News Invensas to present xFD DRAM breakthrough

[brumgrunt]

Invensas is to present a new breakthrough in its xFD packaging technology for high-density DRAM.

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardwar...sas-xfd-dram/1

[Mongoose132]

Interesting AND looks like a smiley face

[Gareth Halfacree]

Originally Posted by Mongoose132

Interesting AND looks like a smiley face

I hadn't seen that. Now, what has been seen cannot be un-seen...

[Tangster]

Yay! 128GB RAM configs! Nah, seriously, the more RAM the better imo, I can always use more.

[schmidtbag]

Originally Posted by Tangster

Yay! 128GB RAM configs! Nah, seriously, the more RAM the better imo, I can always use more.

not true at all, i'm not really sure what the limit is on triple-channel but on dual channel, once you reach 12gb you actually start to slow down your computer. i'm guessing triple channel would start slowing down at 18gb, which is more than enough for anybody (even 12 is unnecessary).

sure ram is relatively cheap these days but ever since windows vista came out, people started to act like 3gb should be the bare minimum, and some people seem to find 2gb to be incredibly small. being a linux user, i'm amazed how little MS is doing about this memory problem. on my netbook, i could get away with using 512mb and i'd have to TRY using up that much. windows 7 64 bit will use up that much before you reach the desktop, even when turning off things like prefetching. what a waste.

[r3loaded]

Originally Posted by schmidtbag

sure ram is relatively cheap these days but ever since windows vista came out, people started to act like 3gb should be the bare minimum, and some people seem to find 2gb to be incredibly small. being a linux user, i'm amazed how little MS is doing about this memory problem. on my netbook, i could get away with using 512mb and i'd have to TRY using up that much. windows 7 64 bit will use up that much before you reach the desktop, even when turning off things like prefetching. what a waste.

You obviously don't know much about how memory management works in modern operating systems. The whole idea is to populate the RAM by prefetching code in so it can be executed with less delay since reading from RAM is much faster than from storage. If the memory is needed by an intensive process, it can be freed almost instantaneously for use by that process (prefetched data is simply forgotten, while user data is typically paged if there are no free blocks available at all). Holding data in memory does not affect performance, and the kernel is usually smart enough to scale with the available memory in the system.

There are three upshots from this:
1) More memory is always better for performance
2) Unused memory is wasted memory
3) Don't try to second-guess the kernel's memory management system

[schmidtbag]

Originally Posted by r3loaded

You obviously don't know much about how memory management works in modern operating systems. The whole idea is to populate the RAM by prefetching code in so it can be executed with less delay since reading from RAM is much faster than from storage. If the memory is needed by an intensive process, it can be freed almost instantaneously for use by that process (prefetched data is simply forgotten, while user data is typically paged if there are no free blocks available at all). Holding data in memory does not affect performance, and the kernel is usually smart enough to scale with the available memory in the system.

There are three upshots from this:
1) More memory is always better for performance
2) Unused memory is wasted memory
3) Don't try to second-guess the kernel's memory management system

You obviously didn't read my post accurately - I explicitly mentioned Windows is so memory consuming with prefetching OFF.

1. As I also mentioned before, no, it isn't. If you use more than your memory controller can handle (such as 12GB on dual channel) then you start to lose performance, I can find proof for that if you like. But even in a triple-channel memory system, lets say you have 16GB and all you're doing is playing 1 game after booting the computer. Having that much RAM is not going to improve your performance AT ALL if you're not even using 4GB, including buffers, cache, ramdisks, etc. The amount of RAM you have can only make your system less slow, it cannot improve performance beyond a certain point - this has also been proven.

