Zainstaluj Steam
zaloguj się
|
język
简体中文 (chiński uproszczony)
繁體中文 (chiński tradycyjny)
日本語 (japoński)
한국어 (koreański)
ไทย (tajski)
български (bułgarski)
Čeština (czeski)
Dansk (duński)
Deutsch (niemiecki)
English (angielski)
Español – España (hiszpański)
Español – Latinoamérica (hiszpański latynoamerykański)
Ελληνικά (grecki)
Français (francuski)
Italiano (włoski)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonezyjski)
Magyar (węgierski)
Nederlands (niderlandzki)
Norsk (norweski)
Português (portugalski – Portugalia)
Português – Brasil (portugalski brazylijski)
Română (rumuński)
Русский (rosyjski)
Suomi (fiński)
Svenska (szwedzki)
Türkçe (turecki)
Tiếng Việt (wietnamski)
Українська (ukraiński)
Zgłoś problem z tłumaczeniem
I thinks it down to how many groups of modules there are. How else could you have quad rank?
Rank has nothing to do with single or double sided. Its the number of "logical partitions" that are addressible on the dimm, or as DevaVictrix said the number of groups of modules on the dimm.
What is a Memory Rank? [www.crucial.com]
When I said earlier that “2x64bit” has nothing to do with ecc… that’s also wrong! If it’s 2x64bit then it’s definitely not ecc.
I guess the number of slots also must come into it though. Not so much that it allows for quad or octal rank but if you have say 8 slots not all can be used if you use high rank sticks. Possibly that a controller can only handle a max number of ranks and if you meet that capacity using 6 slots then the remaining two are redundant.
I’ll have a search tomorrow.
I started scratching my head earlier because I’m sure I remember having a double sided single rank ddr400 stick a looong time ago. I may be wrong but it tickled a memory.
I’ve still got some ecc buffered dual rank ram… I’ll install windows on that computer and see how cpuz reports that, for completeness!
And there it is. I was going to ask this earlier if anyone with a 12th generation Intel platform could report what they saw on V 2.00 because I was wondering if it'd show 4 x 32-bit, and then you answer it does.
I did some searching earlier and there's a lot of comments, many of them recent (but also some not so recent) about this. All of them are from AMD users, saying they are seeing "2 x 64-bit" in the channel number field in place of seeing "dual" in V 1.99 and prior. I knew I wasn't dreaming it.
Some people theorized it was a change in CPU-Z reflecting other ways to show it, perhaps due to the change in how DDR5 RAM operates or something, and the other (older) mentions of it go back years and years ago on AMD platforms and involved the terms "ganged" and "unganged" being mentioned a lot which... elude me a bit as I don't know what those are as they were apparently AMD only things and I didn't use AMD back then (I've definitely heard the terms used years ago, maybe as far back as the Athlon 64 but at least since Phenom I or II, but I never bothered to learn what, specifically, it was).
Well, I guess that answers that then. It's definitely a change in the way CPU-Z V2.00 reports this on some systems.
Do you have a new system with DDR5?
Nope, at least not yet anyway. The Dual channel per-DIMM was a design change with DDR5. When you get into higher capacity server modules that moves to using Load Reduced DIMMs (LRDIMM) which use a buffer and is named because of how it addresses the challenge of how accumulated capacitance impacts the signaling.
DDR5 also moves the power management and voltage regulation (PMIC and VRM) on module instead of relying on the motherboard, for similar reason but to address a different goal.