• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Any new news on DDR4 and AMD chips?

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

Niku-Sama

Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2005
was curious, I have been looking and thought there might be some new news considering its not 2014 and the release of DDR4 as system memory is coming up soon.
was about to consider an upgrade with my tax money but I think i'll hold off till some info comes around.

so does any one have any info on any upcoming amd ddr4 support?
 
Doubt we'll see DDR4 this year.

And if we do "see" it, it will be from the looking glass of APU processors.
 
Doubt we'll see DDR4 this year.

And if we do "see" it, it will be from the looking glass of APU processors.

AMD has created enough ill will in the hardcore ranks by its' move to APU and no steamroller desktop cpus. I doubt if they want to tick off the APU crowd by forcing them to get a new motherboard right off the bat even if the Kaveri cpu has a DDR4 supporting IMC in it.

If I had Trinity and bought FM2+ for the Kaveri and bought Kaveri and then had to get a new board for DDR4...go on AMD pee on everyone.
RGone...
 
AMD has created enough ill will in the hardcore ranks by its' move to APU and no steamroller desktop cpus. I doubt if they want to tick off the APU crowd by forcing them to get a new motherboard right off the bat even if the Kaveri cpu has a DDR4 supporting IMC in it.

If I had Trinity and bought FM2+ for the Kaveri and bought Kaveri and then had to get a new board for DDR4...go on AMD pee on everyone.
RGone...

This is exactly how it rolled out last time.

AM2+ was to support FX processors. Meaning 790FX chipsets and newer. Had a perfectly good M4A79T Deluxe at the time of FX release and they wouldn't give out a simple bios update to support the FX cpus.

Funny how we can still run 7 series boards (low end ones at that) and still support FX processors because it was too late the boards where produced and sold before AMD put the fire out on that one.

Was not a happy camper about it then, and still kinda think it's bogus. I always thought the 7 series chipsets OC'ed the best.
 
The viability of DDR4 for the consumer is way the hell off because we don't even use most of the DDR3 we have now. The only advantage of DDR4 would be:
1. Lower voltage parts
2. Bigger bandwidth for those tasks that use it.
But of course, both of those support the mobile APU scene right now so you might see it there first.

Just theory. I haven't read much on DDR4 recently.
 
To be honest AMD can't even use full DDR3 power so who needs DDR4 ... to raise prices ? I see no point in DDR4 unless AMD make good memory controllers.
Also 1st DDR4 = higher clock , worse latency = will be slower than current DDR3.
 
To be honest AMD can't even use full DDR3 power so who needs DDR4 ... to raise prices ? I see no point in DDR4 unless AMD make good memory controllers.
Also 1st DDR4 = higher clock , worse latency = will be slower than current DDR3.

What do you mean by full power?

I think AMD is trying to get you to "Use" the "full power" by software ram disk'ing.

Like this here?

http://www.amd.com/US/PRODUCTS/DESKTOP/RADEON-MEMORY/Pages/ramdisk-overview.aspx

The only excuse for not using memory fully is the users fault. There above is one great way to utilize un-used ram.
 
I thought DDR4 will be for LGA2011 or similar extreme-Intel line?

It might happen there first, but no doubt it'll spread to an AMD platform eventually. In fact, AMD might be able to utilize the better RAM for its onboard graphics and HSA capabilities more so than Intel (unless they're hiding things up their sleeve).

Like this here?

http://www.amd.com/US/PRODUCTS/DESKT...-overview.aspx

The only excuse for not using memory fully is the users fault. There above is one great way to utilize un-used ram.

Ooooooooo... Nice! :thup:
Of course I could have just looked around for it harder, but you just saved me the trouble!
 
What do you mean by full power?

I think AMD is trying to get you to "Use" the "full power" by software ram disk'ing.

Like this here?

http://www.amd.com/US/PRODUCTS/DESKTOP/RADEON-MEMORY/Pages/ramdisk-overview.aspx

The only excuse for not using memory fully is the users fault. There above is one great way to utilize un-used ram.

I mean that RAM can make ~25-30GB/s on Intel and ~12-20GB/s on AMD ... so something isn't right with AMD memory controller performance.

RAM Disk isn't changing anything. It's only additional feature to make system faster and use spare RAM that you are not using for anything else.

Simply when DDR4 will be introduced and AMD won't improve memory controllers then expect the same low memory bandwidth but also lower access time as DDR4 is going to start from 2133 CL14 or CL15.

Look how now memory is acting on AMD. If you won't overclock CPU-NB ( so memory controller clock ) then it hits a wall at ~15GB/s or something not much higher. Results in new benchmarks are higher just because of multithreading ( like AIDA64 4.0+ ).
 
You're absolutely bang on Woomack, I didn't realize how big the gap was till I used both and it's staggering really. If AMD could solve that they'd be a hardcore contender with 8 cores and cache/mem performance Intel wouldn't stand a chance. I hear all the fpu AND INTEGER CRAP MBUT IT COMES DOWN TO LINKING AND amd DROPS THE BALL BETWEEN cpu AND rAM.
 
I mean that RAM can make ~25-30GB/s on Intel and ~12-20GB/s on AMD ... so something isn't right with AMD memory controller performance.

RAM Disk isn't changing anything. It's only additional feature to make system faster and use spare RAM that you are not using for anything else.

Simply when DDR4 will be introduced and AMD won't improve memory controllers then expect the same low memory bandwidth but also lower access time as DDR4 is going to start from 2133 CL14 or CL15.