2. I agree, but bloated programs also waste memory. Lets use file browsers for example. Lets say we have 2 file browsers with generally all the same features and both are proven to be stable. Program A uses 75MB of RAM when operating. Program B uses 25MB. Whether you prefetch those programs or not, you're still wasting memory on program A. Program A might be a little more flashy looking, but for someone like me, I'd rather use something that is functional rather than pretty. Besides, the more memory a program consumes, technically speaking, the slower it will be to load and to operate (even if it is on a nanoscopic level).
This is exactly what my problem is with Windows - the actual memory in use by software. Linux will use up 100% of RAM for caching - I don't have a problem with prefetching or caching. What I have a problem with is the bloated code. It also ends up with more HDD usage, which in turn causes slower load times.
Using bloated software that takes a long time to load and is more memory consuming isn't worth using over something just as good (maybe better) that has a smaller footprint. Just because you have the capacity it doesn't mean you're REQUIRED fill it. You could just simply pay less for a lower capacity if its THAT big of a deal to you to fill it all up.

3. I never did, don't second-guess me by thinking I'm just making things up.


If you find this disagreeable then you're probably too wealthy to see that there's a fine line between function and efficiency. Again, I'm not saying caching or prefetching is inefficient, because it is efficient. Its the programs themselves that Windows prefetch that are inefficient.

[Malfrex]

Originally Posted by schmidtbag

not true at all, i'm not really sure what the limit is on triple-channel but on dual channel, once you reach 12gb you actually start to slow down your computer. i'm guessing triple channel would start slowing down at 18gb, which is more than enough for anybody (even 12 is unnecessary).

The only way I could, in a remote way, see having more RAM resulting in a slowdown is the fact that as you get to larger module sizes they tend to have looser timings and if you're into over-clocking unless you're willing to drop large sums of money (things which tend to go hand-in-hand) the modules *can* have a slower timing.

I work in the VFX industry and we have had tests where a composite might finish a few seconds faster on a system with less RAM on it, since the additional isn't required but there is no benefit of having half your render farm with reduced RAM to shave off a few seconds but then are unable to do any of the large FX renders because of the reduced RAM. We have 24GB workstations, 48GB render nodes. Oh, and we run Linux.

There's a reason with SSDs it would be better if they could communicate directly with the BUS rather than going through SATA3/PCIe - they would be able to run faster and run more like system RAM. It will happen in our lifetimes, and it will be amazing.

[Paradigm Shifter]

For most people, extreme amounts of RAM are pointless. Obviously, members of this forum feel that it's pointless even for them (enthusiasts)... which is fair enough. Eventually, though, we'll look back on 4GB of RAM like we currently look back on 4MB of RAM. For example; the first linux distro I ever toyed with ran perfectly well (with GUI) on 8MB of RAM. Now, not even TinyCore or MicroCore can fit in that.

But there are a fair number of areas where software eats both CPU cycles and RAM for breakfast and then demands more. And more. And more.

That's where this is going to be advantageous... which is good, as it'll probably be exorbitantly expensive for the first couple of generations anyway!

[schmidtbag]

@Malfrex
I was mostly referring to home PCs, I'm aware that even 24GB is small (in some cases, tiny) for servers or supercomputers. I believe you might be correct in your assumption, but I think it also has something to do with the memory controller being unable to address RAM efficiently to a certain level. Think of it like playing a guitar - people are able to play 6-strings, 8-strings, and even 12-strings, but there's only so much your 1 hand can do until it becomes too difficult. So I like to think of memory controllers as hands and the amount of memory as the strings. If you've got 3 hands, you can play 12 strings a lot easier than you could with 2.

@Paradgim Shifter
I agree, but this is exactly my complaint - software these days acts like it owns your entire computer, when I've seen plenty of alternatives that do the same thing much more efficiently. If I didn't see the alternatives, then I wouldn't complain because that would mean that its really time to move on. Yes, I'm sure some day 4GB will be seen as a small amount but RAM isn't multiplying in size so much anymore, but VRAM is which I think is great.

[[-Stash-]]

Originally Posted by schmidtbag

sure ram is relatively cheap these days but ever since windows vista came out, people started to act like 3gb should be the bare minimum, and some people seem to find 2gb to be incredibly small. being a linux user, i'm amazed how little MS is doing about this memory problem. on my netbook, i could get away with using 512mb and i'd have to TRY using up that much. windows 7 64 bit will use up that much before you reach the desktop, even when turning off things like prefetching. what a waste.

