Christley </3 Peelz Posted November 17, 2013 Share Posted November 17, 2013 according to crucial, ddr4 memories will be released as early as in december, offering 100% the speed of ddr3 and running at lower voltages. im really exited seeing how 4gb is the lowest ddr4 will have and the base clock will be 2133 mhz. this will make my future computer very happy and will be even better overclocked than ddr3 memories are http://www.crucial.com/promo/DDR4.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AwesomeMcCoolName Posted November 17, 2013 Share Posted November 17, 2013 old news Supposedly DDR4/pci4 are coming out (rumors). So that might be a pretty good reason to hold out. That and the fact that as of now, my computer is still working fine. Also, leaning a bit towards the i5 in order to cut the cost, i don't think it'll affect me too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christley </3 Peelz Posted November 17, 2013 Author Share Posted November 17, 2013 old news as still rumors as of august, and didnt have a release date. and it now has info why it will boost your computer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vegan T-Rex Posted November 17, 2013 Share Posted November 17, 2013 yay! Now I only have to wait 4 more years to actually get DDR4, when my mobo wears out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
There Posted November 17, 2013 Share Posted November 17, 2013 Yeah, because RAM speed was totally the limiting factor in most gaming computers. Also, GTX 690 is hardly bottlenecked by PCIE2, PCIE4 seems a bit early. Either way, this is interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blatch Posted November 17, 2013 Share Posted November 17, 2013 When I saw the thread title, I thought this meant something about Dance Dance Revolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christley </3 Peelz Posted November 17, 2013 Author Share Posted November 17, 2013 Yeah, because RAM speed was totally the limiting factor in most gaming computers. Also, GTX 690 is hardly bottlenecked by PCIE2, PCIE4 seems a bit early. Either way, this is interesting. matters for me that bottlenecks my computer with ram usage sometimes. but i agree that pci4 is useless right now. pci3 was just released Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AwesomeMcCoolName Posted November 17, 2013 Share Posted November 17, 2013 matters for me that bottlenecks my computer with ram usage sometimes. but i agree that pci4 is useless right now. pci3 was just released considering most people buy 1600mhz ddr3 even when ddr3 goes up to 2133, i don't think ddr4 is a huge improvement atm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christley </3 Peelz Posted November 17, 2013 Author Share Posted November 17, 2013 considering most people buy 1600mhz ddr3 even when ddr3 goes up to 2133, i don't think ddr4 is a huge improvement atm. i thought ddr3 could reach 2400 stock. and when the min for ddr4 is 2133, i believe it is. i move a lot of data back and forth, and this would mean i could probably get 3ghz ram soon. which will help me a lot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AwesomeMcCoolName Posted November 17, 2013 Share Posted November 17, 2013 i thought ddr3 could reach 2400 stock. and when the min for ddr4 is 2133, i believe it is. i move a lot of data back and forth, and this would mean i could probably get 3ghz ram soon. which will help me a lot it might be, it probably is, but thats not really important. Yes, ddr4 > ddr3, theres no argument there, but the noticeable difference will be negligible. Especially for the cost (at least at first anyway). It'll be more expensive than ddr3, and the only reason to consider it is to future-proof a system, ram is hardly the bottleneck on modern computers. Most people building a custom computer would only get 1600, maybe 1866, while 1600 is the standard in most computers, with 1333 being standard in some of the lower-end ones). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
There Posted November 17, 2013 Share Posted November 17, 2013 matters for me that bottlenecks my computer with ram usage sometimes. but i agree that pci4 is useless right now. pci3 was just released RAM usage, not speed. DDR3 will be a lot cheaper than DDR4 at launch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AwesomeMcCoolName Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 Screw your DDR4(5) And eat MRAM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrocide Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 Screw your DDR4(5) And eat MRAM hmmm, slated for mass productions in 2018...can my computer last another 5 years? Decisions.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AwesomeMcCoolName Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 hmmm, slated for mass productions in 2018...can my computer last another 5 years? Decisions.... even if it could, it probably wouldn't be compatible since, by then, it would replace ram and hdd in one shot. So you'd either need to have ram as well (which would defeat any real speed advantage--assuming it would work at all), or get a program to tell the bios not to look for actual sticks of ram. