I had a dream about DDR5 SDRAM

[spicy little monkey]

Where I received 32GB of G Skill DDR5-9000mhz

Haha

[Jinn-Gon Qui]

Ursprungligen skrivet av Hoboslayer:

My dreams are so weird I could make a living as a screen writer they're more entertaining than what's currently coming out of Hollywood

Haha! I hear you. What's grind my gears the most is the bad film adpatations.

[vadim]

Ursprungligen skrivet av R||||DGE RACER:

I don't think you understand how quad channel works

You're wrong.

[tacoshy]

Ursprungligen skrivet av vadim:

Ursprungligen skrivet av R||||DGE RACER:

I don't think you understand how quad channel works

You're wrong.

Quad channel doesn't give such a high scaling like dual channel did. Also the difference from quad to dual channel won't make up for the ability to read and write simultaniosly.

[vadim]

Ursprungligen skrivet av tacoshy:

Quad channel doesn't give such a high scaling like dual channel did.

Why do you think so? In reality things exactly opposite. And no doubts you CAN at the same time read one channel and write the other. Even in dual-channel systems. Channels are independent.

[tacoshy]

Ursprungligen skrivet av vadim:

Ursprungligen skrivet av tacoshy:

Quad channel doesn't give such a high scaling like dual channel did.

Why do you think so? In reality things exactly opposite. And no doubts you CAN at the same time read one channel and write the other. Even in dual-channel systems. Channels are independent.

Yes just that you can do it with DDR5 even in single channel or both channels read and write simultaniosly. Will have a huge impact also on CL. So DDR5 as what has already been leaked has huge advantages to previos RAM exceeding the "little" performance boost of quad channel and also proberly be much cheaper than X299 or X399 combined with a decent CPU. The i7-7800X is behind the 8700K for higher price. Also just look how much decent MoBo's cost for those.

[vadim]

I didn't read DDR5 specs yet, but all the times in the past new generation dual-channel RAM were worse than old quad. Especially since DDR3 started to have natural burst size equal to cache line size (64B).

[tacoshy]

https://www.google.de/amp/s/www.pcworld.com/article/2982965/components/quad-channel-ram-vs-dual-channel-ram-the-shocking-truth-about-their-performance.amp.html


Nice article where you see that quad channel improvement is not something that give you an advantage most of the time. The higher bandwidth you mostly can't play out despite in generic benchmarks.


However I wait for HBM and hope that it will be used as RAM rather as DDR.

[vadim]

This article has nothing with what you claimed. You need to compare older generation 9say, DDR3) quad with newer (in this case DDR4) dual-channel to see what will be faster.
Instead, you published link whch proves that number of channels doesn't make much difference unless app is RAM-intensive. This is fairly obvious...

[tacoshy]

the link clearly shows that in msot cases quad channel give 0 (mostly even elss then 0) improvement over dual channel. So when it isnt even faster then dual channel witht he same RAM for most parts, how according to your logic giong it to be faster then dual channel with way faster RAM?

[vadim]

According to my logic quad-channel RAM couldn't be slower than dual-channel. Like quadcore CPU cannot be slower than dual-core with the same arch and clock speed.
A small difference is due to measurement errors.
A very wide class of applications does not really benefit from four-channel memory These are applications that mostly access the cache and create little load on the memory subsystem.
But the same apps do not benefit from newer RAM also. And you exactly the same way could get marginally lower performance with DDR4 than with DDR3.
At the same time, we always got better results from going from dual to quad-channel RAM than from upgrading DDR3 to DDR4 (of course, every time CPUs were different. There is no Intel CPU which supports at the same time dual DDR4 and quad DDR3).

Don't forget that DDR4 DIMMs have memory chips which run at 1/16 effective speed, while DDR3 chips run at twice faster real speed and usually with better latencies.