Not sure how I installed and happily ran Win7 x64 with Opera on my ancient Acer Aspire 1 ZG5 - yeah, the 8GB SuperSlowDisk with 512MB RAM Linpus-based one…

Also, you try running 7 odd browsers, 3-5 virtual machines and half the Adobe CS5.5 apps at the same time - even 12GB RAM starts feeling a little tight then. Just try throwing around 24mp RAW files in your 512MB RAM linux system and see how quickly you think "640kb memory should be enough for anyone"! Oh sorry, wrong person

Even from a home point of view there's several games that benefit from more than 4GB RAM. Hell, if you're a heavy web user, there's several BROWSERS that benefit from more than 4GB RAM! Basically, once you start moving beyond single tasking, it's well worth having more memory, even in Linux - which you wouldn't be running on a "home computer"

Written from my 12GB RAM Windows 7 machine.

[schmidtbag]

Originally Posted by [-Stash-]

Also, you try running 7 odd browsers, 3-5 virtual machines and half the Adobe CS5.5 apps at the same time - even 12GB RAM starts feeling a little tight then. Just try throwing around 24mp RAW files in your 512MB RAM linux system and see how quickly you think "640kb memory should be enough for anyone"! Oh sorry, wrong person

Yeah, like the average person really does that. No offense but unless you have a GOOD reason to do all those things at once, it'd be a lot more logical and efficient and cost effective if you just didn't multitask to that level. Unless you have at least 6 monitors and at least 3 sets of mice and keyboard, you or anyone else is not going to be actively operating all those tasks at the same time, and I'm getting the impression that many of those things you mentioned are not related. For example, if you've got 3 virtual machines out, chances are they don't have any significant immediate relation to your Adobe programs. Yes, your 12GB might help you do all that but multitasking to the point where you can't even see half of what you're doing is completely pointless. If you're doing it to save time from loading things, you can still do a VM snapshot or save a browser session.

Even from a home point of view there's several games that benefit from more than 4GB RAM. Hell, if you're a heavy web user, there's several BROWSERS that benefit from more than 4GB RAM! Basically, once you start moving beyond single tasking, it's well worth having more memory, even in Linux - which you wouldn't be running on a "home computer"

Written from my 12GB RAM Windows 7 machine.

True, but nearly every game doesn't NEED more than 4GB, especially if you're not a multitasking fiend. As of right now, firefox is the only severely memory bloated browser. And browsers are no different than your previous scenario - realistically, nobody is going to have 30+ tabs open at a time in an everyday situation.

I agree with the fact that more memory means better multitasking, but there is definetly such thing as running too much at a time.

[Blazza181]

Finally I can live up to Weird Al, with his 100GB of RAM....

[Gareth Halfacree]

Originally Posted by Blazza181

Finally I can live up to Weird Al, with his 100GB of RAM....

Only if you never feed trolls and you don't read spam. (Is it bad that I knew what you were talking about right away?)

[Blazza181]

Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree

Only if you never feed trolls and you don't read spam. (Is it bad that I knew what you were talking about right away?)

Mate, anyone who knows that it's all about the Pentiums is awesome.

[yougotkicked]

Personally, I think programs SHOULD use more RAM, but I completely agree with schmidtbag when he says windows (and much of it's compatible software) is bloated. I would like to see the memory that gets used put to better use. all the extra little eye-candy is not pointless in my opinion, when I use my computer I don't want to feel like I'm using windows 2000. RAM is dirt cheap right now, so I don't see why programs don't have more features to take use of it. certainly they should be disabled by default so user's with lower end and older computers don't suffer the performance hit, but I don't see why we should be conservative with a resource we have so much of.

