News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Intel's roadmap for Optane SSDs with 1,000x performance by eloff on Monday June 13, 2016 @07:30PM (#11898617)
DRAM does not have 1ns latency! On a 4ghz skylake chip you can access the L1 cache at 1ns. DRAM is going to be more in the range of 60(local)-100(remote) nanoseconds. Optane will likely be > 300ns latency from what I've heard, if you access it directly through the CPU memory controller via loads and stores, which is still very impressive.
Re:Intel's roadmap for Optane SSDs with 1,000x performance by chongli on Monday June 13, 2016 @10:45PM (#11899422)
When we talk about 1ns latency for DRAM we aren't talking about access latency, we're talking about CAS latency[0]. This is how fast the DRAM actually works. It doesn't include the rest of the overhead between the time the data is sent over the bus and the time it's loaded into a register and ready for an instruction to operate on it.

CAS latency for DDR3-3300 is less than 1/3ns, according to the article below. If Intel's new Optane memory can achieve addressing on the order of 10ns, it will be very competitive with DRAM, since all of other overhead along the data path ought to be similar.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAS_latency

Re:Intel's roadmap for Optane SSDs with 1,000x performance by vitus on Monday June 13, 2016 @11:36PM (#11899572)
This is actually slightly incorrect. You seem to be calculating as if the clock rate were 3300MHz, even though the listed number in DDR (double data rate) is actually double the actual clock rate (IIRC, for marketing reasons).

On top of that, the CAS latency is given in cycles -- the cited CAS latency for DDR3-3300 is 16 cycles. Multiplying # cycles by time per cycle yields a value closer to 9-10ns. Note that this is the "first word" latency in this table.

- The other thing you may be talking about is this "bit time", which looks like it's simply inverse throughput. It's very important not to conflate throughput with latency.

Re:Intel's roadmap for Optane SSDs with 1,000x performance by nneonneo on Monday June 13, 2016 @07:54PM (#11898753)
I'm quoting from the graph in the article. The numbers are also meant to be "on the order of", since the graph only provides that level of detail - so, for example, 1ns really means "1-9ns".

I believe that they are using fairly best-case latency numbers, under the assumption that the memory accesses are close to sequential. For random memory accesses, as you note, the latencies are higher. Unfortunately the article doesn't go into detail on what Optane's worst-case latencies are, nor what the latencies will be like in a real functional system (mostly because Intel has only early prototypes to show).

Re:Intel's roadmap for Optane SSDs with 1,000x performance by eloff on Monday June 13, 2016 @08:02PM (#11898785)
Yeah, I wouldn't do that, that graph is hardly accurate. 9ns won't get you a L3 cache hit on most skylake chips, nevermind main memory.

For sequential access giving a latency number doesn't make sense - you need to talk throughput. You can get upwards of 20gb/s with a single core for DRAM. Here you're at least bounded by the 4x PCI interface (more likely the Optane device) so maybe 3GB/s if you're feeling generous.