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrocide Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 even if it could, it probably wouldn't be compatible since, by then, it would replace ram and hdd in one shot. So you'd either need to have ram as well (which would defeat any real speed advantage--assuming it would work at all), or get a program to tell the bios not to look for actual sticks of ram. I was meaning can my comp last for another 5 years before I build a completely new rig with MRAM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christley </3 Peelz Posted November 25, 2013 Author Share Posted November 25, 2013 I was meaning can my comp last for another 5 years before I build a completely new rig with MRAM as far as i know mram is far more expensive to make, and will therefor cost quite a bit more. and the speeds of 10x ddr3 (or 4) is still theoretical and will probably never reach those limits. i would aim for 7-8 times, and then the cost will matter. if ddr4 costs 50$, and mram costs 250$ bucks and is 7 times faster, then you have to decide whether or not you really need that much. seeing today, id stay with regular ram. i cant think of something in the near future that would require me to use 40gb of ram Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AwesomeMcCoolName Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 as far as i know mram is far more expensive to make, and will therefor cost quite a bit more. and the speeds of 10x ddr3 (or 4) is still theoretical and will probably never reach those limits. i would aim for 7-8 times, and then the cost will matter. if ddr4 costs 50$, and mram costs 250$ bucks and is 7 times faster, then you have to decide whether or not you really need that much. seeing today, id stay with regular ram. i cant think of something in the near future that would require me to use 40gb of ram Except by the time its released it will also be quite a bit cheaper. Not to mention, its a huge redesign in that one of the most critical components of a computer will be gone. Combing memory and storage into one would change things dramatically. No longer would there be a need for programs to run programs to decide what should be in memory and what in storage. No longer will there be a memory cap. Most laptops nowadays max out at 16 (maybe 32gb), you might say you'll never see a need for more then that, but 5 years ago most laptops maxed out around 4gb, and 4gb runs into a lot of problems (even with normal--non-gaming use). So by the time mram actually gets released the capacities will be necessary, and the streamlining of programs should also increase performance dramatically. Not to mention, programmers will probably stop supporting discrete ram within a few years anyway forcing the change to mram. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christley </3 Peelz Posted November 25, 2013 Author Share Posted November 25, 2013 Except by the time its released it will also be quite a bit cheaper. Not to mention, its a huge redesign in that one of the most critical components of a computer will be gone. Combing memory and storage into one would change things dramatically. No longer would there be a need for programs to run programs to decide what should be in memory and what in storage. No longer will there be a memory cap. Most laptops nowadays max out at 16 (maybe 32gb), you might say you'll never see a need for more then that, but 5 years ago most laptops maxed out around 4gb, and 4gb runs into a lot of problems (even with normal--non-gaming use). So by the time mram actually gets released the capacities will be necessary, and the streamlining of programs should also increase performance dramatically. Not to mention, programmers will probably stop supporting discrete ram within a few years anyway forcing the change to mram. no, but then again. no program today can even use up to 8gb of ram (exclude extreme applications like vegas and ps). bf4 is touching it, but still works very fine. programmers today have huge abilities to up the usage of ram, because ram is so cheap today, and with the programemrs forcing more ram, the price will drop aswell, making it even more accessible to the users. and the rise from the need of 2gb->4gb is 50%, say it is a high number as that. in 5-8 years. we wouldnt need more than 12-16gb of ram. and mram would still need to be cleared each time you boot. its there for accessibilty. not for storage. so hdds would still be required. so no. i cant see a use for 50gb of superspeed ram. and thats just one dimm. imagine using only 2, thats 100gb of ram. as mentioned in the ddr4 discussion, you say ram isnt the bottleneck. if it isnt today. why would even 30gb of ram 5 years from now be it? this would require grahpics card to be like 8x titans to even be close to actually using it. and i cant imagine processors going much faster in the future as they are already having trouble getting it smaller than 22nm. they cant make boosts, but not the boosts which would make the current ram a bottleneck. so no, the need for mram isnt there today. nor do i think it will in 5-10 years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AwesomeMcCoolName Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 its there for accessibilty. not for storage. so hdds would still be required. so no. i cant see a use for 50gb of superspeed ram. and thats just one dimm. imagine using only 2, thats 100gb of ram. as mentioned in the ddr4 discussion, you say ram isnt the bottleneck. if it isnt today. why would even 30gb of ram 5 years from now be it? this would require grahpics card to be like 8x titans to even be close to actually using it. and i cant imagine processors going much faster in the future as they are already having trouble getting it smaller than 22nm. they cant make boosts, but not the boosts which would make the current ram a bottleneck. so no, the need for mram isnt there today. nor do i think it will in 5-10 years Mram is poised to replace both an hdd and ram into one module. And thats where its real strength will be. Rather than forcing a program to decide what to run in memory vs what to run out of storage just let the program run from where its stored and cut out the middle-man. Right now, ram isn't really a bottle-neck (speed-wise). But storage-wise it most certainly is. Ram is far faster than an SSD. So a ram-based storage system would be faster than an sad and exponentially faster than an hdd. So if mram just replaces ram then the only advantage would be the amount of memory you can