Windows 8 Not Much Help For Depressed DRAM Industry

Status
Not open for further replies.

nieur

Distinguished
Mar 22, 2011
203
0
18,680
why would anyone buy new PC just because new OS is available? on top of that it does not demand improved hardware
 
G

Guest

Guest
@rahulkadukar "chip" is referring to the actual chips on the PCB not the entire module just fyi
 

hp79

Distinguished
Feb 6, 2006
173
0
18,710
[citation][nom]nebun[/nom]what does a software company have to do with memory prices....I am a little confused[/citation]
The idea here is that assuming Windows being a dominant OS, had Windows 8 required more RAM than Windows 7, there would have been more demand for RAM. But since Windows 8 is even more efficient, it's not going to encourage people to buy more RAM. I think most people already have at least 4 GB in their system now.
 

ronch79

Distinguished
Jan 16, 2010
181
0
18,680
The jump in graphics quality and OS capability has improved markedly with past OSes. Today I think the improvement between successive OS releases grows smaller and smaller, so any big jump in RAM requirement is seen as sloppiness in part of the OS (and its code). Take Vista, for example, it was deemed inefficient (and yes, even if it's graphically much prettier than XP) because of its RAM requirements. MS had to go back to the drawing boards, clean up the code, and re-release it as Windows 7. Just my $0.02.
 

teodoreh

Distinguished
Sep 23, 2007
315
13
18,785
1st: You can't just increase the memory requirements without major leaps on services. You can't launch W8 requiring 8GB of RAM with no apparent reason. You need new more memory hungry applications to be written to say "you will need 8GB of RAM but, we will provide u with this new feature".

2nd: If Windows 8 were as stupidly memory hungry as Windows Vista at their time (where most laptos were shipped with 512MB~1GB RAM) then that would hurt W8 adaptability as Vista.

3rd: The majority of current motherboards support 2~4 slots and 8GB~16GB of DDR3, and laptops usually do have 0~1 empty slots for upgrades.

4th: We are in the mid to end of life of DDR3 and the prices are extremely low.

5th: Who cares? Semiconductor companies should focus on the SSD wild race. Magnetic media, WD, Toshiba and Seagate will soon disappear from the market, and someone will have to fill the gap.
 

BoredErica

Distinguished
Aug 17, 2007
153
8
18,685
I don't like Windows 8, but this article doesn't make sense to me. Windows 8 isn't a ram-hungry mess, and thank god for that. Why would ram decrease a lot if the OS is relatively light?
 
[citation][nom]rahulkadukar[/nom]4 Gb 4DDR3 chip can be purchased for as little as $1.75

Where ?[/citation]

That's a 4 gigabit chip, or 512MB. Plus it's only the actual chip, not the PCB, assembly, other chips for SPD etc. It's also probably the price for buying thousands of them
 


That's the low end ones, and that's Gb. You need 8 of them to make 4 GB. Plus the PCB, spreaders, manufacturing and other parts.

Edit: beat by "someone" by 51 seconds lol
 
ram in general is really cheap now I don't think its because consumers wouldn't pay more. I mean come on if you say hey for 40 dollars you can get 8 gigs of solid ram who isn't going to buy it or for people who need 32 gigs hey 32 gigs for 120 dollars. Also, the problem is we've been on ddr3 for a long time so of course the prices will be as low as they are as well.
 
[citation][nom]nebun[/nom]what does a software company have to do with memory prices....I am a little confused[/citation]
A lot actually. The transitions of bloatware in Ram requirement and Ram usage moving from each version of Windows was HUGE until Win7 came out. I mean we went from a few hundred KB of ram needed in 3.1 to several MB of ram in win95. By the time we hit winXP you needed a minimum of 512MB of ram for things to run properly (though more was always welcome), and then we hit Vista which would run on 1GB of ram, but really needed 2GB. Win7 could run fine on 1GB, but will run a little better with 2GB. Finally with Windows 8 you need 2GB of ram to run effectively, but 4+GB is really suggested.

At any rate, the demand for system memory increasing 2 fold between early versions of Windows kept ram a lucritive business to be in. But then Vista came in the picture requiring a 4x increase in ram usage. Vista required so much more Ram than what was affordable at the time that ram manufacturers had a race to the bottom to see who could provide the most ram the cheapest. But when win7 came out, requiring less Ram to run effectively, people got use to the idea of cheap memory, and so the prices never went back up. With DDR3 prices actually went down because the die shrinks involved finally made bulk memory manufacturing affordable again.

