Article on Rambus XDR2 and ever-increasing bandwidth needs

XDR2 to quintuple memory data transfer speeds by 2007

By Scott Fulton

July 7, 2005 - 10:45 EST

Los Altos (CA) - "Parallelism" is the keyword underscoring several semiconductor architectures this decade. Now it's the turn of the memory: Rambus announced the availability of "micro-threading" for XDR2 memory, the company's next generation memory technology. Memory clock speeds will catapult to 8 GHz, up from a current maximum of 4.8 GHz of XDR1.

"The bandwidth requirements of game platforms and graphical applications have been growing exponentially," Steven Woo, Rambus' senior principal engineer at Rambus, told Tom's Hardware Guide. "About every five or six years, it goes up by a factor of 10. PlayStation 3, for example, will have a memory bandwidth capability of 50 GByte per second." If this trend continues, projected Woo, a theoretical 2010 model "PlayStation 4" could require ten times the memory bandwidth as next year's PlayStation 3. A statistical projection made in 2004 by NVIDIA's Vice President of Technical MarketingTony Tamasi-- cited by Woo--anticipates that a top-of-the-line 3D game could conceivably require memory bandwidth of 3 TByte per second.


To begin addressing this staggering upward slope to which NVIDIA and others are pointing, Rambus unveiled XDR2, with a range of added and enhanced technologies, including the company's new simultaneous data throughput concept, micro-threading.

As Woo demonstrated exclusively for Tom's Hardware Guide, micro-threading was designed to address a growing problem brought on by the very 10x bandwidth factor that's revolutionizing the memory industry today: a growing mismatch between the memory interface frequency and the core signaling rate. As interfaces such as Rambus' XIO core for XDR increase in speed, while at the same time core signaling rates increase by a lesser rate or not at all, the amount of data that a controller must fetch for each clock cycle rises proportionately with the gap between these two speeds. A feature that was already integrated in first generation XDR coordinates memory interface frequency and the core signaling rate.

Another problem in modern memory technologies is the increasing byte-size of data pieces that can be accessed. This loss of "granularity" actually results in performance degradation, especially with graphics cards that require rapid access to smaller and smaller triangles to achieve true high-definition rendering. Micro-threading addresses this problem, stated Woo, first by recognizing that DRAM technology divides banks of data elements into halves or quadrants, and next by developing a technique by which those quadrants can be addressed both independently and simultaneously. No bandwidth is lost, but access granularity is theoretically divided by four, at the expense of a "small" increase to the number of commands required to access data within the independent quadrants, according to a Rambus white paper.

The payoff may come in the form of capabilities for future graphics cards to establish very deep, very narrow look-ahead pipelines for very small triangles, which could lead to another huge performance boost for scene rendering. "Those pipelines are so incredibly deep," said Woo, "that you have lots of visibility way ahead of time as to where the triangles are, and where they're going to be accessed from."

entire article here:
http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20050707_104509.html

I was and still am hoping that for the next-next generation (X3, PS4) that we will either get some form of SRAM (not DRAM) or some presently exotic type of memory, such as one of the types of RAM that IBM is working on (magnetic memory or something like that)....... something that address most of the current problems that developers have today, even with Xbox 360 and PS3, and would still face even with next-next generation Rambus memories.
 
So, XDR will "quintuple bandwidth" in the next year and a half, but PS3 still has more or less "normal" bandwidth for the time it's released. That is to say that the bandwidth to XDR is not exactly much higher than the one to DDR in the system.
 
XDR2 for PS3 certainly would have been great; but then again so would 65nm have been. Not sure that this spring is when Sony would have decided to launch had they not been pressured by Microsoft (if they even were pressured), but it's unfortunate they'll be missing out on some key technologies coming on in the next year or two.

(PS - What a rollercoaster ride; first the forums' down, now it's back)
 
Hoho, this is actually pretty cool. You get the high frequency, high granularity, large bandwidth, and I imagine a smaller pin count.

As per what XbD was saying, can this be brought to the Xdr in the PS3 in some form? I recall some murmurs about it being implementable in current xdr or did I gert it wrong?
 
