3 ms·

Edit: Nope, I misread. As reply notes, 16GB/s/lane. So... That's about 16 terabytes per second per lane. AKA more bandwidth than I can imagine any use for, tho

Edit: Nope, I misread. As reply notes, 16GB/s/lane. So... That's about 16 terabytes per second per lane. AKA more bandwidth than I can imagine any use for, though I'm sure we will find ways to take advantage... (Seriously, that's enough to move 16 largish laptop drives every second, on a single lane.)

Arnavion 2y ago
>So... That's about 16 terabytes per second per lane. If you assume 1T/s = 1b/s, 128GT/s is 128Gb/s = 16GB/s, not 16TB/s
- yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
  Oops, yep, I misread that. Thanks for the correction
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
hughesjj 2y ago
Assuming it was 16tb/s.... Imagine a JIT data lake loading stuff into main memory like brrr... Actually at that point, a pcie7 nvme would be faster than ddr6 https://www.pcworld.com/article/2237799/ddr6-ram-what-you-should-already-know-about-the-upcoming-ram-standard.html https://www.pcworld.com/article/2237799/ddr6-ram-what-you-sh... That said, per-pin, 16GB/s seems to be the same ballpark as contemporary (to pcie7) main or graphics memory..... Like, actually more if I'm reading this right? https://www.anandtech.com/show/21287/jedec-publishes-gddr7-specifications-pam3-ecc-higher-density https://www.anandtech.com/show/21287/jedec-publishes-gddr7-s...