backtop


Print 25 comment(s) - last by DeepBlue1975.. on Mar 24 at 5:25 PM

Samsung's advanced DDR3 chips offer higher performance with lower power needs

Samsung announced this week that it is the first DRAM makers to ship advanced 16GB DDR3 memory modules based on the world's first 2Gb, 50nm DDR3 chips. Samsung says that it is now shipping 18 different configurations of its high-density, DDR3 modules designed for servers.

Among the offerings are a 16GB RIMM module and an 8GB RDIMM module. The company introduced 50nm 2Gb DDR3 for PC applications last September. The 16GB modules operate at 1066Mbps and allow for a total memory density of 192GB in a dual socket server.

The modules are also the first 16GB modules to run at 1.35 volts offering a power savings of 20% compared to 1.5V DDR3 solutions on the market. With the lower power requirements for the 16GB modules, Samsung also says that its 2Gb DDR3 itself needs 40% of the power that 1Gb 16GB configurations need.

Even small power savings can add up to significant savings in power and cooling expenses for companies that run large data farms and sever networks. Samsung reports that research firm IDC expects the global DDR3 market to reach 29% of the total DRAM market in 2009.

In late January 2009, Samsung announced an even higher density DRAM chip at 4Gb that needs 1.35 volts to operate and will be used in 16GB RDIMM modules as well as other applications for desktop and notebook computers in the future. The higher density 4Gb chips can run at 1.6Gbps with the same power requirements as the 2Gb version running at 1066Mbps.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Only 16GB RIMMs for servers
By Jansen (blog) on 3/19/2009 1:10:00 PM , Rating: 5
I got all excited, until I realized that it is only RIMMs which would be 16GB, and you would only have it in servers. A niche of a niche, so to speak.




RE: Only 16GB RIMMs for servers
By Lord 666 on 3/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: Only 16GB RIMMs for servers
By codeThug on 3/20/2009 2:48:28 AM , Rating: 1
gotta watch those far-out opinions on BarelyTech...


RE: Only 16GB RIMMs for servers
By akosixiv on 3/19/2009 1:51:48 PM , Rating: 3
yep, but the emergence of those kinds of chips would mean that its only a short amount of time before we have that on desktops and laptops.

imagine having 4 of those on your rig. You could load your OS onto RAM and just run it from there.

PC would be quite slow to boot-up but once it is running, that's when it will shine.


RE: Only 16GB RIMMs for servers
By MrBungle123 on 3/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: Only 16GB RIMMs for servers
By Lonyo on 3/19/2009 3:03:18 PM , Rating: 2
Uh, I assume when he said load it to RAM he meant load from SSD/mechanical drive, copy all the files to RAM, and then run from RAM (hence the slow boot time). The OS would still be installed on a hard drive, but loaded to RAM on bootup for faster access when in use, thus no reinstalling required (just a copy from drive -> RAM on boot).


RE: Only 16GB RIMMs for servers
By The0ne on 3/19/2009 3:12:50 PM , Rating: 2
copying a 15Gig minimum OS partition ONLY is not practical even for SSD/HD speeds. Back in the DOS days it was nice to do, but there's so much crap now it's not practical. A non-volatile memory would be nice :) oh and has to be fast


RE: Only 16GB RIMMs for servers
By cfaalm on 3/19/2009 3:46:41 PM , Rating: 2
For starters: couldn't we just get the swapfile (if it still exists in W7) into RAM? I mean, who needs that after shutdown? And then every other bit of data that you need fast, like your whole 4GB photo or video project, to RAM as well. Does any desktop OS even know how to use 32GB optimally?


RE: Only 16GB RIMMs for servers
By afkrotch on 3/19/2009 4:57:46 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe Microsoft should create a Super Uber Prefetcher. Load up all your programs into ram. I mean, how many times do you reboot?

I only reboot when a Windows update requires me to.


RE: Only 16GB RIMMs for servers
By joust on 3/19/2009 7:50:07 PM , Rating: 2
If done right, it would would hardly slow your boot time at all. It could:

1). load the OS
2). start programs, etc as per regular boot process
3). begin an extremely low priority process to prefetch everything

The prefetcher would yield to any and all processes that need to access the disk(s). You wouldn't notice the difference, and after a couple minutes your machine will be super fast because everything is loaded into memory.

In fact, it might not be hard to implement. There may be a WinAPI call to ask windows to prefetch a DLL (but not load it into your own process). The code may (extremely roughly) be something like:

set_process_io_priority(lowest_possible)
foreach Library on Disk:
    if(i_want_to_load_file)
         prefetch(Library)


RE: Only 16GB RIMMs for servers
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 3/20/2009 7:43:32 AM , Rating: 2
Well, I have a strong feeling that if rigs started having this much memory on hand, MS would just bloat the OS until it ran slow anyway. So dare to dream.


RE: Only 16GB RIMMs for servers
By afkrotch on 3/20/2009 12:42:14 PM , Rating: 2
As more and more multicore computers end up in the home, why not start adding more features in. Yes, they'll use more processing power, but hell. We've got more processing power at home then NASA has had in most of it's 51 years of service.

Time goes on, technology advances, your OS changes to make use of it. If you care so much, why aren't you on Win 3.1? Dos 5?


