Intel Preparing Broadwell Launch For CES January 2015, Skylake Launch To Follow

[patrickjp93]

Thanks.

I read through it, and it still seems to be an assumption.

Because there have been alot of rumours regarding zen having both CMT and SMT (like oracles newer architecture).

I mean something like this:

It seems like a they assume AMD will drop CMT because they will adapt SMT.

1) the assumptions in that article have nothing to do with CMT and SMT, but rather the other details. There's also Keller's Appearances on YouTube with tek syndicate.

2) You can't really have CMT and SMT at the same time. That's extremely expensive chip design and not a price point AMD can sell at. Maybe in the Zen-based Opterons, but not consumer chips.

[Speedbird]

Looks interesting. Wonder what will replace the G3258? The G4258?

[vm'N]

1) the assumptions in that article have nothing to do with CMT and SMT, but rather the other details. There's also Keller's Appearances on YouTube with tek syndicate.

2) You can't really have CMT and SMT at the same time. That's extremely expensive chip design and not a price point AMD can sell at. Maybe in the Zen-based Opterons, but not consumer chips.

1) I'll look for the video when I come home

2) Easily. It does not need to be expensive, depends on their implementation of CMT.

[patrickjp93]

1) I'll look for the video when I come home

2) Easily. It does not need to be expensive, depends on their implementation of CMT.

Says the guy who refuses to admit that all the control logic around the ALU and FPU clusters is what makes a CPU hot. Have you seen the price of Oracle's chips? It's $1500 US for their lowest end quad core.

[vm'N]

Says the guy who refuses to admit that all the control logic around the ALU and FPU clusters is what makes a CPU hot. Have you seen the price of Oracle's chips? It's $1500 US for their lowest end quad core.

I dont recall refusing that. A quote would be nice.

Because sun is known for having cheap processors. [/sarcasm]

[ZmanFTW]

Well 2133 IS the data transfer rate. So you're literally saying 2133 is twice as much as 2133. Besides, transfer rate and bandwidth are directly proportional, they're two sides of the same coin.

 

Apart from power consumption, DDR4 is no better than DDR3 at the same data transfer rate or clock frequency. It's currently actually worse because of higher latency.

 

I agree that it is directly proportional but I do not agree that 2133 is twice 2133. I am not being understood or maybe I stated it wrong. If DDR4 is so much worse, then what about density 16GB DIMMS vs. 8GB DIMMS?!

[SurvivorNVL]

The more I learn and hear about Skylake, the less I want to upgrade to Haswell-E.  But skylake is likely to be later in 2015.. hmm.. wish I could fast-forward time to pick up a pair of Pascal GPU's and a Skylake-E >_>

[ZmanFTW]

This is MY understanding of data transfer rate:

SDRAM = 1 data set instruction per clock cycle
DDR = 2 data set instructions per clock cycle
DDR2 = 4 data set instructions per clock cycle
DDR3 = 8 data set instructions per clock cycle
DDR4 = 16 data set instructions per clock cycle

 

All I was trying to say is that they are not built the same way. The latency IS worse.

[Sakkura]

I agree that it is directly proportional but I do not agree that 2133 is twice 2133. I am not being understood or maybe I stated it wrong. If DDR4 is so much worse, then what about density 16GB DIMMS vs. 8GB DIMMS?!

 

You wrote that DDR4-2133 had twice the data rate of DDR3-2133. That is completely wrong, they have exactly the same data rate (2133 MT/s).

 

DDR4 is not 'so much worse', nobody's saying it is bad. It's just that right now, there's little benefit in it for consumer desktop computers. The lower power consumption doesn't matter, the potentially higher data rates don't matter, and the higher density doesn't matter either. Eventually DDR4 will become more affordable than DDR3, and latencies should also drop a little over time. Then DDR4 will be worth it. Even more so when we start seeing serious performance gains from going beyond the same old 2x4GB DDR3-1600 configuration.

 

This is MY understanding of data transfer rate:

SDRAM = 1 data set instruction per clock cycle

DDR = 2 data set instructions per clock cycle

DDR2 = 4 data set instructions per clock cycle

DDR3 = 8 data set instructions per clock cycle

DDR4 = 16 data set instructions per clock cycle

 

All I was trying to say is that they are not built the same way. The latency IS worse.

 

No.

 

SDR SDRAM = 1 data transfer per clock cycle

DDR SDRAM = 2 data transfers per clock cycle

DDR2 SDRAM = 2 data transfers per clock cycle

DDR3 SDRAM = 2 data transfers per clock cycle

DDR4 SDRAM = 2 data transfers per clock cycle

 

That is what DDR means in both DDR, DDR2, DDR3, and DDR4.

[ZmanFTW]

It seems you guys are right about DDR4 and I was definitely wrong. Although in my Hardware & Software Support class that is how we were taught, up to DDR3 anyway and I just assumed that transfer rate doubled again with DDR4. I know that DDR means double data rate and that is why I was a bit confused when they taught us that DDR2 was 4 data sets per clock cycle and DDR3 was 8. Thank you for setting me straight on data transfer rate though...never too old to learn!

 

...and apparently I am not the only one who thought this:

 

http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/difference-ddr2-ddr3-ram-technology-explained/

 

So DDR4 2133 is at least 30% to 40% faster than DDR3 1333 but so is DDR3 2133?! I am still going to want to upgrade to Skylake or Skylake-E regardless of how much DDR4 has been improved by then. There are just too many other advantages to Skylake.

 

What I am wondering about now is DDR4 behavior when overclocking. LGA 1155 is easier to get higher overclclocks stable with lower clocked RAM. Now that 2133 is the lowest for DDR4, I am curious how Haswell-E & RAM behave when overclocking...is it similar?