Cadence Announces First DDR4 Controller and PHY IP in 28-nm

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]im going with this chard herehttp://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] 107-7.htmlwith what im saying about the gpuif you got a cheap laptop and suddenly wanted to do photoshop on it, or you got a cheap laptop and wanted to than play a high end game on it out of nowhere, i would call you stupid. but thats my opinion on that. there are laptops that can do that, but they aren't budget laptops.now lets go with looking up a non integrated gpu in a laptop that is better than the integrated on that same chart525 - (referb) its paired with an i7, 8gb of memory, at 679$6630M - (amd, only one i think was on the list) paired with an i5 and 6gb of ram for for 779if you actually have a use for a gpu, you get one with a dedicated gpu, not an integrated one, because its not a substantial amount more you are paying, but you will get far better performance. really... some one using an integrated gpu is going to crank the aa af and resolution up? i would call them a moron for that, try to remember that even the best integrated isn't much better than aX1800 XL, X1950 GT, HD 4650 (DDR2), HD 6450, 7800 GT, 7900 GS, 8600 GTS, 9500 GT (GDDR3), GT 220 (DDR2)for the desktop.[/citation]

APU IGP placement on that chart is greatly inaccurate. It's based on how they performed with crap RAM, not with modern 1600MT/s or 1866MT/s ~9-9-9-24 dual-channel memory kits. Even a good A4 APU can beat the Radeon 6450 significantly if given 1600MT/s memory and a good A8 can be much faster than a Radeon 6450. An A8 can compete with the Radeon 6570 GDDR5 if given 1600MT/s memory and is right behind the Radeon 6670 DDR3, at least when given 1866MT/s memory (all dual-channel with ~9-9-9-24 timings).

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]APU IGP placement on that chart is greatly inaccurate. It's based on how they performed with crap RAM, not with modern 1600MT/s or 1866MT/s ~9-9-9-24 dual-channel memory kits. Even a good A4 APU can beat the Radeon 6450 significantly if given 1600MT/s memory and a good A8 can be much faster than a Radeon 6450. An A8 can compete with the Radeon 6570 GDDR5 if given 1600MT/s memory and is right behind the Radeon 6670 DDR3, at least when given 1866MT/s memory (all dual-channel with ~9-9-9-24 timings).[/citation]

i wont doubt you, but i want to see it.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]JacekRing[/nom]I don't think you read his post.Personally the only example I can come up with that DDR4 would improve performance in is data servers which have to calculate lots of values based on an SQL database. Such as a banking super computer calculating interest on your savings.I see no real world use for DDR4 on the consumer end, only on the industrial end.[/citation]

Computers with integrated GPUs could have much better IGP performance than they can with DDR3. DDR4 could provide a middle-ground between DDR3 and GDDR5 for graphics cards memory that is cheap and very energy efficient. Anyone who does a lot of compression/decompression, rendering, encryption/decryption, and more can also benefit greatly. A low-power version could be implemented into phones and tablets (as well as devices that use similar hardware) and then break into the double digits of GB/s of phone/tablet memory bandwidth, one of the greatest bottle-necks on those devices. That's not even a whole list, just a start.

 

[deepblue08]

[citation][nom]mforce2[/nom]I disagree , it didn't use to be a bottleneck. Now though the CPUs have integrated GPUs and those GPUs really do benefit from fast RAM. The CPU part doesn't really care that much, I agree.[/citation]

I agree, if AMD's prediction is correct, fusion will become a big deal on the CPU market and faster memory may become a big deal also.