Why can ram run at higher voltages then cpu's?

[AshleighH42]

Hello everyone, I was just curious to why ram can run at 1.45-1.5V but cpu's cant do that, any ideas anyone?

[Constantin]

It's just the way it is....

[bill ni]

does it matter? its just the way they're made.

[Fakmykak]

Because they are a different piece of hardware, and that is just how it is. CPU's actually can run at 1.4-5v but you just need exotic cooling to make it stable/safe.

 

This is like asking why your car uses more gas than your lawnmower.......

[alatron978]

Not 100% sure, but i think its because of the lower current workload, lower temperature and larger process.

[bill ni]

a 486 can be ran at 5v. just saying.

[mariushm]

Because processors are very different inside compared to ram chips.

RAM chips are basically millions of rows and lots of columns of the same elements (some super tiny capacitors, some transistors etc and they run at lower frequencies (ex 3600 Mhz / 2 = 1800 mhz) and they're usually manufactured using larger (cheaper) processes like 12-22nm instead of 7nm as is the case with the latest Ryzen CPUs

 

Processors have lots of things mixed together, lots of very tiny transistors and mosfets that move data super fast between places inside the cpu, sram caches (memory), and lots of other things. As the manufacturing process is shrunk (for ex going to 7nm) these building blocks are also shrunk and also the distance between them is shrunk. With this shrinking it's no longer necessary to use so high voltage to reliably move signals around through the processor and in fact if you use too high voltage, these building blocks (mosfets, transistors etc) can actually become damaged because they're too small to survive the amount of localized heat produced by the excessive voltage.

 

Keep in mind that a processor running at 4 Ghz can produce up to 60-100 watts of heat in a tiny square or rectange, while a single memory stick only averages around 1-2 watts of power, and that's distributed across multiple tiny chips, usually 8 or 16  (because DDR4 is 64 bit wide and each chip is 8 bit wide, so you need 8 chips to read or write 64 bits at the same time). So, memory chips are much much simpler and don't heat up as much and their structure is so repetitive and uniform that they heat up more or less uniformly

 

If you're curious , here's how memory is inside... each tiny square in the chip on the left is around 2.5 mm wide - it's a 8 Gbit chip, so you need 8 such chips to make a 8 GB DDR4 stick:

In comparison here's a couple CPU dies, you can see how different they're inside :

ryzen 2200g/2400g  with integrated graphics ... the actual cpu is that CCX0 + memory controller + the stuff at the edges ... you can see how different those blocks are inside

 

 

intel skylake cpu:

 

 

[Fakmykak]

5 minutes ago, mariushm said:

 

If only intel got rid of the stupid iGPU 2 or 3 years ago, and filled it up with cores. They would still be relevant and Ryzen wouldn't be the "intel Killer" it is now. But noooo, they gotta keep the iGPU.

[bill ni]

4 minutes ago, Fakmykak said:

If only intel got rid of the stupid iGPU 2 or 3 years ago, and filled it up with cores. They would still be relevant and Ryzen wouldn't be the "intel Killer" it is now. But noooo, they gotta keep the iGPU.

It sucks so bad that they could shrink it and scale it back. not like it need to take up so much die space. not like people game on igpu, at lest not an intel.

[mariushm]

It's not so simple... they needed the integrated graphics to have quicksync and to make it easier for them to push thunderbolt

Apple needed thunderbolt and integrated graphics for their laptops, oems like dell and hp sell business pcs with integrated graphics, there's demand for that crap.

 

Also, they can't really just add cores...they'd have to redesign whole chip in order to keep distance between every core as small as possible so that if you have an application with 2 threads each on different cores, the app won't slow down so much if threads need to exchange data between them.

You can see in both cpu designs how the cpu cores are grouped around cache memory and each core is pretty much at same distance to the others.

 

Intel has some server chips with ring architectures, with mesh ... see https://www.servethehome.com/the-new-intel-mesh-interconnect-architecture-and-platform-implications/

 

[Fakmykak]

6 minutes ago, bill ni said:

It sucks so bad that they could shrink it and scale it back. not like it need to take up so much die space. not like people game on igpu, at lest not an intel.

 

I know this video is a bit long but start at 5:00 if yall aint got time. It explains pretty thoroughly what intel could have done to stop Ryzen in its tracks but. I dunno what intel was thinking. But the consumer desktop market is only like 10-15% of total sales, most of the sales are in the server market.

 

[Mira Yurizaki]

1 hour ago, AshleighH42 said:

Hello everyone, I was just curious to why ram can run at 1.45-1.5V but cpu's cant do that, any ideas anyone?

It depends on how the electronics were fabricated or designed. From what I know about transistors, a voltage is applied to what is essentially the "switch". How much voltage determines how much electricity can pass through the transistor.

 

The problem with adding too much voltage is if it's too high, it can let too much electricity pass through which can cause a burn-out. And while I'm not sure if this is really a problem, high enough voltages can cause insulation to break down, especially if it's really thin.

 

30 minutes ago, Fakmykak said:

If only intel got rid of the stupid iGPU 2 or 3 years ago, and filled it up with cores. They would still be relevant and Ryzen wouldn't be the "intel Killer" it is now. But noooo, they gotta keep the iGPU.

The mainstream lineup was to sell to as much people as possible. Not everyone needs a discrete GPU. You could argue that Intel could've just let the iGPU in lower performing processors, but there's still large market base for people who need processing power but not graphics power.

 

If you didn't have an iGPU, you'd have to tack on at least another $75 just to have video output.

[79wjd]

31 minutes ago, Fakmykak said:

If only intel got rid of the stupid iGPU 2 or 3 years ago, and filled it up with cores. They would still be relevant and Ryzen wouldn't be the "intel Killer" it is now. But noooo, they gotta keep the iGPU.

Removing the iGPU would be idiotic when the vast majority of consumers want an iGPU (or more specifically, don't care about a dGPU). Not to mention that for the vast majority of consumers, 2 cores is more than enough.

 

The enthusiast market accounts for such a tiny fraction of actual users.

[Fakmykak]

16 minutes ago, 79wjd said:

Removing the iGPU would be idiotic when the vast majority of consumers want an iGPU (or more specifically, don't care about a dGPU). Not to mention that for the vast majority of consumers, 2 cores is more than enough.

 

The enthusiast market accounts for such a tiny fraction of actual users.

Nobody is saying remove iGPU on ALL processors. Obviously intel should keep iGPU on i3 and i5 for certain markets. But do you really think i7  or i9 CPU's need iGPU? Cause I sure don't. 

[WkdPaul]

1 hour ago, Fakmykak said:

Nobody is saying remove iGPU on ALL processors. Obviously intel should keep iGPU on i3 and i5 for certain markets. But do you really think i7  or i9 CPU's need iGPU? Cause I sure don't. 

I personally use the iGPU on my i7 ... though seeing the CPU that were released without iGPU are running cooler, I would happily trade the iGPU to get lower heat on my 8700.

[79wjd]

2 hours ago, Fakmykak said:

Nobody is saying remove iGPU on ALL processors. Obviously intel should keep iGPU on i3 and i5 for certain markets. But do you really think i7  or i9 CPU's need iGPU? Cause I sure don't. 

Absolutely I do.