Samsung debuts first 32GB DDR3 memory module
By Donald Melanson 
posted Jun 18th 2009 3:38PM
posted Jun 18th 2009 3:38PM
Samsung has been making promises about a 32GB DDR3 memory module since it rolled out its first 50nm 4Gb DDR3 memory chip way back in January, but it looks like it's now finally delivered. While it won't be headed for regular desktops or laptops just yet, the company does have a new 1.35 volt 32GB module for servers which, in addition to packing that record-breaking capacity, also boasts a 20% better throughput compared to previous 1.5 volt modules and, of course, a lower power consumption to boot. As some math not performed by us will reveal, the module itself is made up of 72 of those 4Gb memory chips, which are lined up in rows of nine quad-die packaged 16Gb DDR3s mounted on each side of the circuit board. No word on pricing just yet, nor is there any word about Samsung's promised desktop and laptop memory, which are apparently still in the works -- in the form of 8GB DIMMs, at least.
damn that's big.
That's what she said....
Not to you.
that's what she didn't say!
Thats HUGE! with 32GB DIMMs, Intel's Nehalem-EX platform will be able to have 512GB of DDR3 per *SOCKET* (16 DIMMS per socket * 32GB)! that is TWO TERABYTES of DDR3 on a four-socket server!
So even a "low-end" 4-socket version of Nehalem-EX will have
- 32 cores
- 64 threads
- 96MB of L3 cache
- 2048 GB of DDR3 SDRAM running over 16 memory channels
- 16 Quickpath channels
I love AMD for all their innovation, but man they are going to have to hurry up with "Magny-cours" to not get blown out of the water on the high-end server market...
I need to go change my pants.
best.comment.section.ever.
damn!
that's what I'm talking about
it's whack
No, she totally said it. I heard her.
This Is Madness!!!
@loosely_coupled
At what cost for this 2TB of ram server? I think a figure like the national deficit is a nice place to start. Have you seen the prices of 4GB DDR3 Dimms for desktops, let alone laptops or servers which are generally a little more?
Where do we put it in?
That's what she said
Not to you
through the place where the sun dont shine?
That's what she said :P
...she did?
...what?!
in the vagoo?
I think we are starting to get over that little curb you hit when you adopt a new technology.
DDR3 has come off to a pretty good start but obviously has strides to make still.
Now that the technology is starting to become more common place more money is being put into researching higher speeds and bigger sizes.
DDR3 alongside with Larrabee are 2 of the technologies I'm looking forward to the most in terms of adaptation in the next few years.
That's what she said!
Not to ... oh dammit!
Not to you.
not to you, what?
It will be interesting to see what happens with Larabee, and GPGPU stuff in general. Based on Intel's roadmap, their processors will go like this: Nehalem (45nm) -> Westemere (32nm) -> Sandy Bridge (32nm) - Ivy Bridge (22nm) -> Haswell (22nm)
Sandy Bridge will have new 256-bit SIMD instructions called "AVX", while Haswell is said to have "on-package vector co-processors". I wonder if Haswell will finally be a true CPU+GPU with normal CPU cores connected directly to a Larabee-like parallel/vector/GPU processor... All I know is it's going to be real interesting 5 years from now...
Oh my Spaghetti Monster!
That's what she said.
Not to you.
Mark your comments have been making me lol lately. Touche.
whoever did the math made it wrong, 32GB is made of 64 4Gb modules. 72 of 4Gb ram chips will make 36GB of ram.
No, its right.
Chances are its ECC since its server RAM, and they have an extra chip.
TRS.. come again?!
That's what she said.
Not to you.
Wow....... Just amazing....
yeah... the first desktop i bought way back was upgradeable to 32....MB. I think it had 4 MB standard, and it was shared with the graphics. It also had a (almost) top of the line 150Mhz Pentium, which is now slower than the processor in my cell phone.
so that was 14 years ago in 95, how does that compare to moores law... I'll leave the math to someone else.
That's what she said?
No to you.
The first desktop I bought was upgradeable to 64...0...K. Yeah. 640KB. This stick is only 50000 times bigger, I remain unimpressed. Alright, maybe a little impressed.
but can it play tetris?
That's what she said. (Sorry just had to keep up w/ the trend)
Chris, you pointed out the joke and have thus negated its humor. Way to go man.
Not to you
I pointed out the joke? Because That's what she said is such a complicated joke that only the quick-witted would understand.
Besides I didn't "point out the joke," I was making an excuse as to why I made the joke- since there were already like 5 people who made it to other comments before me.
Man you keep getting lamer.
Hahahahahahah a
Now that is funny, GP.
They really have to stop teaching repetition as humor, because really, it just isn't funny.
its not being repetitive that is funny, but the irritation that it gives people ;]
ok that made sense. Server rams usually have 1 bit for FEC for every 8 bits. So instead of 64, you need 64 + 8 ram chips.
