Why does RAM (any type) access time decrease so slowly?
$begingroup$
This article shows that DDR4 SDRAM has approximately 8x more bandwidth DDR1 SDRAM. But the time from setting the column address to when the data is available has only decreased by 10% (13.5ns).
A quick search shows that the access time of the fastest async. SRAM (18 years old) is 7ns.
Why has SDRAM access time decreased so slowly? Is the reason economic, technological, or fundamental?
ram speed ddr latency
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This article shows that DDR4 SDRAM has approximately 8x more bandwidth DDR1 SDRAM. But the time from setting the column address to when the data is available has only decreased by 10% (13.5ns).
A quick search shows that the access time of the fastest async. SRAM (18 years old) is 7ns.
Why has SDRAM access time decreased so slowly? Is the reason economic, technological, or fundamental?
ram speed ddr latency
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This article shows that DDR4 SDRAM has approximately 8x more bandwidth DDR1 SDRAM. But the time from setting the column address to when the data is available has only decreased by 10% (13.5ns).
A quick search shows that the access time of the fastest async. SRAM (18 years old) is 7ns.
Why has SDRAM access time decreased so slowly? Is the reason economic, technological, or fundamental?
ram speed ddr latency
New contributor
$endgroup$
This article shows that DDR4 SDRAM has approximately 8x more bandwidth DDR1 SDRAM. But the time from setting the column address to when the data is available has only decreased by 10% (13.5ns).
A quick search shows that the access time of the fastest async. SRAM (18 years old) is 7ns.
Why has SDRAM access time decreased so slowly? Is the reason economic, technological, or fundamental?
ram speed ddr latency
ram speed ddr latency
New contributor
New contributor
edited 10 hours ago
C_Elegans
2,502824
2,502824
New contributor
asked 11 hours ago
ArseniyArseniy
684
684
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
It's because it's easier and cheaper to increase the bandwidth of the DRAM than to decrease the latency. To get the data from an open row of ram, a non trivial amount of work is necessary.
The column address needs to be decoded, the muxes selecting which lines to access need to be driven, and the data needs to move across the chip to the output buffers. This takes a little bit of time, especially given that the SDRAM chips are manufactured on a process tailored to high ram densities and not high logic speeds. To increase the bandwidth say by using DDR(1,2,3 or 4), most of the logic can be either widened or pipelined, and can operate at the same speed as in the previous generation. The only thing that needs to be faster is the I/O driver for the DDR pins.
By contrast, to decrease the latency the entire operation needs to be sped up, which is much harder. Most likely, parts of the ram would need to be made on a process similar to that for high speed CPUs, increasing the cost substantially (the high speed process is more expensive, plus each chip needs to go through 2 different processes).
If you compare CPU caches with RAM and hard disk/SSD, there's an inverse relationship between storage being large, and storage being fast. An L1$ is very fast, but can only hold between 32 and 256kB of data. The reason it is so fast is because it is small:
- It can be placed very close to the CPU using it, meaning data has to travel a shorter distance to get to it
- The wires on it can be made shorter, again meaning it takes less time for data to travel across it
- It doesn't take up much area or many transistors, so making it on a speed optimized process and using a lot of power per bit stored isn't that expensive
As you move up the hierarchy each storage option gets larger in capacity, but also larger in area and farther away from the device using it, meaning the device must get slower.
$endgroup$
6
$begingroup$
Great answer. I just want to emphasise the physical distance factor: at maybe 10cm for the furthest RAM stick, 1/3 to 1/2 of the speed of light as the signal speed, plus some extra length to route & match the PCB tracks, you could easily be at 2ns round trip time. If ~15% of your delay is caused by the unbreakable universal speed limit... you're doing real good in my opinion.
$endgroup$
– mbrig
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
L1 is also organized uniquely, is directly in the core that uses it, and uses SRAM.
$endgroup$
– forest
11 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
C_Elegans provides one part of the answer — it is hard to decrease the overall latency of a memory cycle.
The other part of the answer is that in modern hierarchical memory systems (multiple levels of caching), memory bandwidth has a much stronger influence on overall system performance than memory latency, and so that's where all of the latest development efforts have been focused.