But now we are nearing the end of the life cycle for DDR3, and like the end of DDR2 manufacturers are hitting maximum yields at a minimum price. Win8 needs no more memory than the OS that came out ~6 years ago which keeps demand static per unit. The desktop market is nearly saturated (the real reason there is no PC market growth... not some silly tablet revolution) so the demand is not there. There is a huge market to add more memory to phones, but the battery hit from having extra active memory, as well as the sheer number of apps that can run in 2GB of ram which all need power, makes manufacturers not want to do it.

So really, they are in a tight spot until DDR4 comes out in 2 years (really just over 1 year, but it will be 2 years before platforms become available). With DDR4 we get another die shrink, which should allow for 16GB sticks of ram, or at least make 8GB sticks normal. This die shrink also will make for higher yields per area, plus the use of larger wafers will make chips even cheaper. Plus we will see much lower power usage, which will make the phone and tablet industry more interested in putting 2-4GB of ram in devices without worry, which will increase demand further.

But really, that is it. Not to sound like certain other futureistic nay-sayers, but once you hit the 4-8GB of system memory, there is very little that you cannot do anymore. 8GB is more than enough ram for 99.9% of workloads. I mean, I have 16GB, and intend to get 32GB in a little while, but it is just for the kicks of having it, and I am only using ~3GB of it in day to day use. Even right now with win8 and several apps and browser tabs I am at 2.8GB in use. Due to the fast random load times of SSDs you no longer have to have nearly as much ram on hand for things like photo and video editing either, as most things can be spooled from the disk in real time. It is truly a weird time for ram makers to be able to make so much ram... while programs tend to need less and less of it.

The one area where Ram could baloon though: Video games! Look as how far games have gotten visuially with 2GB of video ram available! It is incredible how lifelike things have gotten with such relatively limited amounts of program space. Now imagine a world where consoles have 4-8GB of ram, and where desktops can have substantially more... no more repeated/tiled textures, much higher resolution backgrounds, support for substantially higher resolution monitors (retina will come to the desktop environment eventually)... all of these things need massive amounts of Ram that have been previously unavailable, but are quite possible when you have systems with 2-4GB of VRam and 8-16GB of system memory. We have high expectations for next gen consoles, mostly in how their limited games will look on PC hardware which is capable of real time ray tracing and life-like textures.

But again, once you hit 16GB of ram, there is little motive to go beyond that. unless we change our model to use actual Ram drives instead of SSDs for file/program storage.
 

vaughn2k

Distinguished
Aug 6, 2008
769
4
19,065
maybe that's the way it is? maybe 4gb of ram is already enough? maybe we have already reached the threshold? who knows...what was the difference of speed by the way between a 4gb ram and an 8gb? is the diference significant?
 
SSD's are also reducing the requirement for RAM.

With a slow Hard Drive a system works much better when programs you used are buffered in the faster RAM. However, once we get to the point where most applications can cold start from the SSD with no RAM components in under ONE SECOND that changes the landscape.

What happens when SSD's are even faster? Will 8GB feel much different than 1GB with SSD's with large file transfer rates over 2000MB/sec?
 
[citation][nom]Tomfreak[/nom]where is my cheap 8GB module? I still waiting it to go as cheap as twice the price of 4GB ones.[/citation]

8GB is approximately 2x the price of 4GB. You should buy in PAIRS usually and at NCIX 8GB (2x4GB) is about $30 for the cheapest and 16GB (2x8GB) is about $60 for the cheapest.

RAM varies a lot in price based on FREQUENCY, TIMINGS and Quality. *It's interesting to note that while lower timings CAN make things faster at times (if bottleneck is not elsewhere) a higher frequency RAM with higher timings might cost the same and perform better overall.

FYI:
- 2GB works well with Windows 7/8 for desktop use (tested)
- 4GB is optimal for Windows 7/8 for desktop use (no benefit to more)
- 4GB also works well for gamers but in some games more benefits
- 8GB is optimal for "gamers" with more providing little benefit
- 16GB+ is only beneficial in certain scenarios (i.e. video editing, Virtual Machines etc.)

*Does anyone else think:
That RAM usage will never cross the 8GB barrier for the average user?
That RAM requirements will DROP when SSD's become even faster due to a reduced need to pre-buffer files?
 

devBunny

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2012
181
0
18,690
[citation][nom]rahulkadukar[/nom]4 Gb 4DDR3 chip can be purchased for as little as $1.75Where ?[/citation]

Others have already said what "4Gb chip" means...

