Talk:DDR5 SDRAM

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the DDR5 SDRAM article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article was nominated for deletion on 21 November 2014. The result of the discussion was redirect.

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Unnamed section

This should be notable since most desktop PC's use DDR[] SDRAM Plaasjapie (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 4, the Freescale Datasheet has nothing to do with DDR5 memory, it uses DDR1 - DDR7 as labels in the timing diagram for DDR parameters on a DDR2 timing diagram. Also the patent links in the references are broken. 134.134.139.76 (talk) 22:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

The grounds for deletion, a previous deletion, is a discussion from over three years ago. While a stub, this article does not have the same defects as the previous version. It should be updated, but not deleted. --Dbsseven (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

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)[reply]

2019 estimate

WP:PRIMARY What we need here are significant high quality secondary references confirming this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.60.68 (talk) 04:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tom's Hardware is not a primary source. Tom's Hardware says manufacturers told them late 2019, and that is what we will have in the article. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DDR4 -> DDR5

“There is a general expectation that most use-cases which currently use DDR4 will eventually migrate to DDR5.”

Is that a necessary sentence?

A necessary part of an article about a product is saying how widespread the product in the article is or will be - there is an essential difference between a product which is unused, and a product which is used by everyone. Is it a product used by 7000 people or by 7000000000 people? Hence we obviously need that sentence, or something like it. Why do you imply we don't need it? Thue (talk) 09:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removed and should've never been added, see edit explanation 78.0.162.14 (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bandwidth?

The quoted bandwidth of "4.8 gigabits per second possible" is one-hundreth of the actual value, "51.2 GB/s per module", a few paragraphs down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.121.197.180 (talk) 12:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Voltage is wrong

"DDR5 DIMMs are supplied with bulk power at 12 V and management interface power at 3.3 V,[18][19]"

I am not an expert on DDR5 modules, but in my opinion the PMIC specifies 12 V for RDIMM and UDIMM, but not for consumer modules, where 5V was chosen. This is also reflected in the cited spec sheet: https://www.renesas.com/us/en/products/power-power-management/power-management-ics-pmic-and-pmus/p8911-pmic-client-ddr5-memory-modules , which specifies VIN_Bulk input supply range as 4.25 V to 5.5 V, i.e. 5V. Another reference backing this is: https://www.kingston.com/germany/en/memory/ddr5-overview (not eligible as a reference, because it's an advertising link). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timo.Strunk (talk • contribs) 16:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. That info is plain wrong, as the linked source actually explains. 2001:9E8:3871:3300:998F:CA6A:6065:3212 (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]