Get back in your shell, you cirriped
|
|
|
DDR3 will soon cost the same as DDR2
DDR3 PRICES are expected to fall to about the same level as DDR2 memory soon, according to industry chatter picked up in Taiwan by Dodgytimes.
At the moment a gigabyte of DDR3 will set you back $1.90 and is decreasing while spot pricing of DDR2 is about $1.60 and that's increasing.
The cross over between prices in the two segments is expected at somewhere below $2, sources think.
Once the prices of the two types of memory chips match, that is expected to see the end of DDR2 price increases. At that point the memory suppliers are likely to shift over to DDR3 in order to survive.
Currently Taiwan DRAM makers produce more DDR2 chips than DDR3. In the short term they are expected to be laughing but might suffer longer term once the crossover in chip prices happens.
The only reason the crossover in prices did not occur earlier was because there was a shortage of DDR3 chips earlier in the third quarter. The shortage prevented wide-scale adoption of DDR3 and boosted prices. That forced some PC makers to use DDR2, which supported its value for a while.
However now that the major chip vendors are ramping up their DDR3 output to meet growing demand, DDR3 chip and module prices are expected to become more reasonable.
According to analysts inSpectrum, DDR3 output will approach that of DDR2 sometime in the fourth quarter. µ
Share this:
Share
"Once the prices of the two types of memory chips match, that is expected to see the end of DDR2 price increases. At that point the memory suppliers are likely to shift over to DDR3 in order to survive."
I fail to see the logic behind this statement. So, when DDR3 gets cheaper, memory suppliers shift over to it to survive? How does that work?! And if they all (or most of them) happily shift over, how's that going to stop the DDR2 price increase due to scarcer supply?
I don't doubt the trend, but that's just not the motivating force.
lol. From the title to the end of the article I was thinking "wtf what am I missing?!" I mostly thought he meant that it was the cost for manufacturers to produce memory... but then I saw the comments and realized he was drunk on the job again.
Gigabytes for pennies, what a profit margin.
As far as I see it, you blame the editor in all cases of proof reading. It'd be funny if it was the editor who changed the bit to byte to make him look dumb.
But since the editor and team can't search the web for memory spot prices... we can't laugh, we just suggest that he avoids that cup of coffee in the morning.
http://www.simmtester.com/PAGE/memory/memprice.asp
http://www.dramexchange.com/
If DDR3 were actually $2 per GB, I'd certainly love to buy 8GB of RAM for $16, but in reality, I can only buy 8Gb for $16. I can't believe you mixed up Gigabytes with Gigabits, Nick.
We need a filter for Nick's articles. I keep reading them, then get to the bottom before asking myself: "who wrote this drivel?". I then scroll to the top and 9/10 I see Nick's name there. I must learn to read the name of the author before reading the article.
Maybe the Inq could put the authors name on the front page with the headline?
Nick, the correct abbreviation for byte is "B" and for bit it is "bit" (not "b"). "G" stands for giga, "M" for mega, "k" (lower case) for kilo. Now, if you find a source that cannot cope with those simple rules (cited from the Standard International, SI), then check the numbers twice.
It is my understanding that you have a few problems with those damn units yourself, like many reader here (some who also use crap like Kbps instead of kbit/s etc.). May I suggest you take a look at the US NIST web page (nist.gov)? They have a very nice summary of all units. The exact URL had been quoted here more than once in the past. Also notice carefully the fine difference between the prefixes to the base of 1000 and 1024.
Tony Sarducci, your "1Gbit (128Mx8)" module is actually a 1 Gibit (128*8 Mibit) module. 1 Gibit means 1024*1024*1024 bits). Did I mention the fine difference between Gi and G?
Besides, it should read gigabits or Gbit, and gigabytes or GB, instead of "Gbits" and "GBytes". Either you use abbreviations or not, but don't mix up things.
[Ed. - were is the cheat sheet when you need it?]
Nick
Just in case you're not yet sick of hearing about your readers flaming you on your evident lack of understanding of the difference between Gbits and GBytes:
DDR2, DDR3 chip densities are measured in Gbits. So for instance, you have 1Gbit (128Mx8), 2Gbit (256Mx8) and 4Gbit (512Mx8) density memory devices. Module densities are described in GBytes, because a DIMM/SO-DIMM module consists of a 64-bit wide array of these memory chips.
I'm sure you know the fundamentals here, but perhaps your other readers may benefit from an occasional 'back to basics' explanation.
Haha..
Even the "Dodgytimes" article you took it from got it right....
...dear. When a tech site starts mixing up its gigabits and gigabytes it's time to stop visiting.
Not until usb3 & pci-e3.0 & next Gen of Processors IIIxX, III Channel Kits Over 2+.Ghz/s w/5-2/300iG then DDR3 be set up w/ sata6G. thats year out, save bitie sticks of ddr3 for Christmas cheer. Hope somebody can put 5200G into 795G chipper, with DDR2 AM3 2/2+. doubt if advertised 1.2Ghz/s sec ?Possible, well if they make it, its useful. Not unit sata6 is prnounced much faster than todays bursts of 700 mhz/s, be actual improvement, or sustained average ,well have sata Ii really be SSD Sata to Stand ?Comp? on last of cxheap pross'ee'! parts that do xp. ultee' & 64bit JUST FINE...
GAME ON!!! VV
DRASHEK exept in land of lore.
looks like someone doesn't know their Gb from their GB...
Shurely you mean gigabits?
Otherwise I'm going to start a riot over the great RAM pricing swindle.