POST A COMMENT

16 Comments

Back to Article

  • MrSpadge - Thursday, February 07, 2013 - link

    A small step, but a nice one nevertheless! Reply
  • DanNeely - Thursday, February 07, 2013 - link

    instead of sticking the sodimm on top of the board, put the connectors on the edge and install the ram in plane with the mobo instead of parallel with it. Reply
  • Zink - Thursday, February 07, 2013 - link

    yes Reply
  • Zink - Thursday, February 07, 2013 - link

    But then you get a smaller motherboard PCB because you can't run traces or put components under the DIMMs. Reply
  • DanNeely - Thursday, February 07, 2013 - link

    soldered on chips already cost the surface of the board; if needed the additional area for traces could be covered by adding another layer to the PCB or by not allocating 100% of the next round of board shrinkage to batteries. Reply
  • Sivar - Thursday, February 07, 2013 - link

    Adding another PCB layer is not a decision to be made lightly for cost and complexity reasons.
    If the board can be designed so that it is still small and doesn't need the extra PCB space, many manufacturers would still prefer to make it that much smaller and still use surface-mount or perhaps Micron's solution, depending on the design.
    I still like the idea though. It makes sense for SKUs meant for higher-end users which are meant to be upgradeable.
    Reply
  • ajp_anton - Thursday, February 07, 2013 - link

    What's wrong with 4GB modules? We want dual-channel, so that should result in 8GB total anyway, which is perfect for the thin laptops these are made for. Reply
  • JarredWalton - Thursday, February 07, 2013 - link

    Nothing, and I think 8GB total is a good target. I'm merely pointing out that at least initially, 8GB modules aren't an option (for those that might need more than 8GB). Reply
  • ajp_anton - Thursday, February 07, 2013 - link

    OK. It seemed like you were disappointed at the small 4GB modules =).
    I just think that the person who needs 16GB also needs a faster CPU and therefore needs a thicker chassis that already has room for the RAM.
    Reply
  • JarredWalton - Thursday, February 07, 2013 - link

    Fire up Photoshop and open 20 images for editing (like, say, at a tradeshow) and more memory will be very beneficial. I'm not saying everyone needs to do that sort of workload, but there is no such thing as "one size fits all". "One size fits most", sure, but not all. :-) Reply
  • DanNeely - Thursday, February 07, 2013 - link

    I hit 9GB of memory usage earlier today at work; large consumers included: 4xvisual studio 2010, 1xIIS, 1xEclipse, 1xIntelliJ, Outlook, Firefox (~30 tabs). With only 8GB of physical ram and Win7 generally trying to keep at least 1 GB of ram free performance was rather choppy until I started killing stuff off. That's on the high end for me, but I'd been pinged on all my projects in rapid succession and had done something with the application inside each IDE within the last 24 hours.

    I'm almost never actually CPU bound despite never having more than a middle of the road CPU; but hitting ram limits when I'm working on multiple projects has been common, and all the stuff IT's baked into my OS thrashes the HD silly at startup. Only 8 GB isn't frequently an issue yet; but based on past history of application bloat I probably will be running into it fairly often within a year or a year and a half.
    Reply
  • extide - Thursday, February 07, 2013 - link

    Don't forget that all of your free RAM is used as Disk Cache, which means even if you arent maxxing out 8GB you could still see benefits from adding more ram beyond 8GB. This is especially true with a regular HDD. Reply
  • dgingeri - Thursday, February 07, 2013 - link

    Wouldn't this be a step back to SIMM technology? Reply
  • JarredWalton - Friday, February 08, 2013 - link

    SIMMs were a 32-bit interface to the motherboard and DIMMs are a 64-bit interface, so no it's not a step back. :-) Reply
  • Beenthere - Saturday, February 09, 2013 - link

    I haven't seen any mfg. express a need for this low profile RAM. Reply
  • KitsuneKnight - Saturday, February 09, 2013 - link

    There's a need for lower profile RAM than standard SODIMM. Many manufacturers have opted for shoving the RAM directly onto the motherboard to save vertical space. We'll see if this RAM is actually low profile enough to satisfy them (it might some, but it seems to be still too bulky for most).

    Now if you're a desktop user, with a standard tower, this is obviously pointless for you. It doesn't really matter even in the traditional, bulky laptop market. The only markets that'd be even slightly interested are the Ultrabook, tablet, and phone markets (this is way, way too large for phones... and likely most tablets).
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now