I have to say though, I'm with [-Stash-] when it comes to multitasking. I frequently run two different browsers, a media player, steam, a text editor with ~10 different files open, a virtual machine, and a host of desktop mods. all of which I leave open when I feel like playing a game. I could make do with 2gb of memory if i really wanted to, but then I would have to go about losing all my programs whenever I needed to do something RAM intensive, and re-open them when I'm done. Or I could spend a little more (key word being little, RAM is super cheap right now), and probably save myself an hour a day. I think my time is worth that much, and I don't think programmers (like myself) need to spend an extra week revising their code to reduce it's memory footprint by 20Mb.

[schmidtbag]

Originally Posted by yougotkicked

Personally, I think programs SHOULD use more RAM, but I completely agree with schmidtbag when he says windows (and much of it's compatible software) is bloated. I would like to see the memory that gets used put to better use. all the extra little eye-candy is not pointless in my opinion, when I use my computer I don't want to feel like I'm using windows 2000. RAM is dirt cheap right now, so I don't see why programs don't have more features to take use of it. certainly they should be disabled by default so user's with lower end and older computers don't suffer the performance hit, but I don't see why we should be conservative with a resource we have so much of.

I have to say though, I'm with [-Stash-] when it comes to multitasking. I frequently run two different browsers, a media player, steam, a text editor with ~10 different files open, a virtual machine, and a host of desktop mods. all of which I leave open when I feel like playing a game. I could make do with 2gb of memory if i really wanted to, but then I would have to go about losing all my programs whenever I needed to do something RAM intensive, and re-open them when I'm done. Or I could spend a little more (key word being little, RAM is super cheap right now), and probably save myself an hour a day. I think my time is worth that much, and I don't think programmers (like myself) need to spend an extra week revising their code to reduce it's memory footprint by 20Mb.

Well, that's your preference and I'm fine with that. I have no problem with eye candy, but I feel like it should be optional. Thats one of the things I like so much about linux - you can customize the overall appearance of things to be really amazing, but you can keep it simple if you want an efficient system. It also has many alternatives, so you aren't forced to be stuck with a big memory footprint like Windows 64 bit. I'm a programmer myself and I care about making my stuff as compatible as possible. I'm working on a large-scale linux-based robot that I intend to be operable within 256MB (the robot itself might come with 512MB). My point is, why fill up all that memory with bloated software when you could use it for something else? I have about 30 services in my windows 7 setup disabled just because I don't use them. In linux, I have maybe 3 disabled, because I only install what I need.

But I need to ask, if the programs are pretched, why is it a big deal to just re-open them? Is sacrificing 1-3 seconds really that big of a deal? You waste time searching for the program in the taskbar too, y'know. To me, I can't handle the cluttered mess of 20 things in my taskbar.

[[-Stash-]]

Originally Posted by schmidtbag

Yeah, like the average person really does that.

And how would you know what the mythical, I might add, "average person" does – Mister Linux on a Netbook?

Originally Posted by schmidtbag

No offense...

None taken.

Originally Posted by schmidtbag

...but unless you have a GOOD reason to do all those things at once, it'd be a lot more logical and efficient and cost effective if you just didn't multitask to that level.

How else do you develop and build a website that has to be tested on IE6, 7, 8, 9, Firefox3+, Chrome, Safari, iOS, Blackberry, and Android? When you're working from print files and DSLR photos/video?

Originally Posted by schmidtbag

Unless you have at least 6 monitors and at least 3 sets of mice and keyboard, you or anyone else is not going to be actively operating all those tasks at the same time, and I'm getting the impression that many of those things you mentioned are not related.

No, only two monitors, one keyboard and two mice (I have RSI surprisingly and changing grips helps control it). And yes, they are related, see above Also, who said anything about operating them all at the same time. I'm human, I can't multitask, I can only task switch.

Originally Posted by schmidtbag

For example, if you've got 3 virtual machines out,

IE6, 7 and 8 running under WinXP, yes?

Originally Posted by schmidtbag

chances are they don't have any significant immediate relation to your Adobe programs.

Apart from maybe the graphics that appear on the websites that are created from RAW files, PDFs, AI files and the 1080p footage from the Canon 5D MKII that's being edited down for a little video piece? No, not really very related at all.

