Samsung announces 4Gb DRAM chips coming
How's 192 GB of RAM sound in some configs?
Nice ..I hope that 4GB modules become dirt cheap so that I can gorge myself in RAM.
Quote:
Samsung says that its 4Gb DRAM chips need 1.35 volts to operate compared to 1.5 volts needed by older chips. The firm will use the new 4Gb chips in 16GB RDIMM modules, 8GB UDIMM modules, and 8GB SODIMM modules. That means the new DRAM chips will be used in servers, desktops and notebook computers.
Samsung also says it can use its dual-die package technology to package two of the 4Gb 16GB modules on a package for 32GB of memory, doubling the capacity the previous highest density chip was capable of.
Samsung says that its 4Gb DRAM chips need 1.35 volts to operate compared to 1.5 volts needed by older chips. The firm will use the new 4Gb chips in 16GB RDIMM modules, 8GB UDIMM modules, and 8GB SODIMM modules. That means the new DRAM chips will be used in servers, desktops and notebook computers.
Samsung also says it can use its dual-die package technology to package two of the 4Gb 16GB modules on a package for 32GB of memory, doubling the capacity the previous highest density chip was capable of.
Nice ..I hope that 4GB modules become dirt cheap so that I can gorge myself in RAM.
Comments
It's a deja vu from the G4 PowerBook vs G5 PowerMacs days...
Currently available MacBook Pros can barely take 6GB of RAM (4GB officially) as total maximum, while people here are dreaming of 192GB RAM in desktops.
And the in comparison meager 8GB that the 17" MacBook Pro can accept (apparently the maximum the NVidia's chipset can take) is not really going to be any more future-proof either. How will 8GB feel in 3 years with a fully 64bit OS and all 64bit applications?!? Thin. Very thin.
Similar story on the CPU front. Intel is readying 8 core CPUs with 16 threads in dual CPU configurations (for a whopping 32 concurrent threads) while we still limp along on 2 threads on any of Apple's laptops for about another year at least.
Part of this is Apple's fault, but probably mostly Intel's. Yet I don't really care whose fault it is.
With the growing trend of people moving away from desktops to laptops, what good will it do to have 32 threads on a 192GB RAM desktop? Not much.
Sure, in 10-12 months, Intel and NVidia willing, we might see notebooks with a maximum of 8 concurrent threads and perhaps 16GB RAM. By which time desktops are Quad-CPU machines with 64 concurrent threads...
When comparing high-end desktops with high-end laptops I can accept a factor of 4 to 6. But 8 or even 16 is too much IMHO.
Something is really wrong here. That gap is too wide.
And seemingly widening fast.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferroelectric_RAM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRAM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Millipede
No hard drive required, just instant boot, instant load and it saves buying an SSD + 192GB Ram. I'm sure one day down the line this will happen.
Then we evolve non-volatile storage via ZFS to storage pools.
Some of these virtual devices will be far away somewhere on the Internet. We don't really know anymore.
Then finally we will break the barrier between volatile RAM and non-volatile storage and the whole thing becomes OneCollective (TM).
And then at some point in the perhaps not-so-distant future this OneCollective will become self-aware...
When comparing high-end desktops with high-end laptops I can accept a factor of 4 to 6. But 8 or even 16 is too much IMHO.
Something is really wrong here. That gap is too wide.
And seemingly widening fast.
Don't worry Apple is on your side. Apple doesn't sell any desktop parts so there is no gap between laptops and desktops. Apple is crippling their "desktops" in a way (trade as much performance as needed to gain .1" in thinness) that with Apple you will never run into that problem.
First we move from harddisks to SSDs.
Then we evolve non-volatile storage via ZFS to storage pools.
Some of these virtual devices will be far away somewhere on the Internet. We don't really know anymore.
Then finally we will break the barrier between volatile RAM and non-volatile storage and the whole thing becomes OneCollective (TM).
And then at some point in the perhaps not-so-distant future this OneCollective will become self-aware...
You still won't be able to play Crysis on MAX settings then.
You still won't be able to play Crysis on MAX settings then.
Not that you couldn't!
But the self-aware OneCollective won't let you! It will ensure you play some 'real life' too...
It knows what's best for you!
Don't worry Apple is on your side. Apple doesn't sell any desktop parts so there is no gap between laptops and desktops. Apple is crippling their "desktops" in a way (trade as much performance as needed to gain .1" in thinness) that with Apple you will never run into that problem.
What frustrates me is that their supposedly 'high-end' laptops aren't really. They are top class consumer machines, but not much in them is truly high-end. Apart from the looks perhaps.
No Blu-Ray, no self-calibrating 8bit LCD suitable for color-sensitive work, no 16GB RAM, no quad-Core CPU, no SLI GPUs, no drive bays for loading different drives or batteries.
And I'm not even talking about auxiliary/second screens, wacom tablets, memory card readers, etc.
I know those other manufacturers use desktop parts to achieve some of these features, but for a high-end portable that's kind of what I expect to see. Nothing wrong with that.
And I don't mean to replace the current MBP models. Keep offering them for those who want good battery life. But there is a need for an even higher model. Especially in a time where the trend is clearly away from desktops towards laptops. The iMac is the wrong strategy here. Apart from the fact that it also uses mostly laptop parts...
Somehow Apple is infected with the iPod / iPhone's 'super tight integration' bug. Which is cool, but not at the expense of features. It seems their current notebook offerings got compressed on both ends. The low end MacBook got a great boost and is probably the best consumer laptop Apple ever did, but as a result the 17" MacBook Pro is not that much better. A second GPU and a bigger screen. Is that all? That's not a lot of difference between lowest and highest end.
The mobile gear is mainly focused on mobility and the advantages of having some decent mobile power while on the go, it's not meant for any sort of finalising work.