This is true in both general computing, where many processes/threads are running in parallel, as well as embedded systems. For example, in the HD video work that I do, I don't care about latencies on the order of milliseconds, but I do need multiple gigabytes/second of bandwidth.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I don't have that much insights, but I expect it is a bit of all.
Economic
For the majority of computers/telephones, the speed is more than enough. For bigger data storages, SSD has been developed. People can use video/music and other speed intensive tasks in (almost) real time. So there is not so much need for more speed (except for specific applications like weather prediction etc).
Another reason is to process a very high RAM speed, CPUs are needed which are fast. And this comes with a lot of power usage. Since the tendency of using them in battery devices (like mobile phones), prevents the use of very fast RAM (and CPUs), thus makes it also not economically useful to make them.
Technical
By the decreasing size of chips/ICs (nm level now), the speed goes up, but not significantly. It is more often used for increasing the amount of RAM, which is needed harder (also a economic reason).
Fundamental
As an example (both are circuits): the easiest way to get more speed (used by SSD), is to just spread the load over multiple components, this way the 'processing' speeds adds up too. Compare using 8 USB sticks reading from at the same time and combining the results, instead of reading data from 1 USB stick after each other (takes 8 times as long).
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
What exactly do SSDs have to do with SDRAM latency?
$endgroup$
– C_Elegans
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
@C_Elegans they are both circuits, for this 'generic' question I don't think there is so much difference.
$endgroup$
– Michel Keijzers
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
The amount of time to open a page hasn't really decreased that much due to the precharge cycle; the amount of energy required is not significantly different today than it was a decade ago. That dominates the access time in my experience.
$endgroup$
– Peter Smith
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
Every search in data array use truly random access not a data stream. Is it so rare task? >>the easiest way to get more speed (used by SSD), is to just spread the load over multiple components << Looks very reasonable. So can we say that true progress of RAM have stoped more than 20 years ago?
$endgroup$
– Arseniy
11 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@MichelKeijzers While they are both circuits, SSDs and SDRAM serve very different use cases, and make use of different techniques for storing data. Additionally, saying that CPUs don't really need faster RAM doesn't make much sense, the entire reason most modern CPUs have 3 levels of caches is because their ram can't be made fast enough to serve the CPU.
$endgroup$
– C_Elegans
11 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("schematics", function () {
StackExchange.schematics.init();
});
}, "cicuitlab");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "135"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Arseniy is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e) {
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom)) {
StackExchange.using('gps', function() { StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', { location: 'question_page' }); });
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
}
};
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2felectronics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f423213%2fwhy-does-ram-any-type-access-time-decrease-so-slowly%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
It's because it's easier and cheaper to increase the bandwidth of the DRAM than to decrease the latency. To get the data from an open row of ram, a non trivial amount of work is necessary.
The column address needs to be decoded, the muxes selecting which lines to access need to be driven, and the data needs to move across the chip to the output buffers. This takes a little bit of time, especially given that the SDRAM chips are manufactured on a process tailored to high ram densities and not high logic speeds. To increase the bandwidth say by using DDR(1,2,3 or 4), most of the logic can be either widened or pipelined, and can operate at the same speed as in the previous generation. The only thing that needs to be faster is the I/O driver for the DDR pins.
By contrast, to decrease the latency the entire operation needs to be sped up, which is much harder. Most likely, parts of the ram would need to be made on a process similar to that for high speed CPUs, increasing the cost substantially (the high speed process is more expensive, plus each chip needs to go through 2 different processes).
If you compare CPU caches with RAM and hard disk/SSD, there's an inverse relationship between storage being large, and storage being fast. An L1$ is very fast, but can only hold between 32 and 256kB of data. The reason it is so fast is because it is small:
- It can be placed very close to the CPU using it, meaning data has to travel a shorter distance to get to it
- The wires on it can be made shorter, again meaning it takes less time for data to travel across it
- It doesn't take up much area or many transistors, so making it on a speed optimized process and using a lot of power per bit stored isn't that expensive
As you move up the hierarchy each storage option gets larger in capacity, but also larger in area and farther away from the device using it, meaning the device must get slower.
