News & Analysis
Comment
David Brown
Why would you want a DRAM controller in a processor? The DRAM controller ...
Wayman
For Wide I/O, I suppose the target should be 12.8GBytes/s which is proposed by ...
Memory-cube group issues initial draft specs
Rick Merritt
8/14/2012 8:00 AM EDT
SAN JOSE – The Hybrid Memory Cube Consortium released to its members an initial draft of interface specifications for its 3-D DRAM memory stack. The group is now in final review of the specs with plans to release them publicly near the end of the year.
The group has so far defined two specifications—an interface protocol and a short-reach physical layer channel. The PHY is optimized for use connecting a memory cube and chips sitting multiple inches of printed circuit board traces away in a networking system.
The group will also define an ultra short reach PHY. It aims to extend less than three inches and is optimized to connect the cube with die, probably on a single multi-chip module.
Only members can get access to the initial drafts and provide input on them until the review process is complete and the specs are made public at the end of the year. The group is still open to accepting new members.
The group is led by Micron and Samsung. Other members include Altera, ARM, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Microsoft, Open-Silicon, SK Hynix and Xilinx.
The spec is primarily targeted at high-performance networking, industrial, and test and measurement applications. IBM has also suggested it will use the cubes for high-end servers. The cubes contain both DRAM memory chips and a memory controller.
Previously, Micron said it will deliver 2 and 4 Gbyte versions of the cubes in early 2013, providing aggregate bi-directional bandwidth of up to 160 Gbytes/second.
Separately, the Jedec standards group is working on a follow on to the 12.8 Gbit/second Wide I/O interface that targets mobile applications processors. The so-called HB-DRAM or HBM effort is said to target a 120-128 Gbyte/second interface and is led by the Jedec JC-42 committee including representatives from Hynix and other companies.
The group has so far defined two specifications—an interface protocol and a short-reach physical layer channel. The PHY is optimized for use connecting a memory cube and chips sitting multiple inches of printed circuit board traces away in a networking system.
The group will also define an ultra short reach PHY. It aims to extend less than three inches and is optimized to connect the cube with die, probably on a single multi-chip module.
Only members can get access to the initial drafts and provide input on them until the review process is complete and the specs are made public at the end of the year. The group is still open to accepting new members.
The group is led by Micron and Samsung. Other members include Altera, ARM, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Microsoft, Open-Silicon, SK Hynix and Xilinx.
The spec is primarily targeted at high-performance networking, industrial, and test and measurement applications. IBM has also suggested it will use the cubes for high-end servers. The cubes contain both DRAM memory chips and a memory controller.
Previously, Micron said it will deliver 2 and 4 Gbyte versions of the cubes in early 2013, providing aggregate bi-directional bandwidth of up to 160 Gbytes/second.
Separately, the Jedec standards group is working on a follow on to the 12.8 Gbit/second Wide I/O interface that targets mobile applications processors. The so-called HB-DRAM or HBM effort is said to target a 120-128 Gbyte/second interface and is led by the Jedec JC-42 committee including representatives from Hynix and other companies.
|
|
|
|
|
Navigate to related information
resistion
8/14/2012 8:34 AM EDT
Seems the TSV bandwidth is wasted on flash.
Sign in to Reply
zanfar
8/14/2012 11:20 AM EDT
It was my understanding that the HMC consortium was primarily concerned with DRAM memory--not Flash.
http://www.hybridmemorycube.org/technology.html
Sign in to Reply
rick.merritt
8/14/2012 2:29 PM EDT
Yes the Memory Cube is for DRAM not flash. My mistake. The story above has been corrected.
Sign in to Reply
Rchandta1
8/14/2012 5:23 PM EDT
Agreed stacking DRAMs has advantage. But I can't understand the rest. It is tightly coupled with the memory controller, so there is power and latency benefits. But it seems to force the processor away from the memory controller. Many processors have integrated DRAM controllers; so the stacking scheme seems to negate their advantage.
Sign in to Reply
resistion
8/14/2012 7:47 PM EDT
Agreed, so Intel not participating is important to wonder about.
Sign in to Reply
rick.merritt
8/15/2012 12:15 AM EDT
Yes, Intel, AMD, HP and Oracle--basically the computer industry outside IBM--has been silent so far on its 3-D memory strategy. Presumably they are headed down the Jedec route.
Sign in to Reply
David Brown
8/16/2012 4:41 AM EDT
Why would you want a DRAM controller in a processor? The DRAM controller handles things like timings for the different row selects, bank access, refresh, etc. You want these as close to the DRAM chip as possible.
The reason memory controllers became integrated into processors is not because that's the best place for them - it was to avoid the extra chip, buses and latency caused by having the controller on a separate device between the processor and the memory (and sharing bus bandwidth with PCI and other buses).
The reason the controller is not in the DRAM chips today is because the chip process needed for controller logic is very different from that needed for the DRAM cells, so it would be hugely expensive to put them on the same die.
If you put the memory controller inside the DRAM cube, then the bus between the processor and the memory can be simpler and faster, and the memory controller can be more optimal for the dram banks it is controlling (including wider bus access and local cache inside the cube).
The potential here is not just to increase bandwidth, but also to lower latency - especially in servers with large memories and ECC.
Sign in to Reply
Wayman
8/16/2012 2:36 AM EDT
For Wide I/O, I suppose the target should be 12.8GBytes/s which is proposed by Intel.
Sign in to Reply