That is, get what you need, monitor your shoots/etc. while out and about, then bring it back to the studio for full pro finishing.
Particularly for creative work, you have that idea, you want to work on it while its fresh to get the gist of the idea, not waiting until rushing into the studio to work on it, by then that "spark" may have faded a little.
I guess I'm talking more about music here, for example, you have a tune in your head, you want to throw something together while still imagining it.
What frustrates me is that their supposedly 'high-end' laptops aren't really. They are top class consumer machines, but not much in them is truly high-end. Apart from the looks perhaps.
No Blu-Ray, no self-calibrating 8bit LCD suitable for color-sensitive work, no 16GB RAM, no quad-Core CPU, no SLI GPUs, no drive bays for loading different drives or batteries.
And I'm not even talking about auxiliary/second screens, wacom tablets, memory card readers, etc.
I know those other manufacturers use desktop parts to achieve some of these features, but for a high-end portable that's kind of what I expect to see. Nothing wrong with that.
And I don't mean to replace the current MBP models. Keep offering them for those who want good battery life. But there is a need for an even higher model. Especially in a time where the trend is clearly away from desktops towards laptops. The iMac is the wrong strategy here. Apart from the fact that it also uses mostly laptop parts...
Somehow Apple is infected with the iPod / iPhone's 'super tight integration' bug. Which is cool, but not at the expense of features. It seems their current notebook offerings got compressed on both ends. The low end MacBook got a great boost and is probably the best consumer laptop Apple ever did, but as a result the 17" MacBook Pro is not that much better. A second GPU and a bigger screen. Is that all? That's not a lot of difference between lowest and highest end.
...but as a result the 17" MacBook Pro is not that much better. A second GPU and a bigger screen. Is that all? That's not a lot of difference between lowest and highest end...
UMM....
8 hour battery
Full 1080p antiglare screen
8 GB RAM
256GB solid state drive
2.93ghz CPU
If that is not one of the highest-end portables in the world, I don't know what is. It will probably have quadcore by the end of the year and maybe 320GB solidstate. That config above with quadcore and 320GB solidstate, by the end of the year, well, it would be a pretty darn high end laptop.
If this is not enough then of course one would need a Mac Pro, and if a Mac Pro ain't enough then you'll need a Render Farm/ Computing Cluster.
So not being "high end enough" of a portable seems a bit of a strange claim. Unless your talking about the ass-raping price of that highest-end MacBook Pro.
8 hour battery
Full 1080p antiglare screen
8 GB RAM
256GB solid state drive
2.93ghz CPU
BTW, you still won't be able to play Crysis on Very High settings with that...
I'm a bit frustrated by the fast widening gap between mobile and desktop systems.
It's a deja vu from the G4 PowerBook vs G5 PowerMacs days...
Currently available MacBook Pros can barely take 6GB of RAM (4GB officially) as total maximum, while people here are dreaming of 192GB RAM in desktops.
People can dream but 192GB of memory for a Mac Pro is likely to cost $20,000 minimum, with a possible overhead for 16GB DIMMs increasing that price depending on how Samsung, Micron and Hynix/Meta RAM approach pricing.
Similar story on the CPU front. Intel is readying 8 core CPUs with 16 threads in dual CPU configurations (for a whopping 32 concurrent threads) while we still limp along on 2 threads on any of Apple's laptops for about another year at least.
No they aren't, that is just bad reporting. Intel are readying to talk about 8 core processors for the MP platform (i.e 4, 8 and more sockets).
Something is really wrong here. That gap is too wide.
And seemingly widening fast.
The issue is heat and power. Notebooks serve a purpose and there are many types that can be suitable for different tasks (mobility vs power), but they are all in the end limited by that form factor. If you need to do seriously intensive computing right now you have to sacrifce that portability, the portability you didn't even have a few years back anyway. In the end most of the technology on the high end desktop side is the because there is the crossover with servers. 16GB and 32GB DIMMs aren't intended for the desktop, they are for servers. It just happens that they use the same platform in the case of Nehalem.
I figure if you're running virtualization you want to make sure each OS has 4GB of RAM then there's your 8GB right there. Toss in another 8GB for applications and you're coasting along.
We certainly are entering an exciting time for performance. We have:
- Multi-threaded nextgen Nehalem processors to look forward to.
- OS X that can handle threads more easily and manage cores effectively
- Faster storage technology like SSD
- The GPU becoming more vital for day to day computing
- RAM density increasing with lower latency memory controllers in CPU
A well built system is going to perform admirably. I think RAM is always importantvery few memory systems are as fast. We've eliminated the need for rotatational devices for storage adding much better latency and performance there.
I'm like keep the RAM density coming. Everything else falls in line.
I don't know about 192MB but I'd be happy with affordable 16GB options.
I figure if you're running virtualization you want to make sure each OS has 4GB of RAM then there's your 8GB right there. Toss in another 8GB for applications and you're coasting along.
We certainly are entering an exciting time for performance. We have:
- Multi-threaded nextgen Nehalem processors to look forward to.
- OS X that can handle threads more easily and manage cores effectively
- Faster storage technology like SSD
- The GPU becoming more vital for day to day computing
- RAM density increasing with lower latency memory controllers in CPU
A well built system is going to perform admirably. I think RAM is always importantvery few memory systems are as fast. We've eliminated the need for rotatational devices for storage adding much better latency and performance there.
I'm like keep the RAM density coming. Everything else falls in line.
TWO areas on your list needs to chug along well, more than the others, for me, personally. Once you got 16GB RAM used, your hard disk needs to really keep up. So SSD must become more affordable. Secondly, GPU is becoming so vital, they need to catch up to the level of CPUs in terms of power, heat, efficiency and affordability.