RE: Only 16GB RIMMs for servers
By cheetah2k on 3/19/2009 9:55:12 PM , Rating: 2
For this my friend, we need a DDR3 Gigabyte RAMDISK!


RE: Only 16GB RIMMs for servers
By DopeFishhh on 3/20/2009 12:51:58 AM , Rating: 3
I have a dual opteron workstation, I got it just before core 2 duo was announced :( and it has 4gb of registered DDR1 dual channel with NUMA enabled. After about a month I realised that I could disable the swap file and I never had any issues. So you don't even need to put the swap file into memory you can just disable it all together.

There's other benefits other than speed, now your HDD won't be used as much, theoretically increasing lifespan and reducing power usage.

However I have noted some recent games have actually forced me to reinstate the swap file, so perhaps anyone wanting to try this should get 6gb+ and a 64bit OS.


RE: Only 16GB RIMMs for servers
By mallums on 3/20/2009 1:19:38 AM , Rating: 2
Methinks he doesn't get the concept. Swapfile might be made redundant (unnecessary) by great honkin' gobs of RAM, but having a swapfile in main memory is pointless. Look up the term, "storage hierarchy", if anybody still uses it. Consider the meaning of the term, "virtual memory", and think about the reason for memory caches. Swapfile is just really slow main memory. If you have enough fast memory, you don't really need a swapfile.


RE: Only 16GB RIMMs for servers
By zshift on 3/19/2009 2:16:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
imagine having 4 of those on your rig. You could load your OS onto RAM and just run it from there.

With the i7 boards maxing out at 12GB, you should already be easily able to do this with something like vista. just because the os is 15+GB after install doesn't mean all of it should be loaded in ram for smooth operation. and it won't be UBER fast after loading up if it still has to load every app on your pc. remember, its all about access to the storage thats the greatest bottleneck. ram only speeds up your pc when you're going from a small amount to one that slightly exceeds what you need. anything past that and its just more headroom.


RE: Only 16GB RIMMs for servers
By Lord 666 on 3/19/2009 3:26:48 PM , Rating: 2
There are a few i7 boards that have 24g max memory.

My IN9-32max has a 32gig max limit.


RE: Only 16GB RIMMs for servers
By DeepBlue1975 on 3/20/2009 8:08:24 AM , Rating: 2
By the time we have desktops with 64+ gbs of RAM as a normal thing, it'll be because we actually need that much memory.

- tactile input for desktops
- Real 3D UIs (to use as holograms)
- Natural language recognition that, together with tactile input would make a mouse and keyboard combo almost obsolete in a home computer (in work environments that'd be no good :D )

PS: not just talking about speech recognition, but rather natural language usage like in star trek "Computer, add an average of rows 1 through 5 for each column from a to f, in row 20, and in row 20 column G, add an average of row 20 from column A to F. Thanks"

the "computer" word would begin input, while the "thanks" word would be the input terminator.

Yeah, that'd be nice for me. :D


RE: Only 16GB RIMMs for servers
By Boze on 3/20/2009 8:58:48 AM , Rating: 2
Its pointless to speculate (I'm going to do so anyway), but the kinds of raw processing power you'd need will be the limiting factor of your Star Trek-esque computing experience, not memory.

You have to consider that the computer has to have enough processing power to be able to understand conversational English on-the-fly along with processing all the rest of the data that's required for running an operating system.

Its certainly not RAM that's holding us back from making machines like that... I know plenty of rich old folks who hate their computers (even what I consider impossibly easy to use Windows Vista & Mac OS X) and would gladly pay $25,000 to $50,000 to just "talk" to a machine and it perform the functions they want. With that amount of cash, you can get that amount of RAM... sadly, you can't get near the processing power you'd need.


By DeepBlue1975 on 3/24/2009 5:25:07 PM , Rating: 2
But now 4gbs is becoming standard.
When 64gbs becomes the standard, much of the processing power you're talking about will also be there to accompany.

If I let myself fly (yeah, well... I always do :D ) I'd say that first, to process NL we'll use tons of processing power.
But then as memory and storage capacity grow, we'll start turning the on the fly interpretation of NL into massive data tables containing zillions of speech samples representing different voice types and accents and add just "a bit" of fuzzy processing atop that to be able to recognize variations in between.

It happened when we moved from FM synthesizing in sound cards to a sample based model, and the sounds become more "life alike" than before though on board memory banks needed to be used... And I think some day the same will happen to voice interfaces.

I know it's pointless to speculate, but at least for me it's quite a bit of fun doing so :D


192GB?
By martinrichards23 on 3/20/2009 5:41:43 AM , Rating: 3
192GB should be enough for anybody.




RE: 192GB?
By kkwst2 on 3/22/2009 12:38:13 PM , Rating: 3
Boy are you going to look stupid in 2030!


My PC runs on Mountain Dew
By bupkus on 3/19/2009 2:46:23 PM , Rating: 2
L4 cache = SSD
L5 cache = 16GB RIMM




RE: My PC runs on Mountain Dew
By Jedi2155 on 3/19/2009 7:38:55 PM , Rating: 2
You have it the other way around,

L4 = RAM
L5 = SSD


Typo...?
By diego10arg on 3/19/2009 10:43:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Even small power savings can add up to significant savings in power and cooling expenses for companies that run large data farms and sever networks.


Sever o server? :|




"DailyTech is the best kept secret on the Internet." -- Larry Barber











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki