Quote from: Marvin Gollor on February 03, 2023, 03:12:51But LPDDR5 has 2x 16 bit per channel, so 32 bit per DIMM and since in reality it's also in dual DIMM mode, is the reason why it is 64 bit instead of 128 bit.
Can you prove this statement with a screenshot from AIDA64 for the Chipset>Memory Controller>Active Mode tab, where the active mode of the memory is explicitly indicated in bits?
Quote from: RobertJasiek on February 03, 2023, 08:34:33Sehr interessant! RAM-Kauf ist zur Wissenschaft geworden, o o...
NB does not draw readers' attention to this key point. As well as on the mode of operation of the memory relative to the frequency of the memory controller - Gear1 or Gear2.
Quote from: Marvin Gollor on February 03, 2023, 03:12:51Just Apple connects LPDDR5-6400-RAM to a 512-bit-controller instead of 64 bit, which results in 8 times higher bandwidth (~400 GB/s).
Can you prove this statement with some official links and screenshots from the test software? It turns out that in Macbooks with ARM memory is 8 times faster than in x86? It just can't be.
Moreover, your statement about Apple directly contradicts your statements about Intel and the inability to make a controller with a wide bus at a high frequency. If they can't make a 128-bit bus on the 6400, but only the 5200, how can Apple make a 512-bit bus even on the 4800? Do you see a logical contradiction here? If Apple can, then Intel and AMD (and they certainly do everything on TSMC) can do at least 256 bits and certainly 128 by 6400. But this is not.
I have never seen benchmarks anywhere where Apple laptops have memory bandwidth 7-8x faster than x86. It just can't be. Although it is I who constantly advocate and you know this, that the lack of memory bandwidth on the x86 platform has reached a monstrous 10 times relative to what is necessary, which is why both Intel and AMD are rapidly increasing the L3 cache - and this is a pointless crutch, because. outside the cache (as well as on SSDs outside of SLC), the speed immediately drops by an order of magnitude.
And all the tests of Intel and AMD laptops on this and other sites clearly prove that the AMD Zen3+ memory controller is on average 1.5 times slower than the Intel memory controller in Alder Lake. And in peak cases, as in Yoga, it is almost 2 times slower.
Why is there not a single AMD solution with memory that pumps around 68-70GB/s and there is not a single solution with 80GB/s, like on Yoga Pro, where not even a top-end i9 is used, but a regular i7 12700H. Therefore, AMD completely disgraced the memory controller.
---
I already wrote earlier under reviews and news that the new 7945HX from AMD has 28 free pci-e 5.0 lanes, which is at least 112 GB/s need for work it, despite the fact that the memory speed in dual-channel mode with DDR5 5600 and does not come close to this, but really there you need 10 times more, i.e. 1TByte/s. And this can only be done with HBM memory, just with 512 or 1024 memory bus. At the same time, as I already suggested, in view of the fact that video memory has become huge for laptops onboard and is often not used most of the time when working from igpu, it would be a reasonable decision to switch video memory directly to the processor cores through its memory controller with the same bus width as used by dgpu chip. All the same, 16-24GB of such memory is idle in vain in normal work.