Topic Title: SO-DIMM Memory?
Topic Summary:
Created On: 11/04/2013 08:43 AM
Status: Post and Reply
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 11/04/2013 08:43 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Siman
Peon

Posts: 3
Joined: 11/04/2013

 

Was wondering if anyone has thought of using SO-DIMM memory in place of desktop memory. I know its used on some ITX boards. But in the same real estate that takes 2 DIMM sticks you can get quad channel and in the place of 4 DIMM sticks 8 SO-DIMM and so on....

I know current memory controllers from AMD only support dual channel but having 2 DIMMs per channel doesn’t make much since with the density of today’s DIMM modules. So a switch to 1 DIMM to channel and using SO-DIMM modules so you can get more performance per board real estate seams like a good idea.

 11/04/2013 09:18 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
black_zion
80 Column Mind

Posts: 12332
Joined: 04/17/2008

Except that except for server applications (where both AMD and Intel have quad channel controllers and up to 32 chips per board), nothing is RAM bound anymore, so it'd be about as useful as a solar powered candle. Aside from that, SO-DIMM modules are more expensive than DIMM modules, so you are probably the only person who would pay more money for zero performance gain.

-------------------------
ASUS Sabertooth 990FX/Gen3 R2, FX-8350 w/ Corsair H60, 8 GiB G.SKILL RipjawsX DDR3-2133, XFX HD 7970 Ghz, 512GB Vertex 4, 256GB Vector, 240GB Agility 3, Creative X-Fi Titanium w/ Creative Gigaworks S750, SeaSonic X750, HP ZR2440w, Win 7 Ultimate x64
 11/04/2013 09:32 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Siman
Peon

Posts: 3
Joined: 11/04/2013

First time Ive heard more memory channels would mean zero preformance gain, how did AMD get around the bottleneck? Id think more memory channels would also beable to provide more bandwith to the APUs too.

 11/04/2013 05:44 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
black_zion
80 Column Mind

Posts: 12332
Joined: 04/17/2008

There is no bottleneck if the existing bandwidth is not fully utilized. Numerous sites have done reviews on the effects that more memory controllers and faster memory has on real world performance, and the effects of dual channel DDR3 1600 and quad channel DDR3 2400 are negligible outside of the server market where of course they have many fold the number of memory operations. As far as APUs go, that's more of a memory speed issue than a channel issue, and the power of an APU now is not as bottlenecked using DDR3 2400 as you think. You can only go so fast before you again see no benefit, which is why many lower power discrete video cards use DDR3 instead of GDDR3 or GDDR5.

But this point is soon to be quite moot. DDR4 specifications require a point-to-point 1 DIMM per "channel" setup (Opeton and Xeon chips will have switching capability in their controllers) so quad channel controllers will come to AMD non Opteron chips.

-------------------------
ASUS Sabertooth 990FX/Gen3 R2, FX-8350 w/ Corsair H60, 8 GiB G.SKILL RipjawsX DDR3-2133, XFX HD 7970 Ghz, 512GB Vertex 4, 256GB Vector, 240GB Agility 3, Creative X-Fi Titanium w/ Creative Gigaworks S750, SeaSonic X750, HP ZR2440w, Win 7 Ultimate x64
 11/05/2013 03:47 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Siman
Peon

Posts: 3
Joined: 11/04/2013

I ran dual channel in my X79 and then the quad the difference was quite staggering. I ran game benchmarks it was less noticeable but there was a small difference (mostly looking at load times though). I also ran pulling from a single HDD, RAID 0 HDD, and RAID 0 SSD set ups. The difference was compounded by a slower IO set up at least from what I was getting.

Statistics
84693 users are registered to the AMD Support and Game forum.
There are currently 6 users logged in.

FuseTalk Hosting Executive Plan v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.