Breaking News
Comments
Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
msporer
User Rank
Blogger
Microsoft?
msporer   3/14/2014 7:48:04 PM
NO RATINGS
Microsoft is listed in this article and was once a developer member, but now they don't show up on HMCC.org. I wonder why not?

BitHead77
User Rank
Rookie
Re: DDR4 replacement??
BitHead77   3/14/2014 5:08:11 PM
NO RATINGS
2GB would make an interesting LLC (Last Level Cache), you could use a large cache line size (512-4K bytes) to optimize the transfer between DDR and HMC.  I suspect you would still see most of the power savings as the DDR memory lines would be idle most of the time.

Another application could be as cache on a rotating media disk drive, the HMC could be glued right to the top of the disk controller. 

alex_m1
User Rank
CEO
Re: DDR4 replacement??
alex_m1   3/12/2014 5:36:22 PM
NO RATINGS
HMC -- 70 Percent Less Power, 8x the Transfer Rate of DDR4

http://www.dailytech.com/Micron+Samples+Hybrid+Memory+Cube+With+8x+the+Transfer+Rate+of+DDR4/article33446.htm

TarraTarra!
User Rank
CEO
Re: DDR4 replacement??
TarraTarra!   3/12/2014 5:12:18 PM
NO RATINGS
I take it that HMC is lower in power which would reduce opex. However the cost of memory would be higher. Any data on how much power say 16GB of HMC would burn vs. DDR4. I don't think the aquisition cost of HMC could come close to commodity DDR4 memory. Also given the more exotic (for now) manufacturing techniques like TSVs etc are bound to hurt yield, further increasing cost.

I believe the cost of HBM will get lower but in order to do so it will need significant volumes and improvements in manufcaturing to get there. This can only happen if the large CPU vendor (Intel) gets on board. Without that this cannot replace DDR4.

 

 

 

TarraTarra!
User Rank
CEO
Re: DDR4 replacement??
TarraTarra!   3/12/2014 5:03:31 PM
NO RATINGS
The math is off. You are mixing operating costs and savings that would appear over time to the aquisition cost of a server.

 

How much lower in power/GB would HMC be when compared to DDR4. Note that DDR4 reduces power fairly well over DDR3.

DougInRB
User Rank
Manager
Re: how does this relate to servers?
DougInRB   3/12/2014 3:49:49 PM
NO RATINGS
As TanjB pointed out, the bandwidth/GB just doesn't make sense with so little memory in a fabric.  Why would I want to put 32GB on a server using HMC when I can get the same amount on a single DIMM - at lower cost and less physical space?

Until they actually get more GB/HMC, this looks like a great product for high speed switches and high performance FPGA-attached hardware accelerators, but not servers.

Look at Dell's and other's rack servers.  You can drop 512+GB of memory in them today - and many do.

alex_m1
User Rank
CEO
Re: how does this relate to servers?
alex_m1   3/12/2014 2:41:29 PM
NO RATINGS
My guess is that a large enough part of the server market could manage with 16GB which comes down to 4 chained HMC's.  Seems possible.

Even 32GB might work.

DougInRB
User Rank
Manager
Re: how does this relate to servers?
DougInRB   3/12/2014 2:22:23 PM
NO RATINGS
Even though you can chain them together, you are limited to 8 HMC parts per channel.  So, the CPU will need multiple channels to support a large memory server.  That's no problem - they already support multiple channels with far more signals required for DDR4 than for HMC.

The real problem is the size of the HMC.  They are huge (31mmx31mm)!  You can't cram enough of those on a motherboard or DIMM to get a server with 1.5TB of DRAM like you can with the 64GB DDR4 DIMMs that will be available later this year.

 

 

alex_m1
User Rank
CEO
Re: how does this relate to servers?
alex_m1   3/12/2014 7:13:42 AM
NO RATINGS
Multiple HMCs can be chained together to appear as a single, mega-humongous memory.

TanjB
User Rank
Rookie
Re: how does this relate to servers?
TanjB   3/12/2014 1:09:39 AM
NO RATINGS
The point is that the chip stack is overkill for large space.  100GB/s bandwidth per 2GB cube is way overkill for building a server with large memory - 50 modules like that, what host chip will have the interconnect or even need it?  And you can't get much bigger cubes because that is the limit you get multiplying DRAM chip capacity x number of TSV layers possible.  So, the whole thing looks optimized for small-memory scenarios.

Where is the server equivalent, or is this simply not coming to a server any time soon?

 

Page 1 / 2   >   >>


EE Life
Frankenstein's Fix, Teardowns, Sideshows, Design Contests, Reader Content & More
Max Maxfield

Aging Brass: Cow Poop vs. Horse Doo-Doo
Max Maxfield
13 comments
As you may recall, one of the things I want to do with the brass panels I'm using in my Inamorata Prognostication Engine is to make them look really old. Since everything is being mounted ...

EDN Staff

11 Summer Vacation Spots for Engineers
EDN Staff
11 comments
This collection of places from technology history, museums, and modern marvels is a roadmap for an engineering adventure that will take you around the world. Here are just a few spots ...

Glen Chenier

Engineers Solve Analog/Digital Problem, Invent Creative Expletives
Glen Chenier
11 comments
- An analog engineer and a digital engineer join forces, use their respective skills, and pull a few bunnies out of a hat to troubleshoot a system with which they are completely ...

Larry Desjardin

Engineers Should Study Finance: 5 Reasons Why
Larry Desjardin
45 comments
I'm a big proponent of engineers learning financial basics. Why? Because engineers are making decisions all the time, in multiple ways. Having a good financial understanding guides these ...

Flash Poll
Top Comments of the Week
Like Us on Facebook
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)