Non-binary DDR5 memory could be a game-changer for businesses everywhere • Hacker News Board

Re: Non-binary DDR5 memory could be a game-changer for businesses everywhere

#61

Post by Night_Thastus » Sat, Jan 07, 2023, 3:23 AM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #60

Night_Thastus wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The phrase is newer, sure, but what was measured hasn't changed. Computers always measured their memory base-2, manufacturers always labeled using base-10.* If software developers were: 1. Measuring using base-2 (what we would now call Kibi, Mebi, Gibi) 2. Reporting memory using base-10 prefixes (kilo, mega, giga) Then its those software developers, not advertisements/sales that were the problem. Those prefixes mean…

Some manufacturers used base 10. Others didn't. > objectively wrong So is assuming a "byte" has 8 bits. But outside of prescriptivist pedantry, gigabyte has long been used for mostly base two.

There is a vast difference between those things. The prefixes "kilo", "mega", and "giga" have well-defined meanings that apply to every other field. A kilometer is a 1000 meters, no more, no less. Same with milliliters. Same with everything else.

No other field is coming up with their own meaning of "kilo". The meaning of the metric system is not up for debate. It is defined by the ISU. It is not a "maybe" or an "almost" or situational. It is a hard set of rules to make communication and measurement easier.

What a "byte" is depends on the implementation. It's generally 8 bits but some systems are different. It's not a hard definition like the metric system. No standards organization came together to say a byte must always and only be 8 bits in every situation.

You are comparing two completely different situations.

Re: Non-binary DDR5 memory could be a game-changer for businesses everywhere

#62

Post by Dylan16807 » Sat, Jan 07, 2023, 4:56 AM UTC

Night_Thastus wrote: post #61

Dylan16807 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some manufacturers used base 10. Others didn't. > objectively wrong So is assuming a "byte" has 8 bits. But outside of prescriptivist pedantry, gigabyte has long been used for mostly base two.

There is a vast difference between those things. The prefixes "kilo", "mega", and "giga" have well-defined meanings that apply to every other field. A kilometer is a 1000 meters, no more, no less. Same with milliliters. Same with everything else. No other field is coming up with their own meaning of "kilo". The meaning of the metric system is not up for debate. It is defined by the ISU. It is not a "maybe" or an "alm…

> No other field is coming up with their own meaning of "kilo".

Neither is the computer field, really. "kilo" by itself isn't affected.

> The meaning of the metric system is not up for debate.

Nobody is saying it's metric, either. "metric kilobyte" is a thousand bytes.

It's like having different tons.

> What a "byte" is depends on the implementation. It's generally 8 bits but some systems are different. It's not a hard definition like the metric system. No standards organization came together to say a byte must always and only be 8 bits in every situation.

If it depends on implementation, why are you insisting a gigabyte is exactly 8 billion bits?

What if I said a "byte" could be 8.59 bits?

> You are comparing two completely different situations.

I don't see it that way, because I'm only making an argument about "gigabyte" as a single unit. (And kilobyte, megabyte, terabyte.) The vagueness of both applies.

Re: Non-binary DDR5 memory could be a game-changer for businesses everywhere

#63

Post by Night_Thastus » Sat, Jan 07, 2023, 5:14 AM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #62

Night_Thastus wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a vast difference between those things. The prefixes "kilo", "mega", and "giga" have well-defined meanings that apply to every other field. A kilometer is a 1000 meters, no more, no less. Same with milliliters. Same with everything else. No other field is coming up with their own meaning of "kilo". The meaning of the metric system is not up for debate. It is defined by the ISU. It is not a "maybe" or an "alm…

> No other field is coming up with their own meaning of "kilo". Neither is the computer field, really. "kilo" by itself isn't affected. > The meaning of the metric system is not up for debate. Nobody is saying it's metric, either. "metric kilobyte" is a thousand bytes. It's like having different tons. > What a "byte" is depends on the implementation. It's generally 8 bits but some systems are different. It's not a ha…

>Neither is the computer field, really. "kilo" by itself isn't affected.

Yes, it is. When software measures in factors of 1024 but reports these using metric prefixes (kilo, mega, giga, or their shorthands KB, MB, GB), it's wrong. Imagine if a chemist had 1024 milliliters and reported that as a liter. People would be up in arms about it.

>If it depends on implementation, why are you insisting a gigabyte is exactly 8 billion bits?

I didn't. I never set bits. Bytes.

A gigabyte is always 1 billion bytes, and a Kilobyte is always 1000 bytes. How many bits that is is implementation-dependent.

>What if I said a "byte" could be 8.59 bits?

...there's no such thing as fractional bits.

>I don't see it that way, because I'm only making an argument about "gigabyte" as a single unit. (And kilobyte, megabyte, terabyte.) The vagueness of both applies.

There is vagueness in how many *bits*, but not how many bytes. That is a critical distinction.

Again, the prefixes aren't up for debate. They always mean the same thing. Using them to mean factors of 1024 is just factually wrong.

Re: Non-binary DDR5 memory could be a game-changer for businesses everywhere

#64

Post by fnordpiglet » Sat, Jan 07, 2023, 6:13 AM UTC

mlyle wrote: post #55

Dylan16807 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was never worth it, but "worth it" is a pretty slim difference here. And we had triple channel memory before, which eats of most of the novelty. > I wish I could have more readily built a 96GB system instead of the 128GB one that I just did. Couldn't you have put one 32GB and one 16GB module in each channel?

> And we had triple channel memory before, which eats of most of the novelty. If reaching peak performance requires stuffing all the memory channels, then you still have choices that vary by a factor of 2 choices. > Couldn't you have put one 32GB and one 16GB module in each channel? It's a mini-itx board, so only 1 DIMM per channel. I also generally just prefer to put one dimm per channel in machines, because more lo…

I’m all for saving money. But it’s a stretch to say it’s particularly interesting news. But my wife gets excited about credit card point promotions, so I guess some folks are excited to save a few bucks and would find this thrilling. But I will always remember this article as the most disappointingly boring article, other than that one my wife sent me about Hilton Honors points.

Re: Non-binary DDR5 memory could be a game-changer for businesses everywhere

#65

Post by Dylan16807 » Sat, Jan 07, 2023, 7:05 AM UTC

Night_Thastus wrote: post #63

Dylan16807 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No other field is coming up with their own meaning of "kilo". Neither is the computer field, really. "kilo" by itself isn't affected. > The meaning of the metric system is not up for debate. Nobody is saying it's metric, either. "metric kilobyte" is a thousand bytes. It's like having different tons. > What a "byte" is depends on the implementation. It's generally 8 bits but some systems are different. It's not a ha…

>Neither is the computer field, really. "kilo" by itself isn't affected. Yes, it is. When software measures in factors of 1024 but reports these using metric prefixes (kilo, mega, giga, or their shorthands KB, MB, GB), it's wrong. Imagine if a chemist had 1024 milliliters and reported that as a liter. People would be up in arms about it. >If it depends on implementation, why are you insisting a gigabyte is exactly 8…

> Imagine if a chemist had 1024 milliliters and reported that as a liter. People would be up in arms about it.

Not if that method went back decades.

I'll repeat the comparison to tons, since you didn't acknowledge it. Tons are different sizes in different places, and people manage. (And I'm including tonne because it's pronounced the same and has the symbol 't'.)

> I didn't. I never set bits. Bytes.

> A gigabyte is always 1 billion bytes, and a Kilobyte is always 1000 bytes. How many bits that is is implementation-dependent.

So if I handed you a full CD and said it had 350 megabytes, because it has a million sets of 16 bits, you wouldn't object to that?

Or if a drive manufacturer decided they're going to market based on 6 bit bytes, you wouldn't object to that?

> ...there's no such thing as fractional bits.

Sure there is. One printable ASCII character can store six and a half bits. Two of them can store thirteen bits. You can also entangle multiple bytes into a single storage unit if you want to. Base64 and base85 are useful comparisons here. If I declared that one character was a byte and it had 85 possible states, the math would work out fine.

Re: Non-binary DDR5 memory could be a game-changer for businesses everywhere

#66

Post by Night_Thastus » Sat, Jan 07, 2023, 10:21 AM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #65

Night_Thastus wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Neither is the computer field, really. "kilo" by itself isn't affected. Yes, it is. When software measures in factors of 1024 but reports these using metric prefixes (kilo, mega, giga, or their shorthands KB, MB, GB), it's wrong. Imagine if a chemist had 1024 milliliters and reported that as a liter. People would be up in arms about it. >If it depends on implementation, why are you insisting a gigabyte is exactly 8…

> Imagine if a chemist had 1024 milliliters and reported that as a liter. People would be up in arms about it. Not if that method went back decades. I'll repeat the comparison to tons, since you didn't acknowledge it. Tons are different sizes in different places, and people manage. (And I'm including tonne because it's pronounced the same and has the symbol 't'.) > I didn't. I never set bits. Bytes. > A gigabyte is a…

This is exhausting. You are being obtuse for the sake of it and missing the main point.

All manufacturers of storage are going to market assuming 8 bit bytes. Yes, that is not a standard. The computer using it may divide up the bits differently and thus have a different number of bytes. But 8 is so insanely common that it's really a non issue. Would it be better if they advertised the number of bits instead? Sure. But assuming 8-bit bytes, at least they're honest when they use the metric prefixes.

My issue is not the number of bits, bytes or the manufacturers. My issue is software.

If Windows (for example) is measuring GiB and calling it gigabytes or GB, that's wrong. Those are two different units. One is base 2, the other base 10.

It doesn't really matter which they use to measure, as long as they're consistent. If they want to use gigabytes that's fine, as long as they really mean 1 billion bytes.

The terms should be used properly. Giga should never mean anything other than billion, because otherwise that's confusing and inconsistent with every other field.

We should be consistent with other fields because that makes communication easier.

It's stupid to have our own make believe fairytale version of the metric prefixes. It serves no purpose. We have GiB, KiB, MiB now and should use them if that's what is meant.

Ok?

Re: Non-binary DDR5 memory could be a game-changer for businesses everywhere

#67

Post by nailer » Sat, Jan 07, 2023, 3:00 PM UTC

marshray wrote: post #40

charcircuit wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Putting a thinking emoji at the end of a message signifies that you are proposing an idea that you are still thinking about. His message facilitated the emoji because he has not fully thought out what decimal ram would entail before sending his post.

OMG, lol. Thank you for not making fun of me. More. Coffee. Required.

It’s OK, maybe it was obscure, I just wish HN supported emoji - right now it silently deletes them.

Re: Non-binary DDR5 memory could be a game-changer for businesses everywhere

#68

Post by moloch-hai » Sat, Jan 07, 2023, 5:05 PM UTC

shrubble wrote: post #15

moloch-hai wrote: post #6

Here I was, hoping for ternary RAM: 1/0/-1. Didn't Burroughs field a ternary machine, once?

There was a Soviet computer called Setun (Сетунь) which used ternary logic, though I can't find much in English about it (and my Russian is very poor).

Thank you, that is probably what I too-vaguely recalled. Burroughs is usually the go-to, in the West, for wacky architecture. If B. could have made a reliable card reader, they might have survived longer.

Re: Non-binary DDR5 memory could be a game-changer for businesses everywhere

#69

Post by Dylan16807 » Sat, Jan 07, 2023, 6:39 PM UTC

Night_Thastus wrote: post #66

Dylan16807 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Imagine if a chemist had 1024 milliliters and reported that as a liter. People would be up in arms about it. Not if that method went back decades. I'll repeat the comparison to tons, since you didn't acknowledge it. Tons are different sizes in different places, and people manage. (And I'm including tonne because it's pronounced the same and has the symbol 't'.) > I didn't. I never set bits. Bytes. > A gigabyte is a…

This is exhausting. You are being obtuse for the sake of it and missing the main point. All manufacturers of storage are going to market assuming 8 bit bytes. Yes, that is not a standard. The computer using it may divide up the bits differently and thus have a different number of bytes. But 8 is so insanely common that it's really a non issue. Would it be better if they advertised the number of bits instead? Sure. Bu…

> This is exhausting. You are being obtuse for the sake of it and missing the main point.

Disagreeing is not missing the point.

I'm not serious when I suggest an 8.59 bit byte, but I am serious when I say you shouldn't care so much about the "mega" part of "megabyte" being precise when "byte" isn't precise.

> But assuming 8-bit bytes, at least they're honest when they use the metric prefixes.

They're not. Technical correctness is not honesty, and they're giving people an unrealistic expectation of drive size. It doesn't matter if those expectations are based on "wrong" information.

> It doesn't really matter which they use to measure, as long as they're consistent.

They are consistent. They're so consistent that they've been using "GB" since long before the term "gibibyte" even existed.

Gibibyte is not truly a separate unit, because until fairly recently it was spelled gigabyte whenever anyone talked about it.

> It's stupid to have our own make believe fairytale version of the metric prefixes. It serves no purpose. We have GiB, KiB, MiB now and should use them if that's what is meant.

The split is dumb but all words are made up and the ibi prefixes don't solve a real problem. If someone wants to be metric-accurate they should just use metric.