12 ms·
Samsung Reveals DDR5-7200 512GB RAM
- nih0 5y agofinally we'll be able to run multiple electron apps on our pc's
- orangepanda 5y agoNot after devs upgrade their workstations to these
- hughrr 5y agoWe’ll find a creative new stack of shit to run on it that will make it miserable again in about five minutes flat.
- notanzaiiswear 5y agoMemCoin that uses proof of Memory.
- colejohnson66 5y agoWe already have Chia which uses a “proof of storage” (of sorts). It’s only a matter of time until a “proof of RAM” appears.
- tromp 5y agoCuckatoo Cycle is a proof of SRAM. Cuckatoo32, as used in some cryptocurrency, requires 512MB of SRAM to solve efficiently (in addition to 512MB of DRAM). The solution process is dominated by writing and reading of individual random bits. Currently available Cuckatoo32 ASICs only have 64MB on-chip SRAM, causing an 8-fold reduction in efficiency, which still outperforms GPUs.
- derefr 5y agoLitecoin/Dogecoin use an scrypt-based consensus algorithm; scrypt was designed to be "memory-hard" as a way of preventing ASIC-based brute-forcing of password hashes. So that's a "proof of having some memory", at least. (I think the relevant knob on the call to scrypt could just be turned way up to get a "proof of having a lot of memory.") I believe Ethereum's ethash consensus also works this way, which is why there aren't Ethereum ASICs.
- tromp 5y agoA good PoW should have very fast verification. That's why scrypt makes a poor choice of PoW (technically, the hashcash PoW with scrypt as hash function). It's quite possible to have an instantly verifiable memory hard PoW, where only finding solution takes lots of memory, while verification takes none. For example, Cuckoo Cycle and its variants [1]. [1] https://github.com/tromp/cuckoo https://github.com/tromp/cuckoo
- javajosh 5y ago"Samsung's 512GB DDR5 memory module is exciting, but it's aimed towards the data center and server market. Consumer DDR5 memory will likely top out at 64GB." No-one could possibly ever need more than 1TB of RAM. [EDIT: this was a winking reference to Bill Gates' famously misattributed quip that "640kb ought to be enough for anyone". Truthfully I don't know what to do with 1TB of RAM either, but I'm sure there'll be something!]
- timw4mail 5y agoHonestly, I hope we never get to that point on the consumer side.
- derefr 5y agoYou aren't looking forward to the day consumer Operating Systems have holodeck-driven UIs? /s
- pixl97 5y agoMore of a "if your a consumer that needs more than 1tb RAM, buy a server board" issue. The number of consumers that need that much memory are tiny and don't warrant a manufacturer making a board just for them.
- lmilcin 5y agoI personally use my PC as lab for building applications. I tend to run a bunch of VMs and one thing I am always short of is memory. CPU cores were more of a problem in the past but now there is a plenty of cores available. I am currently using 128GB and I would definitely wish more, but probably I wouldn't know what to do with 1TB. But that doesn't mean there aren't others that may have different use cases.
- derefr 5y agoIf you're running a bunch of VMs, technically you could do that just as well with a cluster of smaller PCs. (No individual VM needs 1TB, after all.) I see a lot of people on /r/homelab using RPi clusters for this use-case.
- timw4mail 5y agoI'm just glad 32GB has so far been more than enough RAM for any system I've used.
- 5e92cb50239222b 5y agoMeanwhile, new machines with 4 GBs of RAM are still being sold in my country. Most laptops within reach of a typical family have 8 GBs, and no slots to add more.
- oldsecondhand 5y agoGood thing we have SSD, so we can swap faster ;)
- dijit 5y ago"so far" I had 512M in 2003~ which was more than enough until 2009 when max available memory was closer to 4G, but usually 2G even in the high end. From 2009 to 2015 my personal memory consumption went from 512mb to 16G- which is a meteoric leap. I suspect that the only thing holding back developers from using more ram between 2015 and 2021 is the fact that intel basically capped the upper limit to 16G on laptops, and most developers are using laptops.
- sto_hristo 5y agoI barely get away with 16gigs and only because i'm on linux laptop. I see 32 becoming the new barely-get-away pretty soon.
- x86_64Ubuntu 5y agoYeah, once you start throwing VMs into the mix, it's really easy to burn through 16GB of RAM.
- mytailorisrich 5y agoMy work computer is an i5 laptop with 8gigs of RAM and I run Linux in VirtualBox. Needless to say, my productivity could be better...
- drewg123 5y agoIs there a "rule of thumb" to estimate speeds vs DDR4? The "7200" implies it will 2x as fast as DDR4-3600. But what about latency? It seems like latency has not been improving along with bandwidth..
- theandrewbailey 5y agoI made a spreadsheet that calculates RAM speeds and CAS timings into nanoseconds: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fFg2YwccdeCU5lFZ1vild-y9g9k9he966QC_jXAbbJU/edit#gid=1654750461 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fFg2YwccdeCU5lFZ1vil... I've noticed that popular speeds and timings across RAM generations have tended to keep roughly similar 9-10ns latency. Going by that, DDR5-7200 kits should have CAS timings around 32-36.
- mweberxyz 5y agoLatency will remain around the same levels as DDR4. The increase in clock speed will yield a hypothetical increase in maximum bandwidth. (via https://www.anandtech.com/show/16143/insights-into-ddr5-subtimings-and-latencies https://www.anandtech.com/show/16143/insights-into-ddr5-subt...)
- shadilay 5y agoWhen Mhz increases the CAS latency also increases.