$endgroup$
6
$begingroup$
Great answer. I just want to emphasise the physical distance factor: at maybe 10cm for the furthest RAM stick, 1/3 to 1/2 of the speed of light as the signal speed, plus some extra length to route & match the PCB tracks, you could easily be at 2ns round trip time. If ~15% of your delay is caused by the unbreakable universal speed limit... you're doing real good in my opinion.
$endgroup$
– mbrig
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
L1 is also organized uniquely, is directly in the core that uses it, and uses SRAM.
$endgroup$
– forest
11 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It's because it's easier and cheaper to increase the bandwidth of the DRAM than to decrease the latency. To get the data from an open row of ram, a non trivial amount of work is necessary.
The column address needs to be decoded, the muxes selecting which lines to access need to be driven, and the data needs to move across the chip to the output buffers. This takes a little bit of time, especially given that the SDRAM chips are manufactured on a process tailored to high ram densities and not high logic speeds. To increase the bandwidth say by using DDR(1,2,3 or 4), most of the logic can be either widened or pipelined, and can operate at the same speed as in the previous generation. The only thing that needs to be faster is the I/O driver for the DDR pins.
By contrast, to decrease the latency the entire operation needs to be sped up, which is much harder. Most likely, parts of the ram would need to be made on a process similar to that for high speed CPUs, increasing the cost substantially (the high speed process is more expensive, plus each chip needs to go through 2 different processes).
If you compare CPU caches with RAM and hard disk/SSD, there's an inverse relationship between storage being large, and storage being fast. An L1$ is very fast, but can only hold between 32 and 256kB of data. The reason it is so fast is because it is small:
- It can be placed very close to the CPU using it, meaning data has to travel a shorter distance to get to it
- The wires on it can be made shorter, again meaning it takes less time for data to travel across it
- It doesn't take up much area or many transistors, so making it on a speed optimized process and using a lot of power per bit stored isn't that expensive
As you move up the hierarchy each storage option gets larger in capacity, but also larger in area and farther away from the device using it, meaning the device must get slower.
$endgroup$
6
$begingroup$
Great answer. I just want to emphasise the physical distance factor: at maybe 10cm for the furthest RAM stick, 1/3 to 1/2 of the speed of light as the signal speed, plus some extra length to route & match the PCB tracks, you could easily be at 2ns round trip time. If ~15% of your delay is caused by the unbreakable universal speed limit... you're doing real good in my opinion.
$endgroup$
– mbrig
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
L1 is also organized uniquely, is directly in the core that uses it, and uses SRAM.
$endgroup$
– forest
11 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It's because it's easier and cheaper to increase the bandwidth of the DRAM than to decrease the latency. To get the data from an open row of ram, a non trivial amount of work is necessary.
The column address needs to be decoded, the muxes selecting which lines to access need to be driven, and the data needs to move across the chip to the output buffers. This takes a little bit of time, especially given that the SDRAM chips are manufactured on a process tailored to high ram densities and not high logic speeds. To increase the bandwidth say by using DDR(1,2,3 or 4), most of the logic can be either widened or pipelined, and can operate at the same speed as in the previous generation. The only thing that needs to be faster is the I/O driver for the DDR pins.
By contrast, to decrease the latency the entire operation needs to be sped up, which is much harder. Most likely, parts of the ram would need to be made on a process similar to that for high speed CPUs, increasing the cost substantially (the high speed process is more expensive, plus each chip needs to go through 2 different processes).
If you compare CPU caches with RAM and hard disk/SSD, there's an inverse relationship between storage being large, and storage being fast. An L1$ is very fast, but can only hold between 32 and 256kB of data. The reason it is so fast is because it is small:
- It can be placed very close to the CPU using it, meaning data has to travel a shorter distance to get to it
- The wires on it can be made shorter, again meaning it takes less time for data to travel across it
- It doesn't take up much area or many transistors, so making it on a speed optimized process and using a lot of power per bit stored isn't that expensive
As you move up the hierarchy each storage option gets larger in capacity, but also larger in area and farther away from the device using it, meaning the device must get slower.
$endgroup$
It's because it's easier and cheaper to increase the bandwidth of the DRAM than to decrease the latency. To get the data from an open row of ram, a non trivial amount of work is necessary.
