DDR4 - DDR5

Predicament · 2 Feb 2011 at 17:15

I see this kind of memory on higher end GPU's
Any reason why we don't use these kinds of memory instead of our DDR3

Judgeneo · 2 Feb 2011 at 17:17

its GDDR though right.

Its different somehow. I have no idea to your question though. My ram is pretty nippy anyway, I don't think there would be a noticeable difference

ZeniTimes · 2 Feb 2011 at 17:19

very expensive or something.

Plus the cpu vendors would have to change memory controllers and redisign stuff. something like that

pooey · 2 Feb 2011 at 17:33

I think GDDR runs at higher volts or something, can't remember exactly.

1Day · 2 Feb 2011 at 18:22

1. GDDR is not the same as DDR. Overall, GDDR is built for much higher bandwidth, thanks to a wider memory bus.
2. GDDR has lower power and heat dispersal requirements compared to DDR, allowing for higher performance modules, with simpler cooling systems.
3. DDR1, DDR2, and DDR3 have a 64 bit bus (or 128 bit in dual channel). GDDR3, comparatively, commonly uses between a 256 bit bus and 512 bit bus, or interface (across 4-8 channels).
4. GDDR3 has a 4 bit prefetch and GDDR5 has an 8 bit prefetch, making GDDR5 twice as fast as GDDR3 in apples to apples comparisons.
5. GDDR can request and receive data on the same clock cycle, where DDR cannot.
6. DDR1 chips sends 8 data bits for every cycle of the clock, GDDR1 sends 16 data bits.

LINK

WingZero30 · 2 Feb 2011 at 23:54

GDDR for the win lol

.

Predicament · 3 Feb 2011 at 08:31

1Day said:
LINK

Makes GDDR look like the big man on campus... DDR is the little shrimp.

Yellowbeard · 3 Feb 2011 at 20:24

As it is, there is absolutely no need for faster memory. Memory bandwidth far exceeds current needs. Making faster RAM that would be WAY more expensive is not needed.

Predicament · 4 Feb 2011 at 10:47

Yellowbeard said:
As it is, there is absolutely no need for faster memory. Memory bandwidth far exceeds current needs. Making faster RAM that would be WAY more expensive is not needed.

Why exactly is that..?

Are you saying the CPU/mobo would bottleneck it?

Tomcat825 · 4 Feb 2011 at 11:57

I think that is the case... they'd have to change the memory controllers to take the faster memory which is obvisouly too much for the time being.

Boozebeard · 4 Feb 2011 at 11:59

I think bottle necking is irrelevant; I think he means there are just no applications that would use that much bandwidth, as there aren't really any applications that use current memory bandwidth.