Originally Posted by schmidtbag

Yes, your 12GB might help you do all that but multitasking to the point where you can't even see half of what you're doing is completely pointless.

Ah thank you! I knew I was doing something wrong – and now I have been enlightened by your great internet wisdom!

Originally Posted by schmidtbag

If you're doing it to save time from loading things, you can still do a VM snapshot or save a browser session.

Even with a 240GB Vertex3 and a 2600K it takes time to load things, especially if you had so little RAM you had to swap to your page file each time you wanted to open a new app Yes, it might only take 3-5 seconds to fire up VMWare and an IE6 machine (running 512MB, oh the irony), but you know how long it takes if it's running to alt-tab to it? Less than a second.

Now switch back and forth a couple of hundred times in a day and things really start to add up. Not to mention, I personally find those few seconds distracting when I'm focusing on a problem or a design.

Originally Posted by schmidtbag

True, but nearly every game doesn't NEED more than 4GB

Nearly every DOS game doesn't need more than 16MB RAM. Your point?

Originally Posted by schmidtbag

As of right now, firefox is the only severely memory bloated browser.

My 3GB consuming Chrome wishes to contest that. I actually find Firefox uses less RAM than Chrome now, and has for a few months. Chrome's still the fastest in use – possibly it just uses more RAM better, who knows?

Originally Posted by schmidtbag

And browsers are no different than your previous scenario – realistically, nobody is going to have 30+ tabs open at a time in an everyday situation.

What a wonderful opinion you have. What, prey tell, is an "everyday situation" for everyone?

I'm not all that special, I know plenty of people who use a computer heavily because it is their livelihood. Hell, I even know a writer who mainly uses Word along with Chrome, Adobe Reader and VLC and she keeps hitting the 3GB limit on her 13" laptop because she needs multiple documents and audio files open simultaneously in order to properly research what she's writing about.

Originally Posted by schmidtbag

I agree with the fact that more memory means better multitasking, but there is definetly such thing as running too much at a time.

Is there? Who decides what's "definitely" too much at a time? Is what's too much for you the same as what's too much for me?

At the end of the day, many people use computers in completely different ways. Some of us are special, unique, beautiful snowflakes. Computers can multitask, so why not let them do more at once, so I only have to think about one thing at a time? If I can have all the apps open that I'm going to use that day, why not have them sitting open in memory? Why should I waste my time opening and closing them all day and wasting valuable seconds each time – even with an SSD? Have you ever tried encoding 1080 video? 12GB RAM isn't enough for that! Don't believe me?

Final thought – but why is it that on every news piece that says "yay, tech's improved again" there's *always* someone who takes the time and effort to post on a tech enthusiast site "bah humbug, I don't see the point of new/faster/bigger/better/cheaper tech – what we had five years ago is still fast enough for my use case, so there can't possibly anyone who needs more than me"? I mean seriously – isn't it a good thing people? Also, if stuff's good enough for you, great, yay you, give yourself a cookie, but don't tell other people that they don't need it – how the hell do you know?

Peace.

P.S. Bit Tech, you trying to drive me to an ad blocker with those &%$ing undertone ad monstrosities?

[nhojnomis]

I completely agree with everything -Stash- has written.

I'm not an it professional, although I am a designer. A quick look at my taskbar reveals I have :

2 chrome sessions open, each with 30+ tabs,
Firefox with 15+ tabs
Spotify
Thunderbird
Skype
VM running 2(xp) and 1 (98) machines
Photoshop
Inkscape
Open office on 3 documents
Cyberghost VPN
jDownloader

I need RAM, and lots of it. There is no way that I'm going to close and restart each application as use demands. Commutatively over a year I'd loose days.

Just because 4 years ago I'd have thought that I was excessive in my program usage it doesn't make that the case now. Computer use changes and we find new uses and expand into new technology as it becomes available.

P.S. That usage is my typical evening setup. When I'm working during the day it skyrockets even further

[rogerrabbits]

Cooool I can have 200gig of ram to play all my favourite console ports.