Samsung Touts 4GHz Memory for Graphics Cards

jmke · 21st February 2007, 15:47

Samsung Electronics, the world’s largest producer of memory, presented at the International Solid-State Circuits Conference (ISSCC) its new GDDR4 memory chips that operate at about 40% higher speed than the GDDR4 was initially estimated to, but uses more power.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/memory/...221054151.html

21st February 2007, 17:03

I think ATI needs that for the UBER edition.

22nd February 2007, 11:30

Um, ouch? 1gb of 2v GDDR4 is alot to add to the power requirements of a overclocked x2900XTX... First time I've even heard GDDR5 mentioned as well. Any bets we'll have DDR4 on the desktop by the time GDDR5 rolls around?

22nd February 2007, 12:02

yes but considering the insane data bandwith at 2 GHz it is worth it, right now 1.1 are R600 spec

23rd February 2007, 11:31

True. But, here's a genuine question: The best DX9 cards were starting to show a real need for 512mb at the higher resolutions like 1920x1200 with extra eye-candy running.

Flash forward to the 640mb and 320mb DX10 part GTS cards, and suddenly memory size doesn't seem to matter much again. Except for Quake4 using uncompressed textures there is a very surprisingly little difference at 1920x1200 resolutions between RAM sizes. I was under the impression nVidia was already supposed to be more RAM bandwidth limited due to their architecture as well, so given these two points... Will ATI's DX10 cards even show any improvement with RAM at those speeds? Let alone 1gb of it instead of 512mb, and they already have a 512bit wide bus now.

I'm genuinely curious, am I missing something obvious? RAM size doesn't seem that critical anymore, even at 2560x1600 some games aren't showing above a 2% difference going by Anandtech's article. I'd tend to think this would directly relate to memory frequency as well?

jmke · 23rd February 2007, 11:36

Quote:

Flash forward to the 640mb and 320mb DX10 part GTS cards, and suddenly memory size doesn't seem to matter much again.

ugh? at 1600x1200 and higher with AA/AF enabled the 640Mb card has a very noticeable lead.

23rd February 2007, 11:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmke

ugh? at 1600x1200 and higher with AA/AF enabled the 640Mb card has a very noticeable lead.

Grr, hadn't even finished editing my post yet.

I'll have to read a few more reviews I guess... nonetheless, I still say the impact from the drop in RAM size isn't showing the effects it should.

jmke · 23rd February 2007, 12:00

you're kidding right?

20% drop in performance at 4AA

23rd February 2007, 13:35

I think the question is always how much cheaper the 320MB cards will be. If the difference is too small they are useless.

jmke · 23rd February 2007, 13:35

$50 cheaper I think

21st February 2007, 15:47	#1
jmke Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium Posts: 79,021	Samsung Touts 4GHz Memory for Graphics Cards Samsung Electronics, the world’s largest producer of memory, presented at the International Solid-State Circuits Conference (ISSCC) its new GDDR4 memory chips that operate at about 40% higher speed than the GDDR4 was initially estimated to, but uses more power. http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/memory/...221054151.html __________________

23rd February 2007, 11:31	#5
Kougar Posts: n/a	True. But, here's a genuine question: The best DX9 cards were starting to show a real need for 512mb at the higher resolutions like 1920x1200 with extra eye-candy running. Flash forward to the 640mb and 320mb DX10 part GTS cards, and suddenly memory size doesn't seem to matter much again. Except for Quake4 using uncompressed textures there is a very surprisingly little difference at 1920x1200 resolutions between RAM sizes. I was under the impression nVidia was already supposed to be more RAM bandwidth limited due to their architecture as well, so given these two points... Will ATI's DX10 cards even show any improvement with RAM at those speeds? Let alone 1gb of it instead of 512mb, and they already have a 512bit wide bus now. I'm genuinely curious, am I missing something obvious? RAM size doesn't seem that critical anymore, even at 2560x1600 some games aren't showing above a 2% difference going by Anandtech's article. I'd tend to think this would directly relate to memory frequency as well? Last edited by Kougar : 23rd February 2007 at 11:37.

23rd February 2007, 12:00	#8
jmke Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium Posts: 79,021	you're kidding right? 20% drop in performance at 4AA Attached Thumbnails __________________ Last edited by jmke : 23rd February 2007 at 12:11.

23rd February 2007, 13:35	#10
jmke Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium Posts: 79,021	$50 cheaper I think __________________

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Samsung 512GB SSD with new memory technology	jmke	WebNews	0	17th June 2010 20:40
Samsung Begins to Produce Hybrid Flash Memory Using 40nm Process Tech	jmke	WebNews	0	10th March 2009 22:24
Samsung Begins Production of 7GHz GDDR5 Memory.	jmke	WebNews	0	12th February 2009 22:10
Samsung to Release Low Power 4Gb DDR3 Memory Chip	jmke	WebNews	0	2nd February 2009 14:08
OCZ Announces High-Speed, Large Capacity SDHC Memory Cards	jmke	WebNews	0	10th April 2007 13:39
INFO: RAM List: What Chips on what Memory	jmke	FAQ / INFO / HOW-TO	3	23rd April 2005 17:13
Samsung to Speak on DDR3 Memory Design Considerations.	jmke	WebNews	0	29th March 2005 16:18
Samsung Electronics Samples 1066MHz DDR3 Memory.	jmke	WebNews	0	20th February 2005 16:02
Samsung Plans 2GHz GDDR3 Memory by Year End	jmke	WebNews	0	21st April 2004 10:56

21st February 2007, 17:03	#2
Rutar Posts: n/a	I think ATI needs that for the UBER edition.

22nd February 2007, 11:30	#3
Kougar Posts: n/a	Um, ouch? 1gb of 2v GDDR4 is alot to add to the power requirements of a overclocked x2900XTX... First time I've even heard GDDR5 mentioned as well. Any bets we'll have DDR4 on the desktop by the time GDDR5 rolls around?

22nd February 2007, 12:02	#4
Rutar Posts: n/a	yes but considering the insane data bandwith at 2 GHz it is worth it, right now 1.1 are R600 spec