- theandrewbailey 5y agoCAS latency, as measured in cycles, goes up, but since each individual cycle is shorter, it ends up being the same in actual time.
- shadilay 5y agoYeah, DRAM latency improvement stalled out something like 10 years ago. At least we're getting on package HBM and SRAM now.
- ksec 5y ago
- ttul 5y agoI recently bought an M1 iMac, but mistakenly got the 8GB version instead of 16GB. It’s underpowered. My older, 64GB iMac screams by comparison, which is sad, considering how fast the M1 chip is. RAM is important.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- MivLives 5y agoThey seem to make it hard to find the 16GB version. It's never the in stock model unless you want to pay for some other upgrades. That said I have an 8GB version and it's so far handling what I need to do fine, but I'm not doing any heavy dev work on it.
- ttul 5y agoMassive Google Sheets are the main memory hog for me… I suppose I could do work to make the sheets more efficient or move them into a better kind of database. But that would take effort.
- dijit 5y agoLol. That reminds me of the enormous Excel spreadsheets sent around Ubisoft for P&L reasons. I once had the mispleasure of using it, thank god Microsoft office is 64bit because that spreadsheet was gigabytes in size and multiples of that in memory. You couldn’t use the machine for anything else when it was open; even my “very high end” workstation machine crawled to a halt.
- azinman2 5y agoWhy not return it if you got the wrong one?
- SwiftyBug 5y agoThe other day I was in an Apple Store and ran some basic tests on two MacBooks. One with 8Gb RAM, M1 chip and the other with 16Gb RAM, Intel Core i7 chip. I simultaneously ran on both machines a Python script that calculates a Fibonacci number non-recursively. The M1 performed significantly worse for any values entered. This surprised me, so I guessed that had something to do with RAM?
- mrfusion 5y agoRemember when the definition of “big data” was when your datasets don’t fit in RAM?
- x3ro 5y agoStill is, if you ask me :)
- mistyvales 5y agoWhat happened to HBM? Too expensive? This article talks about HBM3... from 2016. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/08/hbm3-details-price-bandwidth/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/08/hbm3-details-price-b...
- teddyh 5y agoMy guess is patents. It’s always patents. Wait 20 years for the patent to expire, and then you’ll see everybody use it.
- mastax 5y agoHBM is the expensive, it requires and organic substrate (or silicon? I forget) which is expensive, the increased thermal density is more difficult to cool which is expensive. Even with how difficult, expensive, and hot GDDR6X is that was still preferable for Nvidia's consumer cards.
- Isthatablackgsd 5y agoFrom what I remember, it can be power intensive which required more power to the motherboard to supply additional power to HBM. HBM2 will consume more than 100w due to increased I/O. It made sense why they are using it in GPU since it can handle additional power from it with 4/6/8 PIN Connectors from PSU directly. If it is being used as a RAM on the motherboard, I imagine they would need to redesign the motherboard layout to accommodate the power and bandwidth for RAM slot to support HBM. Or a possibly HBM stick get it own pin connectors for PSU to avoid motherboard redesign.
- shadilay 5y agoIIRC HBM is actually more power efficient but the problem is power density since HBM is stacked. Could also be trace length. >Therefore, HBM provides at least an order of magnitude higher bandwidth than DDRx DRAM [15] at a lower power consumption (nearly 7pJ/bit as opposed to 25pJ/bit for a DDRx DRAM) with a smaller form factor [65]. https://people.inf.ethz.ch/omutlu/pub/HBM-undervolting_date21.pdf https://people.inf.ethz.ch/omutlu/pub/HBM-undervolting_date2...
- tristor 5y agoI see a lot of folks here saying they wouldn't know what to do with this much memory, but I can say as someone who was able to successfully use RAM disks in the past, that this would be /amazing/ on a desktop doing typical desktop tasks, including things like gaming. Back when 32GB was a lot (about a decade ago), I had 32GB of RAM in my desktop and would take whatever game I was competitively focused on at that time and install it to a RAM disk which would be written out to SSD occasionally and loaded back from SSD on boot. Loading times were essentially non-existent since it became an in-memory copy. I was limited to games under 12GB in size requirements, which now a days is nothing. Most AAA titles are 200GB+ on disk. With 1TB of RAM you could set aside 128GBish for use as normal memory and 850GB as a RAM disk you can use for copy-back installations. Combining this with the fastest available PCI-E 4.0 nVME SSDs, it would even be pleasant considering the "long" boot times. You could have a 1TB fast SSD set aside just as your copy-back target. Even though SSDs have gotten much much faster than they were a decade ago, they're still slower than RAM. Obviously for server uses with databases there's a need, and large numbers of VMs / containers for density, but in a more desktop-oriented use case it's not that you "need" this much RAM, but you can certainly find really great ways to use it to make your life easier and put you to the next level of performance.
- Salgat 5y agoI don't believe it, mostly because I used ramdisks back in 2012 when I had 64GB of RAM. They barely improved load times over SSDs, and for some games didn't improve it at all. With modern NVMe drives...I imagine no one can perceive the difference. Also ram disks are kind of a pain to deal with.
- rambojazz 5y agoDevelopers will always find ways to utilize all the resources on a single PC, that's why we need to use clusters of servers. The "don't know what to do with this much memory" argument has always been completely bonkers, by people who probably only use their PC for browsing social media.
- xattt 5y agoHere’s something I’ve been wondering. Once an application lives in RAM in a RAM disk, does it have to be duplicated into a working area of the RAM or can it be manipulated directly? Is the file system-RAM dichotomy a historical anachronism at this point?