Talk:DDR4 SDRAM: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:46, 8 July 2015

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the DDR4 SDRAM article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Computing B‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

DDR4 SDRAM was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 12, 2008	Articles for deletion	Merged
July 24, 2011	Good article nominee	Not listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 5, 2011.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that next-generation DDR4 computer memory, developed since 2005, is the first of its family to discard multi-channel architecture, and the first to include 3D silicon stacking in its specification?

Current status: Former good article nominee

Plagiarism

The paragraphs cited with references 8 and 9 are plagiarized (copied and pasted) from the respective site. Phy1729 (talk) 18:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed this but it is still a very bad article. I think the fundamental problem is that DDR4 isn't a real thing yet, the specification won't be finalized until at least 2011 so we're basically talking about the efforts to create DDR4. And we're not even doing much of that, it's just a copypasta of tech news sites giving a variety of widely variable predictions on clockspeed, voltage, and how many years away it is without even talking about the current proposed design (which from some quick Googling seems to be an interesting new kind of point-to-point bus unlike previous SDRAM). Oh and hey it seems there's a better version of this article in the SDRAM article, where we deleted and merged this two years ago. If I'm not lazy I'll AfD again. Alereon (talk) 00:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: redirected Jan 3 2011. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA nominee

DDR4 is now fabricated and a solid article can be written. Awaiting GA review. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your hard work, this is a great article now! Alereon (talk) 10:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for check of correct data on memory speeds

As with most DDR and SDRAM, the article has to carefully distinguish clock rates and data rates. I notice someone has edited the article replacing sourced data by unsourced data and MHz by MT/s. I've reverted this and checked it to source, but as I'm not an expert I would like to ask that someone checks my revert and that the data in the article is correct (and per source). I think it's correct. It's certainly per source.

DIFF

Thanks! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Physical

Nothing in the article about the physical aspects. Does DDR4 physically go in the same slots as DDR3? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the physical aspects are finalized yet, but due to the extreme changes there will likely be no compatibility with DDR3, either physical or electrical. DDR3 and DDR2 used physically different slots, and yet many DDR3 memory controllers could also support DDR2 (for example, you can put an AMD Socket AM3 processor into a Socket AM2+ board with DDR2 and it will work, though not vice versa). I tried some Googling, but it's really hard to find good results because of the old GDDR4 memory, which was often just called DDR4. Alereon (talk) 10:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The AM3 CPUs were a special case. They had two memory controllers, one for DDR3 and one for DDR2. That was why they supported DDR2 and DDR3, not because their DDR3 controller supported DDR2 memory. DDR4 and DDR3 will not be inter-compatible. Whether or not AMD will do something similar to their AM3 CPUs such as having their first CPUs to have DDR4 support also have a *legacy* DDR3 controller for DDR3 support is undetermined as far as I know.

This is not true. AMD had a heavy involvement in both early DDR2 and DDR3 development (this was shortly just after Intel RAMBUS stint and during time when Intel focused on FB-DIMMS/serial memory). With having IMC on the chip limiting upgrade path options they pretty much steered the standard to a solution that enabled same controller to support both DDR3 and DDR2 with minimal overhead. Several companies took advantage of that during DDR2-DDR3 transition, AMD being only the most prominent one.
Such path firstly was not needed business wise any more (all competitors use IMCs these days). Secondarily the DDR2 physical interface is trully legacy by this age and compatibility break was pretty much required for DDR4 generation. 46.39.169.168 (talk) 13:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mhz, MT/s & Mbps

http://images.bit-tech.net/content_images/2010/08/ddr4-what-we-can-expect/ddr4-power.png The image is in MT/s actually. MT/s is twice that of Mhz due to Double Date Rate or DDR.

Quote from DDR3 wiki: "DDR3 modules can transfer data at a rate of 800–2133 MT/s using both rising and falling edges of a 400–1066 MHz I/O clock. Sometimes, a vendor may misleadingly advertise the I/O clock rate by labeling the MT/s as MHz." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDR3_SDRAM

Alternatively, you can open up a CPU-z. A DDR3-1333 (or 1333MT/s) will run at 665MHz clock.

It is a totally different story for Mbps, thus I left this sentence intact as i'm not sure. "The minimum clock speed of 2133 MT/s was said to be due to progress made in DDR3 speeds which, being likely to reach 2133 Mb/s" but i suspect something wrong with the 2133 Mb/s.

Quote from "http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/memory/display/20110104215540_Samsung_Develops_World_s_First_DDR4_Memory_Module.html" "The new DDR4 DRAM module can achieve data transfer rates of 2133Gb/s" "1.35V and 1.5V DDR3 DRAM at an equivalent 30nm-class process technology, with speeds of up to 1.6Gb/s."

175.156.213.238 (talk) 15:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point-to-point

JEDEC has not yet confirm Point-to-point with DDR4, can someone remove it from the article? ty.

175.156.213.238 (talk) 15:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that this should be removed as the change to a point-to-point bus is adequately sourced. NOTHING is truly finalized until the JEDEC releases final DDR4 specifications. Alereon (talk) 10:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cites are messed up

The cite confirming the 2014 date in the first paragraph is from this http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/memory/display/20110627143149_DDR4_Memory_Now_Projected_to_Debut_in_2014_But_Ramp_Up_Rapidly.html
For some reason, all the rest of the xbitlab sites are pointing to that too.
The rest of the references on this page SHOULD be pointing to this http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/memory/display/20100816124343_Next_Generation_DDR4_Memory_to_Reach_4_266GHz_Report.html
The code for this site is in the article, but doesn't show up in the final result. Can someone figure this out and fix it?

Colinstu (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's an MT?

The article doesn't explain or link to the definition of an "MT" or an "MT/s." If I had to guess, I'd think "mega-transfers" and "mega-transfers per second." Would someone who can confirm this please correct the article? -LesPaul75 _talk 17:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

fixed Colinstu (talk) 04:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Multidrop DDR4

According to Samsung's presentation GSPS001 at IDF 2012, DDR4 will support up to 3 DIMMs per channel, at a cost in clock speed. See pages 10, 24 (the "24 ranks per channel"), and especially the figure on the right of p.15, which shows limits of 3200, 2133, and 1333 MT/s with 1, 2 and 3 DIMMs/channel. It appears that LR-DIMM techniques are in use (not clear if this is all DIMMs or just server DIMMs), with buffers on the edge of the DIMM for high density DIMMs.

It might be that only one DIMM/ch is permitted with unbuffered DIMMs, but I think this presentation throws the general statement into serious question. Unfortunately I don't have a source specific enough to really nail down the true answer. (Feel free to weaken "Dispute" to "Dubious" if someone thinks that's more appropriate.)

71.41.210.146 (talk) 01:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DDR4 command encoding

Anybody cares to enlighten us about the meaning and function of the shorts in the "DDR4 command encoding" table? CS; BGn, BAn; ACT; RAS; CAS; WE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jangirke (talk • contribs) 03:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gigabyte vs. gibibyte

Hello, Fnagaton! Regarding my edit, I do agree that using "GB" instead of "GiB" is better and according to the Manual of Style (WP:COMPUNITS, in particular), but linking "GB" to Gibibyte is actually beneficial to the readers, as those are gibibytes in the sense of using powers of two. That's what I've referred to. Hope you agree. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 13:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not beneficial to link to gibibyte for the same reason it's not beneficial to show GiB or gibibyte. Fnag aton 14:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then what's your proposal for clarifying (briefly) that "GB" refers to 1024³ instead of 1000³ bytes? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 14:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's exactly the preferred method described in WP:MOSNUM. Disambiguation should be shown in bytes or bits, with clear indication of whether in binary or decimal base. An example: A 64 MB (64 × 1024²byte) RAM chip. Fnag aton 14:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After having a look at the Gigabyte article, the simplest solution is to link to Gigabyte instead, as it already contains an explanation of the "power of two" differences. Went ahead and edited the article that way, which should settle our slight disagreement. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 14:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 14:33, 8 July 2015 edit Fnagaton (talk \| contribs) 3,957 edits →Gigabyte vs. gibibyte ← Previous edit		Revision as of 14:46, 8 July 2015 edit undo Dsimic (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 39,664 edits →Gigabyte vs. gibibyte: Replied Next edit →
Line 113:		Line 113:

	::: Yes that's exactly the preferred method described in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Quantities_of_bytes_and_bits WP:MOSNUM]. Disambiguation should be shown in bytes or bits, with clear indication of whether in binary or decimal base. An example: A 64{{nbsp}}MB ({{nowrap\|64 × 1024<sup>2</sup>byte)}} RAM chip. '''[[User:Fnagaton\|Fnag]][[User talk:Fnagaton\|aton]]''' 14:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)		::: Yes that's exactly the preferred method described in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Quantities_of_bytes_and_bits WP:MOSNUM]. Disambiguation should be shown in bytes or bits, with clear indication of whether in binary or decimal base. An example: A 64{{nbsp}}MB ({{nowrap\|64 × 1024<sup>2</sup>byte)}} RAM chip. '''[[User:Fnagaton\|Fnag]][[User talk:Fnagaton\|aton]]''' 14:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

			:::: After having a look at the [[Gigabyte]] article, the simplest solution is to link to [[Gigabyte]] instead, as it already contains an explanation of the "power of two" differences. Went ahead and {{Diff\|DDR4 SDRAM\|670524234\|670519030\|edited the article}} that way, which should settle our slight disagreement. :) — [[User:Dsimic\|Dsimic]] ([[User talk:Dsimic#nobold\|talk]] \| [[Special:Contributions/Dsimic\|contribs]]) 14:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)