That's what SHE said!
+1 For dave for trying. xD
Not to you.
"As some math not performed by us will reveal, the module itself is made up of 72 of those 4Gb memory chips, which are lined up in rows of nine quad-die packaged 16Gb DDR3s mounted on each side of the circuit board."
How does ANY of that add up to 32GB?!
Gigabit =/= Gigabyte
ECC ram explains the extra 4 gigabytes.. (36 instead of the 32 capacity)
The math thing is because the chips are 4 x 4gb (gigabit) chips in a stacked package resulting in 2 GB (gigabyte)per chip x 9 packages per side == 36 GB (gigabyte)
That said the article could do with more explanation and less blurb about omg isn't that cool
Clearly from the comments attached to this article either the bit about it being made from 72 chips should have not been mentioned (a gee whiz omg its just cool that 32GB dimms are shipping! OR the article should be fleshed out to include the info needed to make it digestible by your audience of gadget heads who are not rocket scientists.
72 x 4gb = 288 Gigabit
288 Gigabit = 36 GigaByte (incl ECC)
And since ECC is an extra bit per byte, it's 36GB x 8/9 = 32GB visible to the OS
it's such a handy trick to stack a few chips on top of eachother in one package, I'm amazed it's still relatively underutilized.
I'll take four please.
That's what she said.
not to you
Where is my 256GB of RAM equipt Mac Pro? SL will handle all that RAM without an issue....
What the hell are you trying to do with that? Googlemap the Universe?
"What the hell are you trying to do with that? Googlemap the Universe?"
That's what she said.
Cause I am secretly compensating for something. I need something to entice the ladies when I am using my Mac at Starbucks. (Yes, I take my Mac Pro and a monitor to Starbucks)
What the hell are you trying to do with that? Probe a black hole?
Why would I want to probe your mom's special place?
@shenanigans
Cause I already went Deep Space 9" up in yours.
By "yours" I assume you mean my mom and not me?
That's too bad. Your 9 incher must have smelled like an open air fish market in the middle of a blazing hot summer for weeks.
Haha good one.
I'm glad you took it as it was intended. Almost didn't publish...didn't know what the crowd was like here on engadget.
Why would anyone take someone with username 'Shenanigans' seriously??
+1 internets for you for making me laf
Not to you
Oh that would go great in my Dell Mini 9.
Mini? thats what she said.
To you.
That's what she said!
Time to use 64-bit processing the way it was intended!
damn straight!
That's what she said.
I've got 16GB in this machine and it's a fundamentally different experience from any computer I've previously used: every app I need always open with instant switching, and restarts are less of pain as nothing has to be read out of VM; open apps just all quit at once. This much RAM has made trying to do production work on any other machine feel intolerably slow.
I know what you mean, I've been rocking 16 gigs in my workstation for over a year now, going to my macbook pro with 4 gb is just not the same..
A few of these n you could have all your OS and programs in the memory. Now that'd be a great PC to use.
I wish that's what she said, bloody cheapskate :P
Good, so now 4GB DDR3 SODIMMs can be less than $300-something a piece?
Better sell your house for a set of those. OCZ 16GB (4x4) DDR2 800 set costs around $470 (Corsair's price for a similar set is an insane $850).
One could only imagine what 192GB (32x6) set of those is going to cost. You will also need a Win 7 Ultimate to handle them (yay for crippling lower flavors) and wait for some magical mobo to pop up (current X58 mobos support up to 24GB (2x12).
Errr... that last one should be 24GB (4x6).
Moreover, I was reading that Kingston is planning to release a 24GB DDR3-TC kit later this year. The article said that those would cost $2000 to produce. Also found some server-based kit from Crucial on Amazon that's 24GB (8x3) for $1431. :o
I don't suppose X58 mobos accept Registered ECC modules, do they? Even if they do, the current ones only accept 4GB modules, it seems.
"You will also need a Win 7 Ultimate to handle them"
Windows 7 Professional will also handle 192GB of ram:
http://www.winsupersite.com/win7/win7_skus_compare.asp
All of your guys complaining the math is wrong:
You're forgetting the difference between "GB" and "Gb".
you*
Please light us ...
All worlds RAM are belong to me!
With 32GB of memory I can switch back to using Internet Explore and Itunes
I see what you did there. Good one.
Im looking forward to turning on windows side bar again
SQL will still need more.
How many of these would it take to run Crysis on low with no video card? LOL :-D
This is assuming you have 16 cores running at 3.2 Ghz. :)
I heard this girl say "Samsung debuts first 32GB DDR3 memory module. Not to me, though.
Thtat was she said
Samsung, please mass produce the fuck out of this, i'd love a 32gb stick of ram!
You'll need at least two more. Unless you just want to use it as a bookmark....
That's what she said.