4 ms·

Isn't it the wrong direction to go? With the price of memory chips about $1 per 265Mbyte, and technologies of integrating multiple chips with tons of connection

by ippisl 13y ago

Isn't it the wrong direction to go? With the price of memory chips about $1 per 265Mbyte, and technologies of integrating multiple chips with tons of connections and speed(2.5D and 3D integration) closing by, what's the point in offering 128MB at a price hike of $50 ?

adsr 13y ago
On die cache is orders of magnitude faster than regular ram. I have always thought that more cache would be a sensible addition when a process shrink give more available real estate.
- marshray 13y ago
  Sure but that's static RAM. DRAM has 50+ ns of latency no matter how close you put it to the chip. What they can do though is achieve more aggregate bandwidth without increasing package pin count. Perhaps this explains why Intel was willing to allow Ivy Bridge to have only half the memory bandwidth of the previous Sandy Bridge: just not that many (non-server) systems were ending up with the four DIMMs required for full bandwidth. So now they're integrating it into the package itself.
  - sparky 13y ago
    > DRAM has 50+ ns of latency no matter how close you put it to the chip. This is not some fundamental law; it's entirely dependent on bitline and wordline capacitance (array size). For external DRAM chips, huge arrays make sense, and you end up with tens of ns of latency. In an eDRAM cache scenario, you use much smaller arrays, and in the case of the POWER7 L3, latency is more like 6ns (for row hits, of course).
    - marshray 13y ago
      It seems to me (you may know more about this than I do) that one can design a memory system to make latency for sequential addresses accesses arbitrarily small and this is mostly how (G)DDR(n) have improved overall performance. But random (row miss) accesses don't seem to have improved much. From early 1980's to early 2000's, DRAM latency went from 150 to 50 ns and has stayed around there since. That's 1-2 doublings of performance in that parameter in the last 30 years, compared to who-knows how many in transistor size and speed. Still, Intel knows what they're doing and I can see a place for (yet another) spot in the memory hierarchy before the CPU resort to off-package DRAM.
      - sparky 13y ago
        Yeah, given a predictable access pattern, latency can be completely hidden by prefetching. For an unpredictable access pattern, there's a physically imposed lower bound on random access latency, roughly proportional to the square root of the number of bits stored. There's a huge tradeoff space between latency, bandwidth, capacity, and cost, and market forces have forced a convergence around 2 design points, colloquially DDR and GDDR. For yield reasons, die area (cost) has been mostly fixed for a long time. Successive generations of DDR spend the dividends of Moore's Law primarily on extra capacity, then on a bit of additional bandwidth when possible. Successive of generations of GDDR prioritize bandwidth, primarily by dedicating tons of area to high-speed single-ended I/Os. These two design points make sense for their most common use cases. In traditional disk-based systems, avoiding hitting the disk is more important than absolute DRAM latency, so increasing capacity is your best bet. On GPUs, you need enough bandwidth to feed a quickly growing number of functional units on the chip, and at least for graphics, the access pattern can be made to be extremely predictable, so latency is not as important there. The advent of faster-than-HDD persistent storage (SSDs) and the desire to run more general purpose workloads on highly parallel machines like GPUs points to a need for a third DRAM design point.
        wmf 13y ago
        There is RLDRAM, but I've heard that it's expensive.
        sparky 13y ago
        Yeah, there are a few specialized parts for networking, telecom equipment, defense, and other less cost-sensitive applications, but DDR and, to a lesser extent, GDDR dominate the market and enjoy much greater economies of scale.
        marshray 13y ago
        Perhaps another factor is the software's difficulty to successfully utilize more than a couple of cores? I imagine Intel thinking "We're a couple of process steps ahead of everyone else, we should take advantage of that. But adding more cores in the same package has reached dimishing returns due to pin count and main memory bandwidth. Most applications won't utilize that 13th hyperthread anyway. So let's improve the memory subsystem from within the package."
wmf 13y ago
Obviously the main point is profit. But a Haswell GT3e will use much less board area than Haswell + discrete GPU + GDDR, while offering similar price and performance. The 13" MBPs are short on board area, so Apple should like this.
Symmetry 13y ago
technologies of integrating multiple chips with tons of connections and speed(2.5D and 3D integration) [are] closing by Just think of this move as part of the development of those technologies. And the $1 per 256 MByte doesn't apply to on chip integrated memory with high bandwidth.
MichaelSalib 13y ago
My spouse did her EE master's thesis on 3D integration. Trust me, the technology is definitely not close by.
- ippisl 13y ago
  Cool !. Maybe 3D isn't ready yet, but at least 2.5D integration is already in the market in FPGA's , and there's some claims from some companies[1] that it's ready for market for low cost applications. [1]http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-products/electronic-product-releases/microcontroller-mcu/4411509/Silex-Microsystems-and-BroadPak-Bring-2-5D-IC-Packaging-Capabilities-to-the-Mainstream-Market-through-Low-Cost-High-Performance-Silicon-Interposers http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-products/electronic-produ...