Look how now memory is acting on AMD. If you won't overclock CPU-NB ( so memory controller clock ) then it hits a wall at ~15GB/s or something not much higher. Results in new benchmarks are higher just because of multithreading ( like AIDA64 4.0+ ).

Bolded and underlined, that's what I was talking about.

OK bandwidth....

So DDR4 would still be an improvement over current 15 GB/s speeds correct?
 
If memory controllers won't change but add only DDR4 support then max bandwidth won't change.
Even Phenoms had not much worse memory controllers than FX series ( if we look at performance not max clock ) but their clock was lower so they had ~10-12GB/s vs ~15GB/s and earlier series were supporting DDR2 also up to 10GB/s+.

APU is using faster memory but is also not scalling good, much above 2133. Memory controllers in these series are also bad and DDR4 also won't help them if there won't be any serious change in the chip.
Even though memory is helping APU much more than regular CPUs, then memory bandwidth isn't higher and what's worse, is shared between CPU and GPU units.

AMD is almost not improving their performance for a long years ( if you look at clock to clock performance then it's even worse ). They only added higher clocks and additional features that no one cares about.
There are RAM Disk versions available for free in the web so it's nothing special. If it was so great then all would use it for years.

DDR4 wouldn't be so fast on the market if not memory manufacturers who are pushing Intel to make faster premiere. New product = higher profit. As we all see, Hynix, Samsung and Micron who have maybe 95% market are not really improving their DDR3 (or GDDR5 ) for over a year but they also keep high prices.
There is no real need to introduce DDR4 now or even in 1-2 years.
No one really cares about lower power ... 0.3W power difference will let your notebook run 2h more ? Also performance won't change as even now we see 0-3% difference in daily use between 1600 and 2400 memory and anything above 2400 is more like 0% gain.
Where we could use DDR4 ? Probably only in servers where overclocking or higher speeds are locked. DDR3 ECC memory is available till 1600 or maybe 1866 for latest series but I haven't seen them in distribution. Since all server memory runs at JEDEC settings then you can expect some improvement between 1600 11-11-11 and 2133 14-14-14.
 
You know "Woomack" what you have written has brought a somewhat more clear focus of some things into my personal view.

After all these years, AMD has still not really done much for actual memory bandwidth. Oh they have claimed support for the moves from various DDR ram to the next level but almost any gain was not from better ram handling at the the chip level but from an increase in ram speed and cpu speeds.

I know you wrote this >> "you can expect some improvement between 1600 11-11-11 and 2133 14-14-14" << but I wonder if that "some" is more like barely an improvement. I can remember seeing the calculations for actual available thruput of ram back when we were all wondering about the move to DDR3 from DDR2. In most instances that was a move from DDR2-800 to DDR3-1333. For the actual performance of the ram to remain on an equal footing at that big speed increase, the Cas had to be 7 for the DDR3-1333.

Here again I need to make sure we are still speaking most directly to the AMD side of things and we have DDR3-2400 ram aimed at AMD and when not shared in an APU, does very little overall since the faster ram loosens the timings and the speed gain results in next to no performance increase.

Now stopping to actually think on what I said, I more fully recognize what you have said to be more true than I first paid attention to. Nearly the only people or users that might gain from DDR4 are those using Intel setups and that includes servers which you mention above. The majority of servers being Intel based, might benefit from DDR4 ram but for the rest of us, DDR4 ram will be just another move to sell newer technology and make what we have today move another step toward obsolescence. We will not truly gain a boost other than a minor increase from just the increase in bandwidth of newer ram but not from any design that takes advantage of newer tech at the hardware level.

Now I see a little more clearly that there are differnces between AMD and Intel that are not so often addressed easily or noted so easily. More easily seen now why the old saying that tight timings is the way to go with AMD, still holds sway after all these years. It is a design thing.

Thanks man.
RGone...
 
I know you wrote this >> "you can expect some improvement between 1600 11-11-11 and 2133 14-14-14" << but I wonder if that "some" is more like barely an improvement. I can remember seeing the calculations for actual available thruput of ram back when we were all wondering about the move to DDR3 from DDR2. In most instances that was a move from DDR2-800 to DDR3-1333. For the actual performance of the ram to remain on an equal footing at that big speed increase, the Cas had to be 7 for the DDR3-1333.

It was just like a quick thought and more about Intel than AMD as I had no chance to test AMD servers for couple of years ( simply no one is buying them in Poland ). Maximum theoretical bandwidth will be higher but lower latency may cause that general performance won't change between 1600 and 2133. Hard to say but even though single channel performance can be worse then we still don't know if DDR4 for servers will provide more channels or wider bus or anything else so in multi CPU config total memory speed can be higher.
 
It was just like a quick thought and more about Intel than AMD as I had no chance to test AMD servers for couple of years ( simply no one is buying them in Poland ). Maximum theoretical bandwidth will be higher but lower latency may cause that general performance won't change between 1600 and 2133. Hard to say but even though single channel performance can be worse then we still don't know if DDR4 for servers will provide more channels or wider bus or anything else so in multi CPU config total memory speed can be higher.

Would AMD benefit from say quad channel memory?

Good infos, keep it rolling! Learning a lot here!
 
All depends ... at the moment AMD has too slow controller so no matter if you add channels or not it won't use full DDR3 bandwidth. Check results in single threaded memory benchmarks like maxxmem preview. If I remember it correctly then single channel was ~12GB/s while dual ~15GB/s max without oc. I would expect that 4 channels AMD could reach dual channel Intel bandwidth.
 
Back