Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

DDR4 vs. DDR5 Memory Performance For Intel Core i5-12600K Alder Lake On Linux

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • sarmad
    replied
    Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
    Not gonna lie, the only thing about DDR5 that gets me excited are the potential performance improvements that iGPUs will get. Most of that excitement is because Ram+MB+APU will probably cost cheaper or close to the price of a Worth-A-Shit-GPU. Basically, if the friggin Steam Deck APU ends up doing what my 4GB RX 580 does, we'll call it enhanced medium 1080p60, then I know I'll be upgrading sooner than later. If not, eh, I'm happy with 3600 DDR4 bumped up to 3800. It's fast enough for my end-user needs.
    Indeed. I'd be happy with medium 1080p60 if it saves me from having to deal with the current Prime/Optimus chaos.

    Leave a comment:


  • creative
    replied
    Originally posted by torsionbar28 View Post
    It will be. New memory always starts at around the same MT's as the previous gen, and climbs from there. These are the officially supported JEDEC speeds over each generation. Of course the aftermarket will push the limits a bit more as well:

    DDR2 introduced at 400, eventually climbing to 1066.
    DDR3 introduced at 1066, eventually climbing to 2166.
    DDR4 introduced at 1600, eventually climbing to 3200.
    DDR5 introduced at 4400, eventually climbing to ????.
    Eventually it will most likely be DDR5 6400 before people start saying "This is where it is at." Specific use cases will benefit right now and certain things will be snappier with current modules but nothing earth shattering. I predict 6400 is going to be the performance rift maker. By then DDR5-6400 should have native platform support and will have some standardization along with those corresponding platforms.
    Last edited by creative; 23 November 2021, 08:32 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • hajj_3
    replied
    You really should update your benchmark suite to use a new build of 7-zip. v16.02 is 4.5yrs old. Lots of optimisations have been made since then.

    Leave a comment:


  • waxhead
    replied
    Originally posted by chuckula View Post

    Nobody will know for sure until security researches start hammering DDR5. From what I've heard rowhammer is easiest to execute on laptops where DIMMs are run at the lowest voltages practical to reduce power consumption. They can still operate normally at those voltages, but are more vulnerable to rowhammer. The attacks can work on desktop DIMMs and even (in some cases) ECC RAM on servers, but they aren't as likely to succeed quickly.
    Interesting , while one would initially think that higher voltage makes disturbances easier I never considered that lower voltages actually can cause fluctuations/flickering so that you can read/imprint data. Not even sure if this is what happens , but it certainly got my imagination running!

    Leave a comment:


  • AlB80
    replied
    Originally posted by AlB80 View Post
    What memory configurations were used in terms of ranks/banks?
    Ok. Obviously both have 16Gbit x8 chips, so it's best case for DDR5 (32GB module) and worst for DDR4 (16GB). Why?
    DDR4 memory controller have only 32 banks in total (2 ch x 1 rank x 16 banks per rank).
    DDR5 memory controller have 128 banks in total (2 ch x 2 subch x 2 rank x 32 banks per rank).
    DDR4 memory transactions are often stalled due to bank collisions, thus even DDR4 good timings are not enough.

    Leave a comment:


  • chuckula
    replied
    Originally posted by waxhead View Post

    Do you know if ddr5 is vulnerable to rowhammer and friends as well? That for be is the same as defective hardware and as you more or less point of they have to fight bugs in hardware by adding complexity which again is a breeding ground for more bugs....
    Nobody will know for sure until security researches start hammering DDR5. From what I've heard rowhammer is easiest to execute on laptops where DIMMs are run at the lowest voltages practical to reduce power consumption. They can still operate normally at those voltages, but are more vulnerable to rowhammer. The attacks can work on desktop DIMMs and even (in some cases) ECC RAM on servers, but they aren't as likely to succeed quickly.

    Leave a comment:


  • AlB80
    replied
    What memory configurations were used in terms of ranks/banks?

    Leave a comment:


  • bug77
    replied
    Originally posted by sdack View Post
    DDR4-4400 is performing poorly here. Looks like the BIOS does not make much of a difference between DDR4-4400 and DDR4-3600.
    I've seen the same in other tests. The way I understand it is AL likes low latency, whose lack thereof is only mitigated by the massive additional bandwidth of DDR5.

    Leave a comment:


  • cchi
    replied
    Originally posted by sdack View Post
    DDR4-4400 is performing poorly here. Looks like the BIOS does not make much of a difference between DDR4-4400 and DDR4-3600.
    I think it is because of the memory gear setting. From what I have seen it is able to function in 1:1 mode until 3600, but at 4400 it has to be set to 1:2. So the the memory controller frequency drops from 3600 to 2200.

    Leave a comment:


  • waxhead
    replied
    Originally posted by chuckula View Post


    The baked-in ECC is to protect against errors that actually occur within an individual chip and really point to the fact that individual memory cells are becoming less reliable with smaller lithography & faster clocks to the point that adding complexity to each DRAM die became necessary.

    Traditional ECC with the extra chip and ECC in the memory controller is still necessary to handle errors that occur during transfer of data back & forth from the CPU, which can't be addressed by the in-chip ECC.
    Do you know if ddr5 is vulnerable to rowhammer and friends as well? That for be is the same as defective hardware and as you more or less point of they have to fight bugs in hardware by adding complexity which again is a breeding ground for more bugs....

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X