how much money they lose per machine. The BOM is also a bit of a moving target since the manufacturer is in continuous negotiations for every piece of hardware in the device from screws to CPUs. iSuppli doesn't have access to everything and they have to fudge a lot of numbers, so naturally we can't expect to know for sure. We do know that Sony loses money on every PS3 sold. We know it's a lot of money. The real question is, why should we care?


RE: iSuppli
By Procurion on 6/13/2007 9:49:09 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry. To clarify, I find inflating numbers to justify a conclusion insulting. You are free to care or not care, but in my case if I want to see advances in technology, a company usually wants to believe that the money they spend in R&D will be returned by sales of the product. Losing millions is not a successful business model. See the history on Rambus for a primer on what happens when your product is too expensive and doesn't make economic sense.


RE: iSuppli
By elpresidente2075 on 6/13/2007 10:47:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Losing millions is not a successful business model.


True, but Sony's got an ace up their sleeve: Half of the music industry and large amount of big movie studios. They make so much money off those that they can afford to lose billions on the PS3 and still come out ahead as a company. This is why they are such a big and active part of the RIAA and MPAA: if they lose the market in either, the company's sunk, and fast. Sony = ExxonMobil (etc) in this case, and they'll do anything they can to protect their outdated and obsolete business model.


RE: iSuppli
By Lonyo on 6/13/2007 12:07:18 PM , Rating: 2
You forgot to mention their pricing of the Xbox 360 DVD drive - they list is as costing more than an OEM PC DVD drive from Newegg.
I have also said many times that iSuppli is to be taken with a few spoons of salt at best.


RE: iSuppli
By wallijonn on 6/13/2007 1:29:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
without seeing the BOM (bill of materials) direct[ly] from Sony, we'll never really know exactly how much money they lose per machine.


BOMs are also meaningless, since Sony will not be paying retail prices for their parts. No matter what part is made, chances are that it cost 10% of the retail price to reflect actual costs. So that $600 PS3 probably cost $60 to make, since Sony will probably be paying $4 for that HD drive.

[quote]The 60GB Seagate hard drive in the PS3 is quoted as "costing" Sony $54 and a quick look at Newegg and several other sites show that you can buy an 80GB drive retail for $43.[/quote]

Highly unlikely as Sony probably signed a contract with Seagate for "X" amount of drives at "Y" dollars apiece. So they probably bought 10,000,000 drives at $4 apiece, for a one-time contract price of $4,000,000.

Yes, there are hidden costs such as transportation, warehousing and Seagate's R&D, but the technology is already legacy, meaning that the transportation costs have already been factored out as adding $0.01 per unit and since Sony already has the space (whether it is filled or it is empty doesn't matter as the price per square foot will be the same. What will be different would be the environmental controls, empty space won't need to be heated or refrigerated.)

What has to be re-couped is the R&D, Quality Assurance costs and licensing fees. But the actual price for the "real" part is probably less than 10% of retail costs. If the PS3 is taken solely as a Blue-Ray player, then chances are that the actual parts cost Sony about $60, meaning that that $1000 stand alone player "really" contains about $100 in parts.


RE: iSuppli
By sxr7171 on 6/13/2007 10:21:08 PM , Rating: 2
Okay but R&D costs money. The PS3 or Blu-Ray player still doesn't have amortized R&D and won't for a good while yet. I doubt most of those parts have had their R&D amortized yet. So yeah in terms of pure raw metal and plastic things actually cost 10% of retail prices, but factoring in R&D they cost a lot more.


RE: iSuppli
By Hoser McMoose on 6/13/2007 1:55:27 PM , Rating: 2
The cheapest 60GB 2.5" drive that NewEgg sells is $48, and those prices have come down recently. Given that they quoted $54 for such a drive quite some time ago, I would say that it's probably within the right ballpark figure.

Keep in mind that Sony doesn't buy their hard drives from NewEgg. They put out a contract to buy x-number of drivers (where 'x' is at least a few hundred thousand) at a given price. For a fairly generic part like hard drives they probably tender new contracts every now and then, so it's probably not costing them $54/drive anymore, but 6 to 12 months ago it seems like a reasonable figure.


Rich graphics?
By Omega215D on 6/13/2007 11:37:09 AM , Rating: 2
“The XDR memory architecture with its underlying inventions is a key element in creating the rich graphics seen in the Sony PS3 and could lend itself to future graphics-intensive applications such as HDTV,”

So is there a possibility in seeing this being used for GPUs instead of GDDR? Maybe cards won't be hobbled too much when their memory interface is 128 bit.




RE: Rich graphics?
By Comdrpopnfresh on 6/13/2007 1:23:54 PM , Rating: 2
XDR has been around since before GDDR3 even graced a graphics card. It blew gddr2 out of the water, but because of legal fiascos, royalty fees, and propriety interconnects, it didn't succeed in booting gddr2, or taking the market from gddr3.


Faster ram Uhhh?
By just4U on 6/14/2007 2:18:23 AM , Rating: 2
“The market is demanding higher performance memory solutions to satisfy the needs of multi-core processing and other compute-intensive applications,” said Sharon Holt

Ok... why do i find this phrase not so true? I mean sure applications probably benefit by higher performing memory but can we really notice a difference outside of benchmarks?

I mean memory is stupidly fast right now, it's one of the hardware area's that has seen alot of advancement thru the years. If I down clock my pc6400 memory to 4200 speeds I dont notice a difference. If I overclock it I don't notice a difference. Sure benchmark numbers tell a slightly different tale but I don't notice them.

So as a multi-core processing user I find that statement to be just alot of marketing hype. I could be wrong of course but if you folks test your own memory you might arrive at
the same conclusions.




XDR will control the market
By lompocus on 6/13/2007 5:10:50 PM , Rating: 1
So, if they're advertising something that's not even faster than our fastest DDR2 RAM or GDDR4 RAM, and they're advertising something that costs around $250 per 2GB compared to DDR2 800 $80 per 2 GB, why would they bother?
In fact, why did sony bother? They could well have just snapped in a GIG of RAM for the same price as XDR ram and beat the 360.




"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

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments







botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki