Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Intel and Micron Unveil New Memory Class That's 1,000 Times Faster Than Current Technology
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Guess Johnny is already calculating how many mm he can shave of all products ones Apple can get their hands on this!
Lol what? Where are you getting these figures from? Most are around 500 bucks. $1200 is the high end. Where'd you come up with 10-20 grand?
The release says 128 Gb (gigabits) = 16 GB (gigabytes), not 128 GB. Memory sizes are generally reported by manufacturers in gigabits. For context, this is the same capacity as a modern flash die, or about an order of magnitude more than a common DRAM die. As you can imagine given the contrast between a 16 GB die and a 128 GB iPhone (or between a 1 GB DRAM die and an 8 GB DIMM), real systems aggregate many individual memory dice, even phones (where they may even be aggregated inside a single package, appearing as a single "chip").
In the sense that it's solid-state, perhaps. But it's more like this will change computing history. Current so-called "SSDs" are likely doomed to total obsolescence within the next few years if this stuff can be made affordable.
Nonsense. This does not make the actual CPU faster or your graphics card faster, except that it can communicate faster. The point is the CPU limits what can be done in the end. You can't create something akin to THE MATRIX just because you have faster memory. You need more CPU and GPU power just for starters. As I've said, this could potentially kill current conventional storage and memory. Storage has always been a bottleneck, though.
I'm curious exactly how more robust this memory is. Are we talking about something that could be trusted for 100+ year storage like manufactured (pitted) music CDs can supposedly survive? One of the limitations of SSDs (and conventional hard drives for that matter) is the mean time to failure. It's why backups are so important (along with malware and fires and other things). You'd never be able to entirely eliminate backups for the latter reasons, but they would be less crucial if failure happened less often.
Now think about what this technology will do to networking. I'd stop investing in so-called "Cloud Storage" right NOW. This is going to literally KILL THE CLOUD for significant data storage. Small stuff (bookmarks, saved game progress, etc.) will continue, but few are going to want to backup terabytes of data over a SLOW NETWORK CONNECTION (and make no mistake, even Google Fiber is SLOOOOW compared to what we're talking about here, like conventional hard drive slow, maybe 120MB/sec. That's fast for networking and acceptable for backing up large drives once in awhile (assuming you could actually upload that fast, usually it's just the download rates that are that fast). But SSDs are around 10x faster. Now imagine storage that is 1000x faster. But WAIT, the article seems to be comparing that speed to RAM, not storage! RAM is nearly 20x faster than the fastest SSDs. Thus, if this stuff is 1000x faster than ram, then it might be 20,000 times faster than SSDs!!! No network "CLOUD" connection on Earth can compare to that. I submit that THE CLOUD IS DEAD for big data storage and it doesn't know it yet. Sell stock NOW.
you are the one truely explain this great potential.
Just found an article that states Intel is denying phase change or memristor. Probably so secret it's not even patented!!
That is for ONE die. It might be the practical limit for main computer memory without losing speed to the processor, but for pure STORAGE uses, I think a bit of a speed drop would be acceptable to obtain non-volatile solid-state storage that far exceeds current SSDs, let alone current flash drives, etc. In other words, you would use multiple "chips" for storage.
3D Xpoint. Gosh, what a memorable name that is. And a nice tip of the hat to that most wonderful of Americanisms that has started to find its way onto Australian roadsigns now: Xing.
This should be a new subject in primary schools:
Xing = Crossing (not zing or exing)
Xpoint = Cross point (not expoint)
OS X = OS Ten (not OS ex)
(Okay, I don’t love the name, but the technology sounds amazing!)
This should be a new subject in primary schools:
Xing = Crossing (not zing or exing)
Xpoint = Cross point (not expoint)
OS X = OS Ten (not OS ex)
(Okay, I don’t love the name, but the technology sounds amazing!)
Pointless until a bus, ports and other I/O can feed data at that rate.
Fixed, appreciate the heads up. And sorry for the mistake, of course.
Yes ... this is ahead of its time. If it's literally 1000x faster it would be 500GB+/sec ... which is ridiculous.
I highly doubt that! Software advancements often demand better hardware and frankly the need for more storage has never really ended. This from somebody that tends to keep his hardware for a long time also. Some of those old machines are unbearably slow but I can't justify upgrading them.
For most people boats are a luxury and demand shifts with the winds of the economy. Sharply they do shift as luxury suites are the first to go. That and the current tax situation which is also highly variable.
Goodness me.
Never mind faster memory. Just give me an iPhone with 32GB storage as base. Really, Apple should offer 64-128-256 by now at least.
Once upon a time, Apple offered respectable levels of storage...
Never mind faster memory. Just give me an iPhone with 32GB storage as base. Really, Apple should offer 64-128-256 by now at least.
Once upon a time, Apple offered respectable levels of storage...
It can go as fast as any bus you can design. In other words, it will scale over time. That is a good thing. Its initial use will be main memory close to the CPU or even mounted right on the same chip (or "up to" 1000x faster at that). The CPU may not even be able to make full use of it for now, but it will mean a solid upgrade path for the future and ram that is as fast as the CPU can handle for the near future and external storage that is as fast as you can design a BUS for (i.e. expect Thunderbolt III to be instantly saturated). This is the kind of "problem" I actually like to have.
Even if it's only 128Gbit on a single die, that's still a lot of system memory in today's term (16GB) and multiple dies can be used for larger storage.
In the sense that it's solid-state, perhaps. But it's more like this will change computing history. Current so-called "SSDs" are likely doomed to total obsolescence within the next few years if this stuff can be made affordable.
Nonsense. This does not make the actual CPU faster or your graphics card faster, except that it can communicate faster. The point is the CPU limits what can be done in the end. You can't create something akin to THE MATRIX just because you have faster memory. You need more CPU and GPU power just for starters. As I've said, this could potentially kill current conventional storage and memory. Storage has always been a bottleneck, though.
I'm curious exactly how more robust this memory is. Are we talking about something that could be trusted for 100+ year storage like manufactured (pitted) music CDs can supposedly survive? One of the limitations of SSDs (and conventional hard drives for that matter) is the mean time to failure. It's why backups are so important (along with malware and fires and other things). You'd never be able to entirely eliminate backups for the latter reasons, but they would be less crucial if failure happened less often.
Now think about what this technology will do to networking. I'd stop investing in so-called "Cloud Storage" right NOW. This is going to literally KILL THE CLOUD for significant data storage. Small stuff (bookmarks, saved game progress, etc.) will continue, but few are going to want to backup terabytes of data over a SLOW NETWORK CONNECTION (and make no mistake, even Google Fiber is SLOOOOW compared to what we're talking about here, like conventional hard drive slow, maybe 120MB/sec. That's fast for networking and acceptable for backing up large drives once in awhile (assuming you could actually upload that fast, usually it's just the download rates that are that fast). But SSDs are around 10x faster. Now imagine storage that is 1000x faster. But WAIT, the article seems to be comparing that speed to RAM, not storage! RAM is nearly 20x faster than the fastest SSDs. Thus, if this stuff is 1000x faster than ram, then it might be 20,000 times faster than SSDs!!! No network "CLOUD" connection on Earth can compare to that. I submit that THE CLOUD IS DEAD for big data storage and it doesn't know it yet. Sell stock NOW.
The other issue may be the rewrite time. From what I know DRAM has the capability to be rewrite more often without destroy itself comparing to NAND
Forget seeing this in anything we can buy on the high street for 5-10 years at least.. Like a pharma coming up with a cure for something, they will gouge the market with the excuse of "recovering their R&D costs" when actually, if they made it available to the masses, it would probably make them just as much money but much faster. Unless of course the rare earth mineral they need is only available in North Korea..
Not talking about the small ones in laptops....talking about full-size PCI cards with 4TB - 8TB of Flash that go in a large Mac Pro or PC tower!!