8 ms·
Crossbar Resistive RAM stores a terabyte on a chip
- sillysaurus 13y agoDoes anyone know if there has been progress in volatile memory tech? I'm hoping for 1TB RAM chips with 10x faster access times than current RAM. It will enable PC gaming to deliver unmatched immersive experiences, among other applications.
- rorrr2 13y agoGaming is limited by the CPU/GPU, and a bit by the bandwidth in between. Not by the RAM speed/latency.
- RyanZAG 13y agoNot strictly true. Most algorithm choices in gaming can make trade offs between CPU and RAM. If you increase available RAM, you can usually use algorithms that are more RAM hungry and less CPU hungry for large speed benefits.
- rorrr2 13y agoIf we're talking about game logic, I agree. If we're talking about rendering beautiful complex worlds with post-processed special effects, I disagree.
- sillysaurus 13y agoI'm a graphics programmer. The only reason to prefer the GPU is because it confers an advantage over the traditional CPU+RAM combination. There's nothing inherently special about a modern GPU. The GPU is a sequence of actions and abilities encoded into hardware, e.g. the ability to automatically perform various kinds of texture filtering transparently to the game developer. Since the GPU is hardware, and since hardware is less flexible than software, a graphics programmer would always prefer a software-based pipeline to a hardware-based one. The reason hardware pipelines are preferred is strictly because their advantages outweigh their disadvantages. Typically, using a GPU enables graphics programmers to create renderers which are 10-100x more efficient than software-based renderers, so the added flexibility of a software rasterizer tends to be forgotten in the face of massive efficiency enabled by the GPU. The GPU primarily became popular because (a) it offloaded part of the computation from the CPU to dedicated hardware, freeing up the CPU for other tasks like game logic, AI, and more recently physics computations (though nVidia is trying hard to convince developers that hardware-accelerated physics is a viable concept), (b) GPUs increased the amount of available memory, and (c) GPUs dramatically increased the throughput (memory operations per second) of graphics memory. Memory latency plays a key role in many modern graphics algorithms, such as voxel-based renderers. It's often the case that an algorithm needs to repeatedly cast rays against a voxel structure until hitting some kind of geometry. Therefore, within an individual pixel of the screen to be rendered, this type of algorithm can be hard to parallelize because typically the raycasting can't be broken up into parallelizable steps. It typically looks like, "While not hit: traceAlongRay();" for each pixel, each frame. I.e. this algorithm can only trace one section of the ray at a time before tracing the next. That raycasting algorithm is memory-latency-bound because it completes only when it finishes looking up enough memory locations that it detects the ray has intersected some 3D geometry. In other words, by reducing memory latency by 2x, and assuming memory bandwidth is sufficient, then this algorithm will complete twice as fast. This means instead of 24 frames per second, you might get 48 frames per second. So, all that said, if it becomes common to have 1TB of regular RAM with the latency and bandwidth traditionally offered by GPUs, along with a surplus of available CPU cores to offload computations to, then software renderers will once again become preferable to GPU renderers. A software pipeline will always be more flexible and easier to maintain than a hardware pipeline, simply because the featureset of the software pipeline isn't restricted to the capabilities of the videocard hardware it's executing on. It's also easier to debug and maintain. All of that means that it'll be easier for art pipelines to produce more complex, more immersive visual experiences than at present. But replacing the traditional GPU-based renderer with a CPU-based software renderer will only be practical if there's a major advance of RAM technology in the future, because current RAM tech can't match the memory bandwidth / latency of a modern GPU. Hence, any major developments in the area of volatile memory tech will be extremely interesting to graphics programmers.
- dragontamer 13y agohttp://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20130305060258_AMD_s_Fusion_Kaveri_APU_Supports_GDDR5_Memory_Report.html http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20130305060258_AMD_... AMD Kaveri CPU will support GDDR5 apparently. Furthermore, DDR4 is set to appear soon, with significant improvements in bandwidth / latency / power. So RAM tech may be lagging behind, but by 2014 or 2015, we'll start to see some interesting advances in RAM.
- ajuc 13y agoIn 1 TB of RAM you can keep without any compression 3d array 1000m * 1000m * 64m of voxels with 1 voxel being a cube 2 cm * 2 cm * 2 cm. And you can lookup it randomly with negligible latency and do real time raytracing on it. If that won't change games I don't know what can. Besides GPUs will obviously also use this technology if it really works.
- seanv 13y agothis needs to be higher up.. that's awesome to know! ... we might actually be able to emulate the Ps3 on the computer! hah
- Einherji 13y agoI don't know what is special about emulating a ps3 on a PC, most mainstream PCs and GPUs are faster than the Power-PC based cell processor in the ps3 (an 8 year old console). Even the ps4 does not contain any better graphics processing capabilities than a recent relatively high end PC.
- rorrr2 13y agoEven if you can look them up fast, doesn't mean you can run the raycasting logic fast enough on that amount of detail.