DRAM spot prices trading nearly record lows - a 4 Gb 4DDR3 chip can be purchased for as little as $1.75

You and I can't enjoy spot prices. :) In fact a spot price isn't necessarily about purchasing actual chips. It's the current price in the markets and a plaything for of speculators as well the people who buy chips because they want to make memory sticks out of them or use them in embedded systems.
 

tomfreak

Distinguished
May 18, 2011
1,334
0
19,280
[citation][nom]photonboy[/nom]8GB is approximately 2x the price of 4GB. You should buy in PAIRS usually and at NCIX 8GB (2x4GB) is about $30 for the cheapest and 16GB (2x8GB) is about $60 for the cheapest.RAM varies a lot in price based on FREQUENCY, TIMINGS and Quality. *It's interesting to note that while lower timings CAN make things faster at times (if bottleneck is not elsewhere) a higher frequency RAM with higher timings might cost the same and perform better overall.FYI:- 2GB works well with Windows 7/8 for desktop use (tested)- 4GB is optimal for Windows 7/8 for desktop use (no benefit to more)- 4GB also works well for gamers but in some games more benefits - 8GB is optimal for "gamers" with more providing little benefit- 16GB+ is only beneficial in certain scenarios (i.e. video editing, Virtual Machines etc.)*Does anyone else think:That RAM usage will never cross the 8GB barrier for the average user?That RAM requirements will DROP when SSD's become even faster due to a reduced need to pre-buffer files?[/citation]Unfortunately on the other-side of the world here those performance DIMM are still price >2x. I had to go similar Performance DIMM since I already had 2X4GB 1600 Corsair Vengence CL8 in my 2500K, I would love another same type but 2x8GB. SSD may give substantial boost in overall performance but they are still very pricy now. I think a 24GB system RAM could work out pretty well as RAM disk.
 

DirectXtreme

Distinguished
Aug 31, 2011
53
0
18,630
[citation][nom]caedenv[/nom]unless we change our model to use actual Ram drives instead of SSDs for file/program storage.[/citation]
The problem with RAM drives would be that the data would be lost after the PC is shut down as DRAM is volatile unlike the NAND flash inside of an SSD. Unless a type of non-volatile DRAM technology is invented with the same bandwidth as traditional DDR3 SDRAM or even DDR4, then RAM drives simply won't be a viable solution. But even with that kind of non-volatile DRAM, RAM drives will initially be expensive and slow to adopt into the market.

[citation][nom]photonboy[/nom]What happens when SSD's are even faster? Will 8GB feel much different than 1GB with SSD's with large file transfer rates over 2000MB/sec?[/citation]
1 GB is barely enough to even store a Windows operating system post-Windows 2000. It is going to take a while for SSDs to catch up to DRAM in terms of bandwidth (currently the fastest I've seen is the FusionIO IODrive2 Duo at 3 GB/s v 17.666 GB/s for the fastest JEDEC-standard DDR3 SDRAM), but even then we'll see advancements in DRAM technology that will literally double the bandwidth.
 

DjEaZy

Distinguished
Apr 3, 2008
1,161
0
19,280
Windows 8 Not Much Help For Depressed DRAM Industry? Windows 8 is not much help for the whole PC industry...
1) MS wanna build its own hardware, but the whole PC industry depends on MS, with the exception of apple...
2) i got me a 27'' 2560 x 1440 monitor, and windows 8 is wasting my whole screenestate... ok, i testing win8 in VirtualBox...
 

