Talk:DDR SDRAM

message: The only source given as evidence for this is a non-editorial, unreliable source - eBay reviews. Can anyone confirm or deny by providing better evidence? 22:42, 23 Oct 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree, a more reliable source is necessary. There are many different explanations of high/low density out there, which I guess causes a lot of confusion. Is a bad sign, that in 5 years nobody added a source?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esel7353 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "high density" 

message: Looks like someone has been vandalizing this page. Can anyone revert a page, or must an administrator do so?
:Anyone can do it, although admins can use a shortcut. Everyone else can just go to the edit history, open the last good version and then save it. I have fixed the vandalism you referred to. --Heron 21:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism

message: 1)When upgrading a computer that already has a memory stick by adding another stick, what considerations does one have to make?
2)Can you mix sticks with different latencies?
3)Can you mix single sided with double sided?
4)Can you mix different brands?
not sure when this question was asked but
answers:
1) brands supported by your motherboard, size and speed supported by your BIOS
2) yes, most of the time
3) yes, sometimes. This is governed by your motherboard not the memory. Some motherboards allow dual-sided memory in only certain slots or not at all. This should be in your motherboard manual.
4) yes. no problems if #1 is followed through. 70.20.252.106 (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upgrading 

message: I read that the DDR memory maximum capacity is 1 Gigabyte por module. I think it should be checked and added to the entry if true.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.125.128.144 (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:   memory "DDR maximum capacity" 

message: Hi. I have re-added DDR 300 to the list, as another user deleted it, despite sources having been cited showing it exists. Does it belong in the article or not? Comments please. Thanks! --Rebroad (talk) 13:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: DDR-300 may exist but not as standard, that's only home-brewed stuff by some manufacturers. Have you ever read the small note below the table? Also i linked the recent JEDEC DDR-SDRAM specification (you may have missed this also as it specifically notes the cycle times). --Denniss (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, it exists but is not a JEDEC-standard. Therefore it needs to be mentioned, but the foot-note corrected, which I have now done. I don't know why you couldn't have done this yourself, rather than simply deleting it. --Rebroad (talk) 02:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed it again. If you want to list non-standardized "specifications" then search and list them all but under a different heading. If you continue to remove the link to the current JESD79E DDR-SDRAM standard it may be counted as vandalism or disruptive behaviour. IF you read this spec you won't find DDR-300 but, surprisingly, the cycle time you want to have a ref for. --Denniss (talk) 13:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Is DDR-300 listed in the JESD79 specification? No so it's no standard. As with those other ones like DDR-433 it's something home-brewed and far from any standardization. The same goes for PC-150 (SDR-SDRAM operation at 150 MHz just like your DDR-300 "standardd") - not a standard. --Denniss (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  DDR 300 

message: Hi. Anyone know where the timing figures came from please? I couldn't find mention of them on the web, so I've added citation requests until a source can be found. These tags should not be removed until a reference is found and added to the article, otherwise the timings themselves can be deleted from the article if no sources are available, as wikipedia is not a place for original research, as per policy WP:NOR. --Rebroad (talk) 02:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, 10 ns = 1/(100 MHz).  ;-)  58.165.156.75 (talk) 12:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like Rebroad is not able or not willing to read the JEDEC specifiation as it clearly mentions the cycle time. BTW the DDR-300/PC-2400 is original research.--Denniss (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Anyone know where the timing figures came from please? - yeah ... from math science ;)) Lothar25 (talk) 20:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timings 

message: Is DDR still in production? Checking market prices for 1 GB DIMMs it was March 2007 when DDR2 costed about as much as DDR ($60/GB street price). In March 2008 DIMM prices are about half ($30/GB), while DDR2 prices are about one quarter ($15/GB) - and the price drop for SO-DIMMs is much less than for DIMM ($50/GB), while the DDR2 prices for SO-DIMM are almost the same ($16/GB). Thus I wonder whether DDR2 is in mass production nowadays and DDR is out of production, but remaining stock only. --Traut (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production Period 

message: From waht I know, there are no DDR1-DIMMs which have more than 2 ranks. I also know of no memory-controller, which supports more then 2 ranks per DDR1-DIMM. --MrBurns (talk) 03:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  4 ranks for 1 DIMM? 