The column address needs to be decoded, the muxes selecting which lines to access need to be driven, and the data needs to move across the chip to the output buffers. This takes a little bit of time, especially given that the SDRAM chips are manufactured on a process tailored to high ram densities and not high logic speeds. To increase the bandwidth say by using DDR(1,2,3 or 4), most of the logic can be either widened or pipelined, and can operate at the same speed as in the previous generation. The only thing that needs to be faster is the I/O driver for the DDR pins.
By contrast, to decrease the latency the entire operation needs to be sped up, which is much harder. Most likely, parts of the ram would need to be made on a process similar to that for high speed CPUs, increasing the cost substantially (the high speed process is more expensive, plus each chip needs to go through 2 different processes).
If you compare CPU caches with RAM and hard disk/SSD, there's an inverse relationship between storage being large, and storage being fast. An L1$ is very fast, but can only hold between 32 and 256kB of data. The reason it is so fast is because it is small:
- It can be placed very close to the CPU using it, meaning data has to travel a shorter distance to get to it
- The wires on it can be made shorter, again meaning it takes less time for data to travel across it
- It doesn't take up much area or many transistors, so making it on a speed optimized process and using a lot of power per bit stored isn't that expensive
As you move up the hierarchy each storage option gets larger in capacity, but also larger in area and farther away from the device using it, meaning the device must get slower.
edited 10 hours ago
answered 11 hours ago
C_ElegansC_Elegans
2,502824
2,502824
6
$begingroup$
Great answer. I just want to emphasise the physical distance factor: at maybe 10cm for the furthest RAM stick, 1/3 to 1/2 of the speed of light as the signal speed, plus some extra length to route & match the PCB tracks, you could easily be at 2ns round trip time. If ~15% of your delay is caused by the unbreakable universal speed limit... you're doing real good in my opinion.
$endgroup$
– mbrig
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
L1 is also organized uniquely, is directly in the core that uses it, and uses SRAM.
$endgroup$
– forest
11 mins ago
add a comment |
6
$begingroup$
Great answer. I just want to emphasise the physical distance factor: at maybe 10cm for the furthest RAM stick, 1/3 to 1/2 of the speed of light as the signal speed, plus some extra length to route & match the PCB tracks, you could easily be at 2ns round trip time. If ~15% of your delay is caused by the unbreakable universal speed limit... you're doing real good in my opinion.
$endgroup$
– mbrig
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
L1 is also organized uniquely, is directly in the core that uses it, and uses SRAM.
$endgroup$
– forest
11 mins ago
6
6
$begingroup$
Great answer. I just want to emphasise the physical distance factor: at maybe 10cm for the furthest RAM stick, 1/3 to 1/2 of the speed of light as the signal speed, plus some extra length to route & match the PCB tracks, you could easily be at 2ns round trip time. If ~15% of your delay is caused by the unbreakable universal speed limit... you're doing real good in my opinion.
$endgroup$
– mbrig
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Great answer. I just want to emphasise the physical distance factor: at maybe 10cm for the furthest RAM stick, 1/3 to 1/2 of the speed of light as the signal speed, plus some extra length to route & match the PCB tracks, you could easily be at 2ns round trip time. If ~15% of your delay is caused by the unbreakable universal speed limit... you're doing real good in my opinion.
$endgroup$
– mbrig
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
L1 is also organized uniquely, is directly in the core that uses it, and uses SRAM.
$endgroup$
– forest
11 mins ago
$begingroup$
L1 is also organized uniquely, is directly in the core that uses it, and uses SRAM.
$endgroup$
– forest
11 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
C_Elegans provides one part of the answer — it is hard to decrease the overall latency of a memory cycle.
The other part of the answer is that in modern hierarchical memory systems (multiple levels of caching), memory bandwidth has a much stronger influence on overall system performance than memory latency, and so that's where all of the latest development efforts have been focused.
This is true in both general computing, where many processes/threads are running in parallel, as well as embedded systems. For example, in the HD video work that I do, I don't care about latencies on the order of milliseconds, but I do need multiple gigabytes/second of bandwidth.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
C_Elegans provides one part of the answer — it is hard to decrease the overall latency of a memory cycle.
The other part of the answer is that in modern hierarchical memory systems (multiple levels of caching), memory bandwidth has a much stronger influence on overall system performance than memory latency, and so that's where all of the latest development efforts have been focused.