- julius 13y agoConsider moving around very fast in a very big world. 1 TB RAM would help alot :)
- Symmetry 13y agoAnd a large part of what makes a better GPU is RAM bandwidth. If you're using integrated graphics there actually tends to be a quite large difference between using system RAM clocked at 1066 and RAM clocked at 1866. If you're using a discrete GPU card the RAM that makes a difference to your gaming performance is already soldered onto the card, but that might still see an improvement from faster memory technologies since the people who make those cards could use it.
- rorrr2 13y agoI think you are confusing RAM speed and the bus/PCIe bandwidth.
- Symmetry 13y agoIf you're using integrated graphics there isn't any PCI bus involved. Even when graphics was off-die it was on the Southbridge. And the bandwidth between the GPU and the GDDR on the graphics card doesn't have anything to do with the PCI bus either, except to a small extent when synchronizing with the CPU or initially loading textures or whatever.
- rorrr2 13y agoApart from the cutting-edge APUs (like AMD Kaveri implementing hUMA), the memory of integrated GPUs and previous generation APUs was separate and copying chunks of it in between happened via the bus. Plus since we're talking about cutting-edge gaming, integrated graphics is irrelevant (and so are APUs).
- dualogy 13y agoEspecially if this can be accessed as VRAM directly and just as fast by the GPU. Infinite-detail fractal-resolution destructable-animatable voxel terrains come to mind (not the Minecraft kind of "voxel", mind)..
- Everlag 13y agoThe thing is at this point a lot of latency comes from the fact that each dimm is physically displaced from the cpu. When you are on a timescale of nanoseconds even electricity's speed can be slow when being compared to something like intel's l4 cache which is on-die. For any type of volatile memory that latency will exist until mobo designers move the ram closer to the cpu or adopt optical interfaces between parts. For some cool calculations that can put things in perspective take the speed of light as 299 792 458 m/s and take the time of a nanosecond as 10^-9 seconds to get ~0.3 m/ns for light. That means that for every third of a meter the dimms are away from the cpu means a constant 1ns delay in terms of latency.
- joe_the_user 13y agoI remember memristers were supposed to do something like this. Anyone have an idea if this is related or unrelated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memristor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memristor
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- jotm 13y agoWell, hopefully some competition will prompt Hynix to get the ball rolling, instead of just squeezing the last dollars out of current flash technology...
- pfraze 13y agoAs I understand it, one of the (more interesting) characteristics of memristors is that they can do computation. They don't mention anything like that here, so I doubt it.
- standel 13y agoMemristor do no computation at all. It follows the same idea as the described RRAM. High density, low cost, persistent, low power consumption, high write/read throughput, low latency. To the exception that it could even replace RAM, not only nand devices. I don't remember of the top of my head reading performance but it was clearly closer to RAM levels.
- bloaf 13y ago"Another possible application of memristors is logic circuits. Memristors can be used in hybrid CMOS-memristor circuits, or as a standalone logic gate. One notable logic application is using memristors in an FPGA, as configurable switches, connecting the CMOS logic gates." http://www.ece.rochester.edu/users/friedman/papers/ChipEx_11.pdf http://www.ece.rochester.edu/users/friedman/papers/ChipEx_11...
- ars 13y agoA memristor can do computation, but you don't have to do computation. Like like a regular transistor can be used for computation or ram.
- pfraze 13y ago> It can access that data 20 times faster than the best breed of flash memory > could also perform its storage functions at 20 times lower power > non-volatile > 10 times the endurance of NAND flash chips that it could replace If this is true, wow, but I have a hard time believing it.
- 31reasons 13y agoThey haven't mentioned the price or may be I missed it. That may be the important factor.
- kcorbitt 13y agoThey also don't compare the read speed (17 MB/s) to existing flash memory. They showcase an amazing write speed, but most applications access data a lot more frequently than they create it.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- wging 13y agoThey do say "It can access that data 20 times faster than the best breed of flash memory" but a rate of 17 MB/s means this is incorrect.
- keerthiko 13y agoThat is flipping amazing if true. Also, that "Crossbar Chip Design" graphic made me chuckle. It is nearly meaningless by itself, and is placed so far away from the context it's discussed in, it almost remains that way unless you're trying to connect it.
- redangstrom 13y agoLet's be cautiously optimistic. Every few years a new memory tech comes along with tons of articles about how it's going to displace the current one in only 2 years. (RRAM has been one of "the new ones" for years.) I'm not saying it won't happen, but on the journey from idea to millions of units, a test chip is just the beginning, and in the meantime, NAND is moving. Look at how slowly NAND has replaced rotating magnetic storage: it's been around since the 80's. Decades of iteration have brought it to a place where it's compelling for non-niche use cases.
- GravityWell 13y agoCrossbar believes it can write data to its chip at 140 megabytes per second, compared to 7 megabytes a second for flash. Read performance is 17 megabytes per second, with a random read latency of 30 nanoseconds. The write performance sounds good, but the read performance seems very low. Also I don't know where they get 7 megs per second for flash. Sounds like the picked the worst performer to compare to. I'd be more impressed if they had something on the market.