have. Your right in that right now, one game won't destroy your ram. But rarely do i ever have just one program running. Not to mention programs will get more and more ram-hungry as larger ram capacities become more standard. Like i said, 5 years ago 4gb of ram was enough to do pretty much everything. Now, my old 6 year old mac crashes on a near daily basis as it runs out of memory--and i'm not even doing anything power-intensive (just chrome/vlc/word/etc...). As for the bottleneck, it doesn't come from speed but rather from capacity. Right now ram just simply isn't large enough/designed to store full programs; rather it stores small snippets that are active. I don't see the revolutionary part of mram to be the speed boost, but rathe than massive storage potentials. And people from generations past never thought they'd see the day when a calculator would be smaller than a room. Technology changes at such a rapid pace, that something you once thought impossible is commonplace the next day. Also, i've heard about research into new types of cpus. Rather than using a simple on-off binary system of circuits its going to be based more on a cell (biological). So instead of having 2 positions on and off, it would have hundreds, exponentially increasing computing power. Now i don't know anything about that, and i'm sure i explained the latter part of it horribly incorrect--but the point is some researchers are apparently thinking of ways to get away from mechanical cpus. (not anytime soon however imo) Technically theres no need for powerful computers at all. America pretty much put a man on the moon with a watch. The apollo module didn't exactly have a lot of computing power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christley </3 Peelz Posted November 26, 2013 Author Share Posted November 26, 2013 Mram is poised to replace both an hdd and ram into one module. And thats where its real strength will be. Rather than forcing a program to decide what to run in memory vs what to run out of storage just let the program run from where its stored and cut out the middle-man. too tired to read anything but this mram would require so much more. its up to 10 times better than ram is right now. if its gonna eliminate hdds, it would need to be 200 times larger than ram is. and they aim for 10 times. im not gonna use 50gb of space, nor am i gonna use 20 sticks of mram Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AwesomeMcCoolName Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 too tired to read anything but this mram would require so much more. its up to 10 times better than ram is right now. if its gonna eliminate hdds, it would need to be 200 times larger than ram is. and they aim for 10 times. im not gonna use 50gb of space, nor am i gonna use 20 sticks of mram It would require more in the sense that we would need to move past 64-bit processors, which is inevitably going to happen anyway. But key part would be that it would help streamline os's as they would no longer have to have a script running in the background deciding what gets stored in ram and what gets stored on the hdd. Also, as it stands right now, they're predicting that it'll have 10x the capacity of dram. But what is the max capacity of dram? right now the max capacity of ddr3 is 16gb, so that would put mram (ddr3) at 160gb in one 'stick'. ddr4's max capacity is 32gb (i'm assuming since its twice as dense as ddr3). So that would put it at 320gb. And i'm sure they said 10x the capacity of dram and not ddr3/4 for a reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
There Posted December 15, 2013 Share Posted December 15, 2013 It would require more in the sense that we would need to move past 64-bit processors, which is inevitably going to happen anyway. But key part would be that it would help streamline os's as they would no longer have to have a script running in the background deciding what gets stored in ram and what gets stored on the hdd. Also, as it stands right now, they're predicting that it'll have 10x the capacity of dram. But what is the max capacity of dram? right now the max capacity of ddr3 is 16gb, so that would put mram (ddr3) at 160gb in one 'stick'. ddr4's max capacity is 32gb (i'm assuming since its twice as dense as ddr3). So that would put it at 320gb. And i'm sure they said 10x the capacity of dram and not ddr3/4 for a reason. Are we going to move past 64 bit? To be honest, I don't see a need to. We haven't used 64 bit CPU's to their fullest potential just yet, and I would argue the same for 32 bit. Unless you're doing some sort of video editing and the like, there is no need for 128 bit integer calculations. MRAM is not going to replace DRAM, calling it now. Also, if it's based on magnets, won't it be very unreliable, much like HDDs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AwesomeMcCoolName Posted December 15, 2013 Share Posted December 15, 2013 Are we going to move past 64 bit? To be honest, I don't see a need to. We haven't used 64 bit CPU's to their fullest potential just yet, and I would argue the same for 32 bit. Unless you're doing some sort of video editing and the like, there is no need for 128 bit integer calculations. MRAM is not going to replace DRAM, calling it now. Also, if it's based on magnets, won't it be very unreliable, much like HDDs? hdds unreliability comes more from the platters then the magnetic part. And there will no question be a move to 128 bit processors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
There Posted December 15, 2013 Share Posted December 15, 2013 hdds unreliability comes more from the platters then the magnetic part. And there will no question be a move to 128 bit processors. Eh, eventually, and we will obviously eventually stop using DRAM, but that doesn't mean it's happening any time soon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.