Samsung unveils first 32GB DDR3 memory module

By on June 18, 2009, 4:23 PM
Following an announcement back in January, Samsung has finally made good on its promise of delivering the world’s first 32GB DDR3 memory module. The massive RAM unit is made up of 72 4Gb memory chip dies using Samsung’s 50nm class DRAM technology, lined up in rows of nine quad-die packaged 16Gb DDR3s, mounted on each side of the circuit board. Naturally, they are meant for use in server systems rather than regular desktops.

According to Samsung, the modules operate at 1.35V and have 20% greater throughput compared to 1.5V DDR3 modules. Its lower power consumption levels are in line with the ongoing trend towards more energy-efficient “green” systems. Samsung believes the development of higher density, low-power components will not only reduce electricity bills and other datacenter costs, but will also increase the overall operational efficiency.

In addition to targeting data centers and servers, Samsung’s 4 gigabit chips will also be used to produce 8GB DIMMs for workstations, desktops and laptops – though the company has yet to announce availability and pricing details.

User Comments: 10

Got something to say? Post a comment
Guest said:

Well It should be interesting to see a Tri-channel of 8GB for a total of 24GB in a 6slot MB that would give you 48GB If they can make them at a pretty decent cost this could be pretty amazing for Gaming you'd be able to load 100% of the game to RAM. For that to really work though you'd need to be using SSDs so the starting load time wouldn't be insane, and of course from the 3D designers point of view 48GB on your normal workstation would mean you could work with larger parts of the game world at one time or really being able to make some complex models.

I'm looking forward to the time when the average PC has 24GB+ so developers can/will take advantage of it.

Zeromus said:

I mean I've heard of servers maxxing out it's CPU addressable space to 64GB but this is news to me. I'm just hoping they'll target individuals who love pushing their numbers rather than servers.

Wendig0 Wendig0, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Zeromus, I tested the very first computer to have 64gb of ram. It was a special system built by HP (HP xw 9600) and sent to my former company for testing. We received 1 with 32gb and 1 with 64gb.

Both of them had special ram coolers that took up so much room HP couldn't fit a sound card into the case. The other thing they had in common was that they both bottlenecked something fierce on performance. Neither of them performed any better than the same system with 16gb of ram. Until software developers can harness the power of such massive quantities of ram, then these modules will be worthless. I have heard that Windows 7 x64 can handle up to 192GB of RAM, but I have yet to test such insanity and will be skeptical until I do.

tengeta tengeta said:

Why limit it to games? That much RAM could open the possibility of things like real time video editing and programming.

And you wouldn't need a cloud to do it!

OneArmedScissor said:

Guest said:

you'd be able to load 100% of the game to RAM.

Ehhhh...and that's helpful because...?

100% of the game doesn't need to be in RAM, even if it could. That's already the case for tons of games, but it's completely pointless. Games with a large size are pretty much universally made up of large amounts of maps and other sorts of scenario-specific information, of which only a tiny fraction is relevant at any given time you're playing.

Another sizable chunk of what you need immediate access to is stuff that goes to the graphics card's memory, and those are already becoming overkill at "only" 1-2GB.

Even if it mattered, it's still not something I'd want to see. Anyone who wants to be waiting on loading 24GB is a masochist. SSDs aren't an order of magnitude faster at that than HDDs just because their access time is. You're still going to be sitting there...and sitting there...

Badfinger said:

Eventually our PC's natural progression will be using these, hopefully with a much better OS.

9Nails, TechSpot Paladin, said:

I'd imagine that these are more for running multiple Virtual Machines, than for running your workstation's or home PC Applications. Though the geek in me would like to see some of these acting as a SSD drive! I'm also trying to imagine that much memory in one chip an I must say that I'm impressed.

JDoors JDoors said:

Tell me if you've heard this before: "Why would anyone EVER need THAT much RAM?!?"

Zeromus said:

Rendering baby, I love modeling but my 16GB system actually needs more for large scenes. That's just one of the jobs that needs copious amounts of memory, there are others too like research using chemical models.

Zeromus said:


Well it depends on the CPU and the chipset(unless it's a computing architecture has the memory controller embedded into the processor such as X58). I'm a developer, and if you are to look at AMD or Intel's list of processors in their specification papers, different processors actually have different maximum address spaces. Of course the server based processors, Xeon, actually max out up to 256GB and over. As for windows seven, it still depends on the processor. A larger address space means more space for programs to be placed as they are mapped out onto physical memory. If the machine doesn't support addressing that high, the operating system can still comply with the x86-64 conical addressing rules to map out the space on physically available whilst keeping code and data in vast space. Previous windows operating systems were coded with the consideration of limit, that pro-statement just means that newer and higher revisions were made this time during the development of 7.

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.