bch

Honorable
Apr 11, 2012
3
0
10,510
[citation][nom]caedenv[/nom]A lot actually. The transitions of bloatware in Ram requirement and Ram usage moving from each version of Windows was HUGE until Win7 came out. I mean we went from a few hundred KB of ram needed in 3.1 to several MB of ram in win95. By the time we hit winXP you needed a minimum of 512MB of ram for things to run properly (though more was always welcome), and then we hit Vista which would run on 1GB of ram, but really needed 2GB. Win7 could run fine on 1GB, but will run a little better with 2GB. Finally with Windows 8 you need 2GB of ram to run effectively, but 4+GB is really suggested.At any rate, the demand for system memory increasing 2 fold between early versions of Windows kept ram a lucritive business to be in. But then Vista came in the picture requiring a 4x increase in ram usage. Vista required so much more Ram than what was affordable at the time that ram manufacturers had a race to the bottom to see who could provide the most ram the cheapest. But when win7 came out, requiring less Ram to run effectively, people got use to the idea of cheap memory, and so the prices never went back up. With DDR3 prices actually went down because the die shrinks involved finally made bulk memory manufacturing affordable again.But now we are nearing the end of the life cycle for DDR3, and like the end of DDR2 manufacturers are hitting maximum yields at a minimum price. Win8 needs no more memory than the OS that came out ~6 years ago which keeps demand static per unit. The desktop market is nearly saturated (the real reason there is no PC market growth... not some silly tablet revolution) so the demand is not there. There is a huge market to add more memory to phones, but the battery hit from having extra active memory, as well as the sheer number of apps that can run in 2GB of ram which all need power, makes manufacturers not want to do it.So really, they are in a tight spot until DDR4 comes out in 2 years (really just over 1 year, but it will be 2 years before platforms become available). With DDR4 we get another die shrink, which should allow for 16GB sticks of ram, or at least make 8GB sticks normal. This die shrink also will make for higher yields per area, plus the use of larger wafers will make chips even cheaper. Plus we will see much lower power usage, which will make the phone and tablet industry more interested in putting 2-4GB of ram in devices without worry, which will increase demand further.But really, that is it. Not to sound like certain other futureistic nay-sayers, but once you hit the 4-8GB of system memory, there is very little that you cannot do anymore. 8GB is more than enough ram for 99.9% of workloads. I mean, I have 16GB, and intend to get 32GB in a little while, but it is just for the kicks of having it, and I am only using ~3GB of it in day to day use. Even right now with win8 and several apps and browser tabs I am at 2.8GB in use. Due to the fast random load times of SSDs you no longer have to have nearly as much ram on hand for things like photo and video editing either, as most things can be spooled from the disk in real time. It is truly a weird time for ram makers to be able to make so much ram... while programs tend to need less and less of it.The one area where Ram could baloon though: Video games! Look as how far games have gotten visuially with 2GB of video ram available! It is incredible how lifelike things have gotten with such relatively limited amounts of program space. Now imagine a world where consoles have 4-8GB of ram, and where desktops can have substantially more... no more repeated/tiled textures, much higher resolution backgrounds, support for substantially higher resolution monitors (retina will come to the desktop environment eventually)... all of these things need massive amounts of Ram that have been previously unavailable, but are quite possible when you have systems with 2-4GB of VRam and 8-16GB of system memory. We have high expectations for next gen consoles, mostly in how their limited games will look on PC hardware which is capable of real time ray tracing and life-like textures.But again, once you hit 16GB of ram, there is little motive to go beyond that. unless we change our model to use actual Ram drives instead of SSDs for file/program storage.[/citation]

The only decent comment receives thumbs down while the dumb ones are most liked.
Goes to show yet again that people with the most knowledge don't actually bother to contribute here or give up after all the hate received....
 

Shin-san

Distinguished
Nov 11, 2006
618
0
18,980
Here's the thing: how many applications actually need more than 4-8 gigs of RAM? The only ones I know of is Photoshop, followed by running a cloud server. However, cloud servers aren't something that's going to be in the consumer market.
 

damianrobertjones

Distinguished
Aug 14, 2010
587
1
18,995
VMWare, music production, large image manipulation. More ram is never enough :)

I recall the days where oems shipped computers with 256Mb ram.... That was when Vista hit. Yep, a new OS yet hardware makers shipped them with that amount of ram. No wonder people screamed
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
[citation][nom]teodoreh[/nom]4th: We are in the mid to end of life of DDR3 and the prices are extremely low.5th: Who cares? Semiconductor companies should focus on the SSD wild race. Magnetic media, WD, Toshiba and Seagate will soon disappear from the market, and someone will have to fill the gap.[/citation]
DDR3 is nowhere near its end-of-life yet since DDR4 desktop CPUs are not expected to start shipping before mid-2014... so there are at least two more years of DDR3 domination left unless tablet/smartphone/SoC CPUs switch to DDR4 in droves before then.

I believe the demise of magnetic media is still greatly exaggerated. While it may be slower, the cost per bit is still 5-6X lower and magnetic drives have nearly infinite rewrite endurance unlike SSDs which gradually lose read/write performance with every rewrite. No SSD is going to be able to be able to economically replace my 4TB of storage any time soon. A SSD is nice for keeping the most frequently used apps/games and data but makes no sense for a large archive of offline/nearline storage for less frequently used software and data.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.