This is true in both general computing, where many processes/threads are running in parallel, as well as embedded systems. For example, in the HD video work that I do, I don't care about latencies on the order of milliseconds, but I do need multiple gigabytes/second of bandwidth.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
C_Elegans provides one part of the answer — it is hard to decrease the overall latency of a memory cycle.
The other part of the answer is that in modern hierarchical memory systems (multiple levels of caching), memory bandwidth has a much stronger influence on overall system performance than memory latency, and so that's where all of the latest development efforts have been focused.
This is true in both general computing, where many processes/threads are running in parallel, as well as embedded systems. For example, in the HD video work that I do, I don't care about latencies on the order of milliseconds, but I do need multiple gigabytes/second of bandwidth.
$endgroup$
C_Elegans provides one part of the answer — it is hard to decrease the overall latency of a memory cycle.
The other part of the answer is that in modern hierarchical memory systems (multiple levels of caching), memory bandwidth has a much stronger influence on overall system performance than memory latency, and so that's where all of the latest development efforts have been focused.
This is true in both general computing, where many processes/threads are running in parallel, as well as embedded systems. For example, in the HD video work that I do, I don't care about latencies on the order of milliseconds, but I do need multiple gigabytes/second of bandwidth.
answered 10 hours ago
Dave Tweed♦Dave Tweed
119k9148257
119k9148257
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I don't have that much insights, but I expect it is a bit of all.
Economic
For the majority of computers/telephones, the speed is more than enough. For bigger data storages, SSD has been developed. People can use video/music and other speed intensive tasks in (almost) real time. So there is not so much need for more speed (except for specific applications like weather prediction etc).
Another reason is to process a very high RAM speed, CPUs are needed which are fast. And this comes with a lot of power usage. Since the tendency of using them in battery devices (like mobile phones), prevents the use of very fast RAM (and CPUs), thus makes it also not economically useful to make them.
Technical
By the decreasing size of chips/ICs (nm level now), the speed goes up, but not significantly. It is more often used for increasing the amount of RAM, which is needed harder (also a economic reason).
Fundamental
As an example (both are circuits): the easiest way to get more speed (used by SSD), is to just spread the load over multiple components, this way the 'processing' speeds adds up too. Compare using 8 USB sticks reading from at the same time and combining the results, instead of reading data from 1 USB stick after each other (takes 8 times as long).
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
What exactly do SSDs have to do with SDRAM latency?
$endgroup$
– C_Elegans
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
@C_Elegans they are both circuits, for this 'generic' question I don't think there is so much difference.
$endgroup$
– Michel Keijzers
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
The amount of time to open a page hasn't really decreased that much due to the precharge cycle; the amount of energy required is not significantly different today than it was a decade ago. That dominates the access time in my experience.
$endgroup$
– Peter Smith
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
Every search in data array use truly random access not a data stream. Is it so rare task? >>the easiest way to get more speed (used by SSD), is to just spread the load over multiple components << Looks very reasonable. So can we say that true progress of RAM have stoped more than 20 years ago?
$endgroup$
– Arseniy
11 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@MichelKeijzers While they are both circuits, SSDs and SDRAM serve very different use cases, and make use of different techniques for storing data. Additionally, saying that CPUs don't really need faster RAM doesn't make much sense, the entire reason most modern CPUs have 3 levels of caches is because their ram can't be made fast enough to serve the CPU.
$endgroup$
– C_Elegans
11 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
I don't have that much insights, but I expect it is a bit of all.
Economic
For the majority of computers/telephones, the speed is more than enough. For bigger data storages, SSD has been developed. People can use video/music and other speed intensive tasks in (almost) real time. So there is not so much need for more speed (except for specific applications like weather prediction etc).
Another reason is to process a very high RAM speed, CPUs are needed which are fast. And this comes with a lot of power usage. Since the tendency of using them in battery devices (like mobile phones), prevents the use of very fast RAM (and CPUs), thus makes it also not economically useful to make them.
Technical
By the decreasing size of chips/ICs (nm level now), the speed goes up, but not significantly. It is more often used for increasing the amount of RAM, which is needed harder (also a economic reason).