This could easily replace gddr, except graphics chips are so dog slow on the cycle speed.

Also, (serious question) I cannot understand why the video ram in ps3 is a higher clock speed than the actual chip speed. Isn't this a complete waste of memory bandwidth? Or does the video subset have its own ram cache/fast store?
 
It is almost impossible to anything to be updated in tech, but this next gen could really beneffict from waiting one year, damm MS :devilish: :devilish: :devilish: .
 
lip2lip said:
This could easily replace gddr, except graphics chips are so dog slow on the cycle speed.

Also, (serious question) I cannot understand why the video ram in ps3 is a higher clock speed than the actual chip speed. Isn't this a complete waste of memory bandwidth? Or does the video subset have its own ram cache/fast store?

Graphics chips have had asynchronous memory setups forever now - get out of that Pentium 4 2002 frame of thinking! :)
 
xbdestroya said:
lip2lip said:
This could easily replace gddr, except graphics chips are so dog slow on the cycle speed.

Also, (serious question) I cannot understand why the video ram in ps3 is a higher clock speed than the actual chip speed. Isn't this a complete waste of memory bandwidth? Or does the video subset have its own ram cache/fast store?

Graphics chips have had asynchronous memory setups forever now - get out of that Pentium 4 2002 frame of thinking! :)

but if the memory cycle speed is high than the chip, aren't you going to miss cycles, and therefor not get full 22 gigs per second? wouldn't the theoretical max be 550 mhz, or 20 gigs a second?

edit: nm, cell accesses gddr as addressable mem. lol. know what you mean though
 
since my knowledge of computer technology is extremely limited, I need to be reminded of something: the old 8bit and 16bit consoles like NES, SMS, Genesis, NeoGeo, SNES, etc, they used small amounts of very very fast SRAM, did they not? and when we transitioned to the Saturn, Playstation, Nintendo 64, these consoles went to slower DRAMs, which was actually a downgrade in memory latency (had higher latency) dispite the fact that the amount of memory increased to 3.5 to 4.5 MB compared to the 64k ~ 128k SRAM of the older consoles. is that right?

would a return to true SRAM be a step in the right direction for XBox3 and PS4? (which should be released in the early part of the next decade)

(Gamecube already uses a type of DRAM that is closer in performance to SRAM, MoSys '1T-SRAM' and Revolution is also going to have at least some 1T-SRAM)


or do we need to ultimately go beyond even the super-fast SRAM, to something totally new ?

I'm not a fan of Rambus memory.....and hope that Sony moves to something else for PS4. likewise, something like 'GDDR5' DRAM would be pretty disappointing for Xbox3, since I am hoping both future-gen consoles move to something much better.
 
It would be a step in the "right" direction if there were over 2GB of that SRAM in the next next gen. ;)

I think developers care about quantity more... I recall someone asking about this on these forums. It was something about... 256MB of fast ram or 512MB of slower RAM with respect to the Xbox 360 way back. One of the devs said they'd rather have the latter (it might have been Deano?).
 
I remember that. of course, it was a comparison of... a larger amount of slower DRAM vs a smaller amount of faster DRAM, be it DDR2, GDDR3 or Rambus XDR DRAMs.


I wonder if developers would go for a smaller amount of SRAM over a larger amount of DRAM ?
 
london-boy said:
So, XDR will "quintuple bandwidth" in the next year and a half, but PS3 still has more or less "normal" bandwidth for the time it's released. That is to say that the bandwidth to XDR is not exactly much higher than the one to DDR in the system.

Well, if you are just looking at memory types and bandwidth, DDR equipped PC cards such as the GeForce 6800 GT/Ultra already have significantly more bandwidth than the XDR in the PS3.


But you can't really comapre bandwidth like that. The PS3 has tons of bandwidth for a console, but it's not using the absolute most expensive XDR on the market either.
 
Megadrive1988 said:
I wonder if developers would go for a smaller amount of SRAM over a larger amount of DRAM ?


No.

RAM is data, and the type of RAM makes no difference. No developer would choose to have access to less data. Lack of speed causes issues in development and optimization, but lack of RAM can cause you to drop features from your game.
 
Back
Top