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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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. :-)
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.
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.
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).
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
16 Comments
Back to Article
MrSpadge - Thursday, February 7, 2013 - link
A small step, but a nice one nevertheless!DanNeely - Thursday, February 7, 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.Zink - Thursday, February 7, 2013 - link
yesZink - Thursday, February 7, 2013 - link
But then you get a smaller motherboard PCB because you can't run traces or put components under the DIMMs.DanNeely - Thursday, February 7, 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.Sivar - Thursday, February 7, 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.
ajp_anton - Thursday, February 7, 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.JarredWalton - Thursday, February 7, 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).ajp_anton - Thursday, February 7, 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.
JarredWalton - Thursday, February 7, 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. :-)DanNeely - Thursday, February 7, 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.
extide - Thursday, February 7, 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.dgingeri - Thursday, February 7, 2013 - link
Wouldn't this be a step back to SIMM technology?JarredWalton - Friday, February 8, 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. :-)Beenthere - Saturday, February 9, 2013 - link
I haven't seen any mfg. express a need for this low profile RAM.KitsuneKnight - Saturday, February 9, 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).