Fundamental
As an example (both are circuits): the easiest way to get more speed (used by SSD), is to just spread the load over multiple components, this way the 'processing' speeds adds up too. Compare using 8 USB sticks reading from at the same time and combining the results, instead of reading data from 1 USB stick after each other (takes 8 times as long).
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
What exactly do SSDs have to do with SDRAM latency?
$endgroup$
– C_Elegans
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
@C_Elegans they are both circuits, for this 'generic' question I don't think there is so much difference.
$endgroup$
– Michel Keijzers
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
The amount of time to open a page hasn't really decreased that much due to the precharge cycle; the amount of energy required is not significantly different today than it was a decade ago. That dominates the access time in my experience.
$endgroup$
– Peter Smith
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
Every search in data array use truly random access not a data stream. Is it so rare task? >>the easiest way to get more speed (used by SSD), is to just spread the load over multiple components << Looks very reasonable. So can we say that true progress of RAM have stoped more than 20 years ago?
$endgroup$
– Arseniy
11 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@MichelKeijzers While they are both circuits, SSDs and SDRAM serve very different use cases, and make use of different techniques for storing data. Additionally, saying that CPUs don't really need faster RAM doesn't make much sense, the entire reason most modern CPUs have 3 levels of caches is because their ram can't be made fast enough to serve the CPU.
$endgroup$
– C_Elegans
11 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
I don't have that much insights, but I expect it is a bit of all.
Economic
For the majority of computers/telephones, the speed is more than enough. For bigger data storages, SSD has been developed. People can use video/music and other speed intensive tasks in (almost) real time. So there is not so much need for more speed (except for specific applications like weather prediction etc).
Another reason is to process a very high RAM speed, CPUs are needed which are fast. And this comes with a lot of power usage. Since the tendency of using them in battery devices (like mobile phones), prevents the use of very fast RAM (and CPUs), thus makes it also not economically useful to make them.
Technical
By the decreasing size of chips/ICs (nm level now), the speed goes up, but not significantly. It is more often used for increasing the amount of RAM, which is needed harder (also a economic reason).
Fundamental
As an example (both are circuits): the easiest way to get more speed (used by SSD), is to just spread the load over multiple components, this way the 'processing' speeds adds up too. Compare using 8 USB sticks reading from at the same time and combining the results, instead of reading data from 1 USB stick after each other (takes 8 times as long).
$endgroup$
I don't have that much insights, but I expect it is a bit of all.
Economic
For the majority of computers/telephones, the speed is more than enough. For bigger data storages, SSD has been developed. People can use video/music and other speed intensive tasks in (almost) real time. So there is not so much need for more speed (except for specific applications like weather prediction etc).
Another reason is to process a very high RAM speed, CPUs are needed which are fast. And this comes with a lot of power usage. Since the tendency of using them in battery devices (like mobile phones), prevents the use of very fast RAM (and CPUs), thus makes it also not economically useful to make them.
Technical
By the decreasing size of chips/ICs (nm level now), the speed goes up, but not significantly. It is more often used for increasing the amount of RAM, which is needed harder (also a economic reason).
Fundamental
As an example (both are circuits): the easiest way to get more speed (used by SSD), is to just spread the load over multiple components, this way the 'processing' speeds adds up too. Compare using 8 USB sticks reading from at the same time and combining the results, instead of reading data from 1 USB stick after each other (takes 8 times as long).
edited 11 hours ago
answered 11 hours ago
Michel KeijzersMichel Keijzers
6,26192865
6,26192865
$begingroup$
What exactly do SSDs have to do with SDRAM latency?
$endgroup$
– C_Elegans
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
@C_Elegans they are both circuits, for this 'generic' question I don't think there is so much difference.
$endgroup$
– Michel Keijzers
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
The amount of time to open a page hasn't really decreased that much due to the precharge cycle; the amount of energy required is not significantly different today than it was a decade ago. That dominates the access time in my experience.
$endgroup$
– Peter Smith
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
Every search in data array use truly random access not a data stream. Is it so rare task? >>the easiest way to get more speed (used by SSD), is to just spread the load over multiple components << Looks very reasonable. So can we say that true progress of RAM have stoped more than 20 years ago?
