New DDR4 specification sets the stage for new DRAM in computers

Interesting . . .
Just a week ago i was shopping around for some hardware for my desktop and regular DDR2 ram are almost disappearing and too expensive.

 

DDR3 will disappear soon...

 

Memory really isn't a bottleneck. While these performance improvements are more than welcome I would be surprised if there were noticeable improvements comparable to moving from mechanical to SSD or something.

 

For the average user, this is completely true. The average user would not even notice the difference between dual channel and quad channel DDR3. Memory bandwidth usually matters more when you can effectively saturate many threads at once. For example if you have a hyper threaded 8 core CPU and can effectively saturate all 16 threads then memory bandwidth is going to matter a lot.

Servers will pick DDR4 up quickly in 2014 but for the average user there just is no real pressure to push desktops towards DDR4 quickly. The 8 core ivy bridge E CPUs will be the first desktop CPUs that will even need DDR4 and that is hardly going to be the average user. It may be as late as 2016 before 100% of all new motherboards including budget boards are DDR4. In short its going to be a long, long time before you wont be build/upgrade a DDR3 system using any popular hardware site.

 

I disagree with that - sort of.

Almost any major component can be a bottleneck. Not enough CPU horsepower and the CPU is a bottleneck. Not enough GPU horsepower and graphics is a bottleneck. Slow network/Internet connection and that becomes a bottleneck. Crowded/slow hard drive and there's a bottleneck.

Assuming compatibility - the speed and type of RAM is not that important but the amount of RAM sure is.

You can have the fastest, most advanced RAM, CPU, graphics, fiber-optic Internet, SSDs and more, but if you don't have an adequate amount of RAM, then "memory really IS a bottleneck".

I have said it many times, I would rather have more RAM than faster RAM. This is why I like dual-channel memory architecture over tri-channel. I would rather have 8Gb over 6Gb (as - for now - 12Gb does not provide enough bang for the money).

@nosirrah - I know you! Long time no see from CastleCops days, I believe! Good to bump into you again!

 

@Bill_Bright Doing forum based IT on CC was a fun challenge, I enjoyed working through those problems with you.

 

Yeah, any type of "remote" support can be a real challenge - but a really learning experience for all too!

 

I was referring to the speed. I guess DDR4 might increase the capacity too but the article focused more on the speed of the RAM.

On a aserver it can matter. On a desktop eh.

 

Things will move on much faster...Remember that...

 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883258001

You can still buy new systems with DDR2, you wont see DDR3 vanishing any time soon.

 

I guess I just don't understand all this needing 257 thousand GB of ram

all I have is 4GB and I have never seen my system use more than 600MB

 

Check your Commit Size and add all the values up - my guess is it will be more than 600Mb. The Commit Size (VM size in XP) is the amount of virtual memory that is reserved for use by a process.

Same with Peak Working Set. My system is relatively idle right now but with 12 instances of svchost.exe running, combined they total almost 800,000K (800Mb). Peak Working Set is the highest value recorded for the current instance of this process. Add in the resources IE, MSE and my other applications are using and I am pushing 2Gb (23% of 8Gb).

Just because a system does not NEED more than 4Gb, that does not mean more RAM (with a compatible OS) will not yield better performance.

Some folks do go to extremes - whether they think it will be faster, or for just bragging rights, I don't know.

The "sweetspot" for Windows 7 64-bit is 8Gb for dual-channel motherboards and 6Gb for tri-channel. Less than those amounts and performance degrades. More than those amounts and the returns will be minimal (at best) for the money. If money is burning a hole in your pocket after that, buy a better graphics solution.

 

I went to look for PC3-8500 DDR3 SODIMM ram yesterday and BestBuy did not have my ram and staple's only had DDR2 and a local computer store had no ram at all.Something that should be easy to find turned out not. I ordered from crucial.com and they already shipped it out but just waiting for it now.

 

Walking into a store and buying DDR1 for your computer that came with 128 megs was a different time. Everyone needed ram and there was only DDR1.

Things are different now. Most computers come with enough ram for the average user and DDR2 vs DDR3 incompatibility causes a support headaches. Combine this with both the online selection and online prices and its no wonder that brick and mortar stores don't carry much ram any more. Most places like best buy and staples would rather charge the pants off of you to install the ram themselves anyway.

Online on the other hand, you can still get DDR1 and even SDR with ease if need be and that wont be changing any time soon. When it comes to DDR3, you likely will be able to buy it online 10 years from now if not longer.

 

While it is true they would rather charge you to install the RAM, that also means you have someone to yell at if they do it wrong. That said, both Best Buy and Staples have a fairly extensive on-line selection too.

The problem with these stores carrying them on the shelf is that RAM prices are as volatile as crude oil prices, jumping up and down all the time. So it is not really good business to buy a lot that may sit on the shelf, or where the prices may fall as product on the shelf is costs money just to keep on the shelf.

 

Makes sense,I just find it pretty stupid of 4 peg rows of DDR2 and not one single DDR3.They should fill up the pegs with DDR while there at it.

 

My System

 

Some people do actually need quite a lot of RAM. 4GB is enough for the average user but if you're using Photoshop you'll want at least 8GB.

If you're programming in a compiled language you're going to want at least 8GB. A lot more depending on the project or you'll face serious performance hits on compile time. I compiled a very large project on 4GB and it was a huge pain - took well over an hour and my computer just crawled.

 

Yeah, I agree. Of course you need 64-bit Windows for that - but there's really no reason to be sticking with 32-bit anymore anyways. If 64-bit drivers and versions of your favorite apps are not available by now, it is time to upgrade that old legacy stuff and join the club of long time computer enthusiasts who have shelves of perfectly good but outdated hardware and software collecting dust.

And with 64-bit you can take advantage of the full 4Gb of RAM too and not be limited by 32-bit addressing limits.

I am not a gamer and don't do much heavy stuff - and I was thinking I was just stroking my ego when I put 8Gb in this i7 system nearly 3 years ago (When Win7 came out). I built a similar machine at the same time, but with a lessor graphics card, 4 Gb of RAM and 32-bit Win7 and I was surprised to see how much everything I did was noticeably faster with the 8Gb machine, and how much more active the HD on the 4Gb PC was too. And it only had 3.2Gb of usable RAM.

So, in anticipation adding more RAM when the budget permitted, we removed the 32-bit version and installed 64-bit Window 7. Now all 4 Gb was available and it "seemed" the extra 800Mb of usable RAM made things a little quicker, or at least, smoother.

Similar experiences with other computers (and the cheap prices for RAM doesn't hurt) convinced me 64-bit and lots of RAM was here to stay.

The only real harm in having too much RAM (besides to the budget) is to the environment - in terms of potentially toxic waste in landfills, watts to make and run the extra/bigger sticks, and the extra heat they give off. So for now (probably until 128-bit becomes the standard) I will stick with 8Gb as the recommended sweetspot for "most" users.

Of course, that can change if RAM keeps getting cheaper.

 

Bill_Bright, your last post was "spot on" what my experience has also shown: 8GB RAM + Windows 7 64bit = Excellent performance with minimal wallet drainage....

 

Very Happy with Crucial as I received my ram today by USPS.I ordered on sept 27th and received it today sept 29th free shipping,talk about fast.unofficially I could have bumped it to 8 gigs max but officially supports 4 gigs on late 2009 macbook 2.26 intel core 2 duo.I went from 2 gigs to 2x2 Kit total of 4 gigs which is plenty for what I do.

I have a fresh install MT Lion as the requirement was 2 gigs I was using a little over 1 gig just to run Lion and less the 1 gig left over but now I have just under 3 gigs left over.

 

Even faster RAM disks

I have 12 Gigs (1 slot still left ), and allocated 4000MB to Dataram Ramdisk (freeware limit).
Moved temporary, browser cache, and downloads there (except huge torrents of you know what) to alleviate SSD and HD load (my SSD is somehow healthier, probably because of VMs). Why downloads? Because of archives, installers, and no guarantee of keeping it (in the right drive).

I could use different software, but Dataram works for me, because of it's fast enough speed, easy driver startup (along with simple image saves), and price.

 

yea yea stop bragging about all the ram. one day maybe I will have rocket puter but not in the budget right now.Love to have an i7 3rd gen with about 32 gigs of ram and a massive 7200 rpm HDD.

 

1 slot left? That seems odd. How is your RAM configured? Note to take full advantage of your motherboard's memory architecture, you need to fully populate the "sets" (or banks) of slots either in pairs for dual channel boards, or in trips for triple channel. You may be causing a little bottleneck even with that amount if you don't have your RAM configured in matched pairs of sticks, or in trips - depending on your motherboard.