message: It might be that the image shown top right is actually (I think 184 pinn) DIMM ram. I suspect, because DIMM has a little hole around the bottom center, while DDR ram has 2 holes (one around the bottom center and one around the bottom right).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.65.120 (talk) 22:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong picture top right? 

message: is the size of ram specified using normal SI prefixes or is it the convention to use the binary prefixes?
I would suspect the last, but I'm not sure on this.
if so It would be nice, and much more correct to use the correct binary prefixes
MiB (mebibyte: 2^20) instead of MB (megabyte: 10^3)
see:
*Mebibyte
*Nist
*IEC  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.83.89.102 (talk) 10:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  prefixes 

message: Hi, can someone who knows add stuff about when it was first introduced, when it was widely adopted etc.?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.146.12.224 (talk) 19:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: The article says weird things about the Vcc/Vdd supply voltage.  SPD Byte 8 specifies the Voltage Interface Level; Byte 22 specifies some Vcc tolerances.  How do 184-pin DDR SDRAM modules specify the Vcc supply voltage?  It seems like the mainboards must be able to read something from the memory modules and know what voltage should be supplied.  The article makes it sound sort of auto-magical, various voltages for various speeds.  But when buying RAM, different modules at the same speeds spec different voltages (2.5V and 2.6V most common) -- it seems like there must be some hardware features that are supposed to make this all work together properly.
I would guess that some BIOS setup programs allow reading out the actual RAM voltage level, and doing a manual over-ride to change the supply voltage.  It seems like the article should mention this aspect.
-71.174.180.142 (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  How is supply voltage controlled? 

message: This article is still quite skimpy, for such a core tech article!
We need some detailed pinout tables, or at least clear links to such info.
We need a picture of a standard laptop So-DIMM (200pin?)
We need a list/table of all the standard physical embodiments of DDR SDRAM, listing dimensions, number of pins, usage, etc -- ideally with a pic of each.
-96.237.5.115 (talk) 12:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pinouts 

message: The article has links to JEDEC standards for chips.  It says that there are also JEDEC standards for the DIMM modules.  But what are the actual specific titles of those standards, and where are they?-96.237.5.115 (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  JEDEC module standards 

message: Why was the "Chips and Modules" section removed from this article? I found the reference chart linking each DDR type with its PC-XXXX and DDR-XXX terminologies extremely helpful and used it on a regular basis. I'd love to see it re-added so I don't have to look constantly at the article's history.
:Result of Vandalism - restored. --Denniss (talk) 23:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Chips and Modules" Section

message: I have always in my own head thought of SD RAM as 168 PIN Dimms PC100 / PC133.  I have never called DDR Ram "DDR SD RAM"  Neither have any of my friends.  Can we eliminate the SD nomenclature since its not sd ram, its DDR ram?  there is nothing SD about it!
:It is SDRAM although modified with an DDR interface. Even DDR3 and GDDR5 belong to the SDRAM family. --Denniss (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calling DDR Ram  "DDR SD RAM" 

message: The section about ECC vs non-ECC could be expanded a bit:
1. In many cases, ECC-memory has 9 memory circuits, where Non-ECC has 8.
2. ECC memory can mostly be found in servers and Macintosh systems.
3. These memory types can't replace each other.
First of all, I'm not 100% on these things, that's why I write here on the talk-page.
And, it would be good to support these facts with good references.
TobiF (talk) 17:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typical areas where ECC / Non-ECC are used 

message: A lot of people don't seem to know how to install memory modules and get a bit confused as to what modules their system can take.
There's a video here showing how to install DDR memory modules - http://www.eteknix.com/how-s/how-install-ddr-memory-modules-121/
Clears things up for a lot of users i feel.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aruffell (talk • contribs) 09:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  How To Install DDR Memory 

message: ITS CALLED DDR RAM!  SD RAM SPECIFICALLY REFERS TO 168 PIN 3.3v DIMMS.  AT WORK WHEN I ASK FOR RAM I ASK CAN I HAVE SOME DDR?  OR CAN I HAVE A 256 STICK OF DDR2?  I NEVER REFER TO IT AS SDRAM.  IF I WANT a 128  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.15.42.13 (talk) 22:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: But it is a form of SDRAM.  No-one here is interested in what you call it when you are at work: we are interested in reliable sources and correctness, not misconceptions. Crispmuncher (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Stop calling our stuff DDR RAM. It is called DDR SDRAM! Your bullsit is not SDRAM! But, I'm not opposed to a couple of words to resolve the confusion that really exists. People indeed do not understand that DDR is an advanced interface to SDRAM. --Javalenok (talk) 09:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  In fact this article confuses me since technical sources I read make a marked distinction between DDR and SDRAM. Medende (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  STOP CALLING IT SDRAM!!!!! 