- WatchDog 13y agoThe numbers are fairly suspicious, they don't reference the density of the flash they are benchmarking or if they are behind controllers. Flash chips are generally multiplexed and behind a smart controller that compresses and and caches data, which can greatly effect the throughput numbers.
- rossjudson 13y agoLots of other stuff to know -- what's the BER (bit error rate), what's the programming model (page erase, like flash)? How many simultaneous reads can you push through? Writes? Can you halt an ongoing operation or change it mid-stream?
- Filligree 13y agoThey're talking about per-chip performance. Flash write performance really is that low - they get around it by spreading writes to multiple chips. Crossbar can do the same thing, in which case the same number of chips provide higher throughput. Read latency is not parallelisable, of course, so there'll be no way for flash to catch up there without making fundamental advances. That is, if all these numbers are correct.
- drcode 13y agoThis article makes a lot of extraordinary claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In this case, that means a reputable tech reporter from a reputable publication has to say "this is the real deal" before these guys can be taken seriously. (I'm not doubting that they have any tech, it's just that they seem to be promising something with no downsides, which in most cases means a marketing team has spun out of control.)
- standel 13y agoThis is a very competitive and huge market. Lot of companies running to obtain the next disruptive tehcnology/product. No one is really ahead of the others for now. So I guess it will be difficult to have any good tech reports without any marketing touch in it :)
- Alex3917 13y ago"This article makes a lot of extraordinary claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Does it? It just sounds like a normal memristor to me.
- standel 13y agoMemristor does not seem to be normal neither. Is there any on the market?
- wikiburner 13y agoNo, but they've been expected to be on the market any day now for the past year or two. HP's been doing tons of research and prep work in commercializing them: http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/31/hp-labs-teams-up-with-hynix-to-manufacture-memristors-plans-as/ http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/31/hp-labs-teams-up-with-hyn... http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/07/hp-memristors/ http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/07/hp-memristors/
- Alex3917 13y ago"They've been expected to be on the market any day now for the past year or two." The last I heard was second quarter 2014 by HP, that's been the release date for the last year or so. Supposedly they could release them now, but they are trying to time the market for business reasons.
- guelo 13y agoAccording to the wikipedia article on RRAM there are several companies working to bring this tech to market. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistive_random-access_memory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistive_random-access_memory
- Symmetry 13y agoGiven the graphic on the top a chip with 8 GByte at 77mm^2 I have no idea where they're getting the "Terabyte on a chip" thing. Unless the mean a Terabyte on a 200 mm die?
- ars 13y agoThey probably mean TB for the whole device, and each chip is smaller. This could also be a picture of an earlier model.
- solistice 13y agoAlso they're stacking the device 3 dimensionally, so they could be referring to 125 layers of 8gb RRAM, which would spit out the 1TB number.
- joenathan 13y agoFTA: "The company can put a terabyte of data, or about 250 hours of high-definition movies, on a single chip that is smaller than the equivalent flash memory chip (as pictured at top)."
- mdaniel 13y agoHow appropriate that this article and the following comic come out on the same day: http://thedoghousediaries.com/5275 http://thedoghousediaries.com/5275 (Amazing Scientific Breakthroughs)
- MarcScott 13y agoInteresting to see that Samsung started mass production of their 3D NAND memory yesterday. http://www.engadget.com/2013/08/05/samsung-ships-first-3d-vertical-nand-flash/ http://www.engadget.com/2013/08/05/samsung-ships-first-3d-ve...
- touristtam 13y agomaybe a more tech oriented article would have been preferable: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/08/05/crossbar_uncloaks_fast_tiny_capacious_rram_part/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/08/05/crossbar_uncloaks_fa... (venturebeat sounds like a investor magazine to me)
- nshepperd 13y agoIt's nice to see memristors bearing fruit (or about to soon) finally.
- gr3yh47 13y ago" It could also perform its storage functions at 20 times lower power, extending the battery life of devices using it to weeks, months, or years. " no, reducing RAM power 20x does not extend battery life of devices to weeks. Anything with a screen or active antenna will likely not see much of a difference
- megablast 13y agoI used to think the same, but with the new Intel chip, you can now get about 12 hours out of a macbook air.
- alphakappa 13y agoWhere does the extra battery life come from? The CPU? Graphics? Better RAM? Better wifi/BT? Software improvements in the OS and apps to use power more efficiently? Lower power screen? Battery life is affected by such a multitude of components that it's hard to extrapolate savings in one component to the battery life of the complete device.
- dzhiurgis 13y agoThe damn beast doesn't even heat up when yes > /dev/null
- Einherji 13y agoYes, but that has nothing to do with the RAM. Processors take a significant chunk of the platform power while RAM in almost all cases does not anymore.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- contingencies 13y agoSad to think of the implications for the NSA.