Samsung Starts Mass Producing 30nm 2-Gigabit Green DDR3

15

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

Blues22475

Like an elementary question, but what's the point of a DDR2 user upgrading to a DDR3 memory setup? Aside from speed (if applicable) , is there any real benefit?

-----------------------------------------
Ignorance is man's greatest enemy.

avatar

rseding91

DDR3 is what new motherboards will be using so if you upgrade to one of the latest MB/CPU combos you will almost always have to get DDR3.

There is no real benefit from it - other then future proofing. If you can make your new built with your existing DDR2 then there is no reason to go for DDR3 yet.

Regarding the other comment - Tri channel is not related to DDR3, it's simply a memory controller option(if you thought it wasn't).

avatar

BlazePC

DDR3 is to tri channel like air is to breathing.  Cutting edge processor/chipsets demand tri channel to maximize their potential. If you read anything else into what I commented on, well that's your issue.  The point being, if you're going to build with the latest stuff and you want the most out of your build, DDR2 can't touch DDR3 in tri channel.  Not sure what you started to "go on about..." but it's not relevant.  Go research before you spout off and come back with how many current, say 2010, mobos you find sporting tri channel DDR2 - then we'll talk.  Memory advancements are coming in the form of DDR3 tech, so if you don't recognize that...well...not much more that can be said.  I'm not knocking the guys building on a budget here, but performance which comes as a result of exploiting the current technology doesn't have DDR2 as part of the discussion.  And that's just not me talking, that's da facts.  You want to build on a budget, all the power to ya.  Been there, done that.  Nothing wrong with it.  It has its place.  But we're talking higher density, higher performance memory here.  And yes, it takes a serious memory controller to exploit the benefits of serious memory.  DDR2 platforms stopped being serious over a year ago, if not longer.  DDR3 is where its at.

avatar

Blues22475

@Blaze: To summarize what you said it still relates to "future proofing" your pc build. So, as of right now, I still see no reason to upgrade to DDR3 unless I buy a new motherboard that only has support for DDR3. I am not a performance nut (for lack of better word).

avatar

BlazePC

Blues,  I don't subscribe to the whole "future proofing" thing.  There was a time many years ago when DDR3 was a future build consideration, but as it stands, DDR3 is the NOW.  If you have a combo motherboard that supports both DDR2/DDR3, then it is certainly prudent to hold off on making the memory leap until your NEXT planned build.  In that regard, the memory upgrade question is only relevant when talking about current state of the art mobos.  It's no different than someone buying SATA 6 Gb/sec bus speed hard drives when their current mobo only supports 3 gig speeds.  Why bother if you can find a better price on a slower bus based drive, not to mention that hard drives don't even fully exploit the 3 Gb/sec boundary much less approach 6 gig speeds.  So my point all along is that future proofing is a waste of time, build a PC based on what you can afford at a given point in time and stick with it for (hopefully) 5 years while the tech sector rolls through continued advancements, then make the leap again.  The larger underlying discussion here all along has been if DDR3 is worth the investment over DDR2, which it is if you truly run DDR3 dimms in the platforms there were truly designed and intended to accel in.  In that context, DDR3 smokes DDR2.  Buying memory to "future proof" only makes sense to people that buy into the whole combo support boards and those typically are corporate infrastructures and not joe enthusiast.  Take a look at the actual number of combo boards typically offered around the time memory makes transitions in platforms; it's a sliver compared to the rest of the mobo marketplace push.  And combo mobo memory controllers are usually immature compared to their dedicated counterparts.

There is no future proofing in the computer industry.  You either jump in at logical steps in the progression of platforms and hold out or you subscribe to incremental upgrades that are uniquely "out of step", thereby succumbing to the rat race of nonstop upgrades - whilst shelling out big bucks in the process.  Certainly though, if you could expand on the whole future proofing thing, from your own perspective, we'd be delighted to read.

avatar

Blues22475

Then let me apologize for misunderstanding your previous statement. Such terms as "latest and greatest" make me believe otherwise what the main point of your message is(yeah I am aware of the statement you stated at the beginning about what I pick up on your comment is more or less my fault).

Even though the concept of "future proofing" doesn't make sense, it's still out there. Why? Because people buy equipment that is head of it's time (I see it and continue to see it). This is why I mentioned future proofing. Bottom line: my concept of "future proofing" is buying equipment that is ahead of its time that may not have any real practical application (at least at the time it was purchased).

As of right now, I see many more DDR2 systems to be worked as opposed to DDR3. This is why I am not convinced that DDR3 is the here and now (despite the fact that the technology is certainly there). And this certainly why I asked the initial question: is there really any worth in buying a DDR3 system if what you have currently is working. Moreover, I don't believe in the "latest and greatest" idea as sooner or later what you though was latest and greatest is now in the past and obsolete (which you already explained). This is why I am slow to upgrade to what is considered the most up-to-date equipment as it will soon be obsolete as fast as it came (and why I asked the initial question, again, to begin with).

avatar

BlazePC

I see where you're coming from Blues.  3D televisions are a good example of early tech bandwagon stuff that is assclownery and that I ignore.  That said, we're at the beginning of another worldwide PC replacement cycle and migration to DDR3 based systems is already well underway - and has been for the better part of 2010 - just look at the mobo offerings from all the major manufacturers.  And with regard to my personal usage of "latest and greatest" tech, I qualify my acceptance and applicability of latest and greatest to mean ready for prime time, not to be confused with early or even the premature release to the market place.  An example of that would be my belief that even though Bluray won the war early in 2008 it really didn't start down the full fledged adoption path until 2009, so prior to that it was an early adoption gamble.  With all due respect, I think the debate about DDR3 adoption came and went already - again from a "what's already out there" point of view and from the mere fact that DDR2 development activities seem stiffled.  But we can disagree on that point, no worries.  DDR2 dimms at 1150 MHz seem to be the top end of the range now and production volumes have rolled back, evident in the thinning of availability.  It's keen to note that DDR2 prices have stabilized and are expected to rise as demand shifts away - similar to what happened to Rambus/RDRAM round about 10 years ago, if you remember that deal.

