4 ms·

> A likely development will be to put the RAM memory on the same chip as the CPU (or at least in the same housing) in order to decrease the distances for data t

> A likely development will be to put the RAM memory on the same chip as the CPU (or at least in the same housing) in order to decrease the distances for data transmission. I've been waiting for this for 5 years, I don't know why it hasn't happened already. - Optimized clock speeds, layouts, improved connectivity (i.e. increased number of RAM channels) -- Reduced latency -- Increased bandwidth - Would there even be a need for an MMU? -- CPUs wouldn't need to work with a variety of RAM types -- i.e. Less complexity, fewer points of failure The only cons: - RAM size would not be configurable Meanwhile, for better or worse, the majority of consumers can't re-configure their own RAM (Laptops/Smartphones), or on a desktop they don't know how. Businesses would either buy beefy hardware that suited their constraints or spend money on custom configurations. So this con only really effects hobbyists.

nordsieck 11y ago
The reason this will never happen in the way you're imagining it, is yields. 16 GB of ram is just too much die area. In a small way, this has already happened, though. The intel Iris Pro has 1.5 GB of basically 4th level cache, shared between the GPU and the CPU. I could see memory on the package, though, which might generate some of the benefits you're looking for.
- yazaddaruvala 11y ago
  Interesting! Given that RAM is relatively simple, I wouldn't have expected yields to be such an issue. Also, since the marginal cost of a CPU is relatively low, I figured again, it wouldn't be a large hit to Intel's bottom line to overcome the yields or to give out new chips through warranty. Remember that for buyers, RAM and CPUs are marked up significantly. A combined CPU RAM unit, would be justified to have increased price over just a CPU. As long as CPU-RAM Unit cost <= CPU + RAM, buyers wouldn't mind and society would end up better as a whole. Potentially making it worthwhile for Intel, regardless of loss in yield. I am not very educated on the subject though, so I'll defer to your knowledge on it, and agree.
- Narishma 11y ago
  > The intel Iris Pro has 1.5 GB of basically 4th level cache, shared between the GPU and the CPU. You mean 128 MB?
  - nordsieck 11y ago
    Whopse.
theandrewbailey 11y ago
AMD has this for GPUs already (Fury X), and Nvidia's next GPU architecture should have this also.

nordsieck 11y ago

The reason this will never happen in the way you're imagining it, is yields. 16 GB of ram is just too much die area. In a small way, this has already happened, though. The intel Iris Pro has 1.5 GB of basically 4th level cache, shared between the GPU and the CPU. I could see memory on the package, though, which might generate some of the benefits you're looking for.

yazaddaruvala 11y ago
Interesting! Given that RAM is relatively simple, I wouldn't have expected yields to be such an issue. Also, since the marginal cost of a CPU is relatively low, I figured again, it wouldn't be a large hit to Intel's bottom line to overcome the yields or to give out new chips through warranty. Remember that for buyers, RAM and CPUs are marked up significantly. A combined CPU RAM unit, would be justified to have increased price over just a CPU. As long as CPU-RAM Unit cost <= CPU + RAM, buyers wouldn't mind and society would end up better as a whole. Potentially making it worthwhile for Intel, regardless of loss in yield. I am not very educated on the subject though, so I'll defer to your knowledge on it, and agree.
Narishma 11y ago
> The intel Iris Pro has 1.5 GB of basically 4th level cache, shared between the GPU and the CPU. You mean 128 MB?
- nordsieck 11y ago
  Whopse.

theandrewbailey 11y ago

AMD has this for GPUs already (Fury X), and Nvidia's next GPU architecture should have this also.