by ippisl 13y ago

adsr 13y ago

On die cache is orders of magnitude faster than regular ram. I have always thought that more cache would be a sensible addition when a process shrink give more available real estate.

marshray 13y ago
Sure but that's static RAM. DRAM has 50+ ns of latency no matter how close you put it to the chip. What they can do though is achieve more aggregate bandwidth without increasing package pin count. Perhaps this explains why Intel was willing to allow Ivy Bridge to have only half the memory bandwidth of the previous Sandy Bridge: just not that many (non-server) systems were ending up with the four DIMMs required for full bandwidth. So now they're integrating it into the package itself.
- sparky 13y ago
  > DRAM has 50+ ns of latency no matter how close you put it to the chip. This is not some fundamental law; it's entirely dependent on bitline and wordline capacitance (array size). For external DRAM chips, huge arrays make sense, and you end up with tens of ns of latency. In an eDRAM cache scenario, you use much smaller arrays, and in the case of the POWER7 L3, latency is more like 6ns (for row hits, of course).
  - marshray 13y ago
    It seems to me (you may know more about this than I do) that one can design a memory system to make latency for sequential addresses accesses arbitrarily small and this is mostly how (G)DDR(n) have improved overall performance. But random (row miss) accesses don't seem to have improved much. From early 1980's to early 2000's, DRAM latency went from 150 to 50 ns and has stayed around there since. That's 1-2 doublings of performance in that parameter in the last 30 years, compared to who-knows how many in transistor size and speed. Still, Intel knows what they're doing and I can see a place for (yet another) spot in the memory hierarchy before the CPU resort to off-package DRAM.
    - sparky 13y ago
      Yeah, given a predictable access pattern, latency can be completely hidden by prefetching. For an unpredictable access pattern, there's a physically imposed lower bound on random access latency, roughly proportional to the square root of the number of bits stored. There's a huge tradeoff space between latency, bandwidth, capacity, and cost, and market forces have forced a convergence around 2 design points, colloquially DDR and GDDR. For yield reasons, die area (cost) has been mostly fixed for a long time. Successive generations of DDR spend the dividends of Moore's Law primarily on extra capacity, then on a bit of additional bandwidth when possible. Successive of generations of GDDR prioritize bandwidth, primarily by dedicating tons of area to high-speed single-ended I/Os. These two design points make sense for their most common use cases. In traditional disk-based systems, avoiding hitting the disk is more important than absolute DRAM latency, so increasing capacity is your best bet. On GPUs, you need enough bandwidth to feed a quickly growing number of functional units on the chip, and at least for graphics, the access pattern can be made to be extremely predictable, so latency is not as important there. The advent of faster-than-HDD persistent storage (SSDs) and the desire to run more general purpose workloads on highly parallel machines like GPUs points to a need for a third DRAM design point.
      - wmf 13y ago
        There is RLDRAM, but I've heard that it's expensive.
        sparky 13y ago
        Yeah, there are a few specialized parts for networking, telecom equipment, defense, and other less cost-sensitive applications, but DDR and, to a lesser extent, GDDR dominate the market and enjoy much greater economies of scale.
      - marshray 13y ago
        Perhaps another factor is the software's difficulty to successfully utilize more than a couple of cores? I imagine Intel thinking "We're a couple of process steps ahead of everyone else, we should take advantage of that. But adding more cores in the same package has reached dimishing returns due to pin count and main memory bandwidth. Most applications won't utilize that 13th hyperthread anyway. So let's improve the memory subsystem from within the package."

wmf 13y ago

Obviously the main point is profit. But a Haswell GT3e will use much less board area than Haswell + discrete GPU + GDDR, while offering similar price and performance. The 13" MBPs are short on board area, so Apple should like this.

Symmetry 13y ago

technologies of integrating multiple chips with tons of connections and speed(2.5D and 3D integration) [are] closing by Just think of this move as part of the development of those technologies. And the $1 per 256 MByte doesn't apply to on chip integrated memory with high bandwidth.

MichaelSalib 13y ago

My spouse did her EE master's thesis on 3D integration. Trust me, the technology is definitely not close by.

ippisl 13y ago
Cool !. Maybe 3D isn't ready yet, but at least 2.5D integration is already in the market in FPGA's , and there's some claims from some companies[1] that it's ready for market for low cost applications. [1]http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-products/electronic-product-releases/microcontroller-mcu/4411509/Silex-Microsystems-and-BroadPak-Bring-2-5D-IC-Packaging-Capabilities-to-the-Mainstream-Market-through-Low-Cost-High-Performance-Silicon-Interposers http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-products/electronic-produ...