For the record, I view future proofing as an activity, perceived to be proactive and wise, by users/consumers to buy say early DDR3 dimms to work in a dual mode mobo (DDR2/DDR3) well before there is an abundance of DDR3 only based systems, deemed mature (proven and in production), in order to enable said user to use that memory in a subsequent build - without having to buy it again.  The problem with this is that high density/higher speed/lower latency DDR3 advancements make the earlier DDR3 dimms substandard.  DDR3 dimms capable of CAS = 6 weren't developed yet and 7's were few and far between, much less reliable.  So in reality, the ongoing advancements on the platform kill that perception of value for doing future proofing in the first place IMHO.  And I'm not alone in that position.  But we can graciously disagree on that point as well.

And I agree, attempts at future proofing is out there.  Not as a sensible solution or activity but more as a phenomenon or disease that needs addressing, like hoarding.  But peeps can spend their hard-earned coin any way they wish.  At the end of the day those that future proof "buy" are more like beta-testers that don't get paid by the mother ship but rather PAY THE MOTHER SHIP for the job of getting an early look at stuff, and companies like to get paid early like that.  They save loads on compensation and benefits.  LOL  "Proofers" get to play early and claim FUN in the process - and I get that part - but get paid to do it for fun, don't shell out your own coin.

Anyway, thanks for the reply!

avatar

BlazePC

DDR2 doesn't make sense anymore in the bigger scheme of things, not with tri-channel memory buses, 64 bit OSes and processors that kick serious butt like the i7.

avatar

Machinia

256MB? Wow how lame, come back when its 256GB and maybe I'll consider buying it for $30.

avatar

jbwhite99

Look at the picture - there are 17 (not sure why 17 instead of 16, but...) chips.  16 * 2Gb = 32Gb, or 4GB on the DIMM.  If it is a double-sided DIMM, you might get 8GB out of the card..

 In terms of the guy asking about demand, supply contracted (why make memory if you will lose your shirt, so no one built new fabs).  When demand spiked after the last set of Intel chips made DDR3 mainstream last fall, it has taken the industry a while to catch back up.

avatar

rseding91

Haven't people realised RAM speeds basically don't matter?

Ever since DDR2 hit us RAM is far faster then it needs to be(which isn't a bad thing).

Hard drive: ~100 MB/s read/write speeds on the good ones
DDR3 1333 MHZ RAM: 13703 MB/s Read 10761 MB/s Write

Plus, don't forget to factor in programs poor coding and a programs inability to use RAM to there advantage when there is a large surplus of it available.

So, What's the bottle neck here? - To me it seems like the hard drive/motherboard are.

You can also google around, the benchmark difference between DDR2 800 and DDR3 1333 is about a 5% increase/decrease depending on the game/synthetic benchmark.

So, to wrap it all up: Get over RAM speeds and focus on size/price.. Sheesh!

avatar

BlazePC

I just went back and reread your entry here rseding and it dawned on me what you were driving at.  Unfortunately, this isn't the place for computing 101 tutorials or discussions about transactional processing at the bus and processor level.  But to suggest that hard drives running at  ~100 MB/s read/write speeds is somehow holding back system performance, making ram speeds of 13703 MB/s Read 10761 MB/s Write (much less at the slower speeds of DDR2 800 or DDR1066) a moot point is just plain ridiculous. 

Sorry Bro, it doesn't work like that.

avatar

BlazePC

Disc based hard drives that are topping 100 MB/sec are common now.  I just picked up a WD 1TB Black with 64 megs of cache and it tests out at 144 MB/sec.   I only mention this because you implied 100 MB/sec is only on the good drives anymore.  (Don't even ask me what my Velociraptor's in Raid 0 are doing...  : )

More specific to the question of whether or not anything above 1333 MHz DDR 3 ram is worth the extra coin, I can say that on my eVGA X58 motherboard I've run both 1333 and 1600 low latency dimms and your 1333 reference of: 13703 MB/s Read 10761 MB/s Write is pretty close to what I measured albiet a skosh lower.  The thing is, my OCZ 1600's test out about 50% faster than that.  Now, does that equate to a perceivable level of increased performance equal to 50%?  No, but the responsiveness of my system with the faster dimms is quite impressive, from boot up, to game and apps loading and even reduced execution time for full virus scans, so all I can say is that YRMV but I wouldn't discount the boost of faster/low latency ram on higher end motherboards.  Maybe the performance delta on more of the run-of-the-mill mobo's is more mundane but on performance oriented hardward the difference is more than just joe regular marginal.  I'm sure the tri-channel memory bus of my X58 has a lot to do with it too, so keep that in mind.  The extra coin I spent on the OCZ 1600 low latency sticks was well worth it, but then a year ago the tri-channel kit was just over 100 bux.

I look forward to the release of these 30nm parts and the pathway they provide to hitting 12 GB of ram with 3 dimms.  Hopefully they achieve something lower than a latency of 9 early on.  Waiting an additional 6 to 12 months for that would just plain suck.

eVGA X58 760, OCZ 1600 7-7-7-24 DDR3, i7 975 EE

avatar

profdlp

Shortages are usually caused by high demand.

avatar

Kamicrit

"We’re seeing a sharp rise in demand for DDR3 chips"

 About a week ago weren't you say that theirs a shortage in DDR3 ram?

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.