whats up with thte triple channel memory controler? wouldn't quad channel be the next logical step?

and as it looks like we are going to need mamny more memory slots, whe not switch to So-Dimms for desk top memory too.

maybe AMD will try it an make up some ground.

Interesting point about SO-Dimms. Seems like a great idea to me.

Ok..... adding another channel of memory bandwidth.....and in terms of performance doubling it compared to current standards.....AMD has not even gone to DDR3 yet....and you are complaining?

Wow.......just Wow..... They will have Quad channel DDR3 for the servers.

Perhaps Quad is the next "logical" step, however I'm assuming due to space restraints Intel only put a tri-channel controller on their extreme versions. However my question to you, groo, is this, what are you doing that you need that much bandwidth?

More slots would be nice for more memory capacity, however currently 4gigs is the most people are going to be getting due to the physical limitations of 32-bit processing.

Finally, please stop trying to start a flame war. If AMD catches up, it catches up, if not, it doesn't. Buy your products based on your budget and your performance requirements.

^Well said.

nobody "needs" that much bandwidth, its just another way to get more performance.

I think 32 bit OSs are a thing of the past, and should have never made it to Vista, I hope they don't make it to windows 7 or whatever they end up calling it.

as far as starting a flame war, not my goal. there are 2 facts that are indisputable;
1. AMD has fallen behind Intel in performance.
2. consumers are best served by competition between producers.
so everyone should be hoping AMD gets some better products wether you prefere Intel of AMD. I was just pointing out an area of performance were I think Intel could have done a better job, and maybe AMD will use this opertunity to regain some lost ground.

besides. I don't like the idea of seeing memory packages in 1,2,3,4 and 6 per pack. 1,2,and 4 was bad enough.

Windows 7 will be 32 and 64 bit (they've gone mad for sure)

So-dimms suffer from higher latency, I believe. Also, check out Anandtech's gripes on the buffered memory of the Skulltrail platform. While performance was good, I think a tri-channel DDR3 will beat the so-dimm solution for most desktop uses (where you don't need 32GB of RAM).

Also, I think that increasing the memory bandwidth may begin to have tangible effects due to the integration of the memory controller, but only time will tell. I look forward to some actual benchmarks!

No thats FB-DIMMS which is used in the server. But SO-DIMMS are not a good choice either.

According to Bill Gates:

"We're hard at work, I would say, on the next version, which we call Windows 7. I'm very excited about the work being done there. The ability to be lower power, take less memory, be more efficient, and have lots more connections up to the mobile phone, so those scenarios connect up well to make it a great platform for the best gaming that can be done...."

It really seems to me like Windows 7 will just be Vista with some major improvements; alot of those improvements being in performance and memory. Perhaps in a few years a 32 bit system on Windows 7 will still be very plausable? I think so.

@groo:

If AMD goes out the window, my money is on IBM to start producing x86-64 processors.

A second but less likely option is other architectures might become a more viable solution than x86-64s and people might start the transition over to say cell or sparc. Although windows is only x86 compatable (I think some alpha versions were released as well), linux and Mac OS can run on other architectures (Mac is limited to just Sparc, but its a start). With that said, take that as you will, its a not likely future, but it could happen.

i am fairly certain IBM does not have an x86 license

I believe the next version of Windows is just a Vista update.

Looks like MS wants to do the tick tock as well.

Tock 98
Tick ME
Tock 2k Pro
Tick XP
Tock Vista
Tick Windows 7
Tock [unknown] <--- I suspect this version will be a 64-bit OS that will be backwards compatable with 32-bit apps.

x86 licensing is a murkey area - so many old cross licensing deals... There are a number of license holders out there that IBM could buy up if it really required.

Tick 95
Tock 98
(umm f*** up) ME - same kernal as 95 / 98 - just taken too far
Tick 2k Pro
Tock XP
Tick Vista
Tock Windows 7

Errrr.

x86 is just a set of instructions a processor has to conform to...I doubt you need a license.

PLUS this whole thread is irrelevant because they obviously aren't going to give the same memory controller to both servers and desktops because then people are less likely to shell out for server grade hardware.

Apart from being smaller, do SO-Dimms have any advantage at all?

PLUS lulz at flamewar-ending at the top.

This tick tock business is getting silly, however i agree with:

Tick 95
Tock 98
(umm f*** up) ME - same kernal as 95 / 98 - just taken too far
Tick 2k Pro
Tock XP
Tick Vista
Tock Windows 7

and by silly i mean funny