message: These two are easy to confuse. And this is happened in the article, IMO. The one who wrote about Ranks in the 'module organization' section warns us about the rank confusion with rows and sides. Nevertheless, it seems that he confuses the ranks with banks himself: Any given module can have 1, 2, or 4 ranks, but only 1 rank of a module can be active at any moment in time. When a module has two or more ranks, the memory controller must periodically switch between them by performing close and open operations. This is behaviour of banks, IMO, not DIMM module ranks. I see that two-rank DIMMs have two CS inputs. This allows free addressing both ranks at a time. I do not see how DIMM connects the inputs to CS of the chips, though. Is there a decoder that selects only one rank depending on /S0/S1 code or it is the spec that prohibits assigning both /S0 and /S1 to 0? --Javalenok (talk) 11:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rank confusion with baks 

message: Is it ever possible to use ECC DDR in NON-ECC 184-pin DDR slots? Logically, it should work, just ignore the extra bits? Please add details here and in the article.-96.233.20.116 (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  ECC in NON-ECC slots? 

message: Maybe just DDR works better.  You know...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.117.16.45 (talk) 04:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No. SDRAM means it is synchronous, and is important. Naki (talk) 22:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  SDRAM in TiTLE? 

message: I have a degree in computer science and have worked in the field for over 30 years.  This article swings from technically confusing to just plain poor English.  It is next to worthless for any average reader, and very little use to those of us who actually know what the words mean.  Please people ... if you're not proficient in English, try to refrain from writing article content.  Maybe practice somewhere else first.  Poorly written material just confuses and frustrates people, and turns them off to the subject matter. We have few enough folks interested in technology as it is ... we don't need to run anyone off if we can help it.  Ugh.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.39.86 (talk) 02:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the article is not perfect. So improve it, just go for it. --85.180.130.176 (talk) 09:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  POORLY WRITTEN 

message: Under "Organization" reads:
"""
The individual chips making up a 1 GB memory module are usually organized with 64 Mbits and a data width of 8 bits for each chip, commonly expressed as 64M×8.
"""
64 Mbits above looks incorrect to me: It refers to the configuration of a 512 Mbit chip, which is equivalent to 64M x 8 bits. So IIUC we are talking about 64M locations not bits and the above should read instead something like:
"""
The individual chips making up a 1 GB memory module are usually organized into 64M addressable units each containing 8 bits of data, commonly expressed as 64Mx8.
"""
Seipher (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect description of the PC3200 module's organization 

message: Variations section is superseded by all other DDR2/ddr3/ddr4 pages, and is outdated. Should the section just offer redirects to DDR2/3/4 pages?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.241.94.57 (talk) 18:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive / remove variations? 

message: Why is maximum size for DDR1/DDR2/DDR3 modules (non-ECC) not clearly listed, esp. in the lists/tables? Someone add this.
OR, if all possible sizes are listed, it would be even better. (such as 256 MB/512 MB/etc). Naki (talk) 19:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useless Wiki -- maximum size?? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on DDR SDRAM. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160126211816/https://www.micron.com/support/power-calc to https://www.micron.com/support/power-calc
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on DDR SDRAM. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080821101233/http://www.nwlogic.com/docs/ASIC_DDR_PHY.pdf to http://www.nwlogic.com/docs/ASIC_DDR_PHY.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061121045622/http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/memory/display/ddr2-ddr.html to http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/memory/display/ddr2-ddr.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Synchronous dynamic random-access memory which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 19:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: I had DDR3 in 2009, but this article says 2011 was the start of the release years.  These numbers seem to be absolute nonsense. lukini (talk | contribs) 17:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where are these release years coming from in the table?