$endgroup$
– Arseniy
11 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@MichelKeijzers While they are both circuits, SSDs and SDRAM serve very different use cases, and make use of different techniques for storing data. Additionally, saying that CPUs don't really need faster RAM doesn't make much sense, the entire reason most modern CPUs have 3 levels of caches is because their ram can't be made fast enough to serve the CPU.
$endgroup$
– C_Elegans
11 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
What exactly do SSDs have to do with SDRAM latency?
$endgroup$
– C_Elegans
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
@C_Elegans they are both circuits, for this 'generic' question I don't think there is so much difference.
$endgroup$
– Michel Keijzers
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
The amount of time to open a page hasn't really decreased that much due to the precharge cycle; the amount of energy required is not significantly different today than it was a decade ago. That dominates the access time in my experience.
$endgroup$
– Peter Smith
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
Every search in data array use truly random access not a data stream. Is it so rare task? >>the easiest way to get more speed (used by SSD), is to just spread the load over multiple components << Looks very reasonable. So can we say that true progress of RAM have stoped more than 20 years ago?
$endgroup$
– Arseniy
11 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@MichelKeijzers While they are both circuits, SSDs and SDRAM serve very different use cases, and make use of different techniques for storing data. Additionally, saying that CPUs don't really need faster RAM doesn't make much sense, the entire reason most modern CPUs have 3 levels of caches is because their ram can't be made fast enough to serve the CPU.
$endgroup$
– C_Elegans
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
What exactly do SSDs have to do with SDRAM latency?
$endgroup$
– C_Elegans
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
What exactly do SSDs have to do with SDRAM latency?
$endgroup$
– C_Elegans
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
@C_Elegans they are both circuits, for this 'generic' question I don't think there is so much difference.
$endgroup$
– Michel Keijzers
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
@C_Elegans they are both circuits, for this 'generic' question I don't think there is so much difference.
$endgroup$
– Michel Keijzers
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
The amount of time to open a page hasn't really decreased that much due to the precharge cycle; the amount of energy required is not significantly different today than it was a decade ago. That dominates the access time in my experience.
$endgroup$
– Peter Smith
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
The amount of time to open a page hasn't really decreased that much due to the precharge cycle; the amount of energy required is not significantly different today than it was a decade ago. That dominates the access time in my experience.
$endgroup$
– Peter Smith
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
Every search in data array use truly random access not a data stream. Is it so rare task? >>the easiest way to get more speed (used by SSD), is to just spread the load over multiple components << Looks very reasonable. So can we say that true progress of RAM have stoped more than 20 years ago?
$endgroup$
– Arseniy
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
Every search in data array use truly random access not a data stream. Is it so rare task? >>the easiest way to get more speed (used by SSD), is to just spread the load over multiple components << Looks very reasonable. So can we say that true progress of RAM have stoped more than 20 years ago?
$endgroup$
– Arseniy
11 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@MichelKeijzers While they are both circuits, SSDs and SDRAM serve very different use cases, and make use of different techniques for storing data. Additionally, saying that CPUs don't really need faster RAM doesn't make much sense, the entire reason most modern CPUs have 3 levels of caches is because their ram can't be made fast enough to serve the CPU.
$endgroup$
– C_Elegans
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
@MichelKeijzers While they are both circuits, SSDs and SDRAM serve very different use cases, and make use of different techniques for storing data. Additionally, saying that CPUs don't really need faster RAM doesn't make much sense, the entire reason most modern CPUs have 3 levels of caches is because their ram can't be made fast enough to serve the CPU.
$endgroup$
– C_Elegans
11 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
Arseniy is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Arseniy is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Arseniy is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Arseniy is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Electrical Engineering Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e) {
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom)) {
StackExchange.using('gps', function() { StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', { location: 'question_page' }); });
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
}
};
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2felectronics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f423213%2fwhy-does-ram-any-type-access-time-decrease-so-slowly%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e) {
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom)) {
StackExchange.using('gps', function() { StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', { location: 'question_page' }); });
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
}
};
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e) {
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom)) {
StackExchange.using('gps', function() { StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', { location: 'question_page' }); });
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
}
};
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e) {
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom)) {
StackExchange.using('gps', function() { StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', { location: 'question_page' }); });
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
}
};
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown