user55664-bit channels, as has been the norm up till now, or 32-bit channels? Remember, DDR5 DIMMs are spec'd with dual 32-bit channels per DIMM.

ValantarAll industry speak about "channels" in DDR5 (outside of technical documentation) has been in the form of "analogous to DDR4 channels" i.e. one channel per DIMM/2 DIMMs, despite the DIMMs technically being dual channel themselves. Look at any Z690 spec sheet - they all say "dual channel" despite this being 2x2x32 rather than 2x64.

user556Chipsets haven't contained the memory controller since Core2 days for Intel. Even older for AMD. The marketing blurbs for motherboards probably aren't great reference sources for actual channel count.

ValantarLook at any Z690 motherboard spec sheet

QuitessaWith a bit of luck we might get 4 channel options on desktop ryzen 7000 series then
I'd be Quite happy to have a seperate channel for each of the 2-4 slots on a board

ValantarEdit: Intel even uses this terminology in their official spec database. Look at the "Max # of memory channels" line.

ValantarDoubtful - datacenter workloads are bandwidth limited, consumer workloads are almost never that. Doubling the channel count would also significantly increase the number of traces run from the CPU to RAM, (which is already ~500 traces for a 2-channel setup), making motherboard design a lot more complex and expensive (on top of the increases we've already seen for DDR5). Pretty much the only consumer workload that would benefit from 4-channel RAM would be iGPU gaming, and they're definitely not designing AM5 around that as a central use case.

PunkenjoyThe best solutions will not be more channel on the motherboard but more cache on the CPU socket. I expect to see large L4 HBM or something before seeing 4 dimm on desktop. (or at least we will already have very large L3). We could even see at some point CPU + RAM in a single socket with no DIMM on the motherboard. It would suck for upgradability, but it could lead to much higher memory performance with lower latency. The CPU could also be designed with a specific memory in mind a little bit like the M1 are.

For iGPU, they could use stacked cache die to alleviate the bandwidth problem. Cache have 2 benefits, it have much higher bandwidth and much lower latency. The downside is you benefit from this only when there is a cache hit and it can slow down a bit the memory access when there isn't (since you had to lookup in the cache.

user556The DDR5 DIMM pinouts are 32/40-bit data width per channel. There's nothing that can change that. So that leaves it as a question of if channels can be paired electrically in board layout, or if it has to be done by pairing the physical 32-bit buses inside the memory controller.

WirkoThree-channel IMC? Why not, 3- and 6-channel systems exist, and this 12-channel Epyc is another one that doesn't respect the power of 2. Uhm, AMD was also the first with a non-power-of-2 number of cores.

AMD may have plans to include much more powerful iGPUs in their future chips, so why wouldn't they at least reserve space for that on the socket?

ValantarAll industry speak about "channels" in DDR5 (outside of technical documentation) has been in the form of "analogous to DDR4 channels" i.e. one channel per DIMM/2 DIMMs, despite the DIMMs technically being dual channel themselves. Look at any Z690 spec sheet - they all say "dual channel" despite this being 2x2x32 rather than 2x64. It doesn't make much sense to speak of single 32-bit channels as channels once implemented given that they can never be separated out individually, but will always be paired. And, of course, there is no way they are reducing the number of memory channels on next-gen EPYC - servers love their bandwidth.

DrediYeah, the correct way to count would be to say it has 2 memory controllers, with each supporting up to 2 dimms. The fact that motherboard manufacturers and intel can’t get it right does not make the wrong way to indicate channel counts the right one.

ValantarWe are discussing whether or not the 12 channels in question here are most likely 12 channels in the technically accurate term for DDR5 of 12x32-bit ...

ValantarBut ... are you following this discussion? We are discussing whether or not the 12 channels in question here are most likely 12 channels in the technically accurate term for DDR5 of 12x32-bit, i.e. 6*n DIMM slots per socket, or if "channel" is used in the semi-colloquial way of "analogous to how DDR4 and previous channels have worked", i.e. "12*n DIMM slots per socket", as this is established nomenclature that, while no longer technically correct, would be easily misleading and confusing if we were to move to the technically correct terminology.

I (nor anyone else from what I can tell) have at no point said that anything can "change" how DDR5 channels "work". I provided a source indicating that while DDR5 is technically 2x32/40-bit channels per DIMM, outside of technical documentation, these two are spoken of as one "channel" even by platform owners and designers as this is much simpler to get your mind around both due to previous standards, due to the incommensurability of DDR5 channels vs. channels in previous DDR standards, and due to these channels being always already paired up in any practical implementation, making the distinction meaningless outside of these highly technical situations.

This is a question of terminology and communication, not technical questions such as pairing of channels. They are paired on DIMMs, and are thus highly analogous to single channels on previous DDR standards, even if they are now two channels. Hence the question: does this mean 6*n DIMMs (technically correct), or 12*n DIMMs (if "channel" is used analogously to previous standards)? I'm inclined heavily towards the latter, as reducing the effective channel width (from 8*64=512 to 6*2*32=384) seems extremely unlikely to happen on bandwidth-starved server chips. Thus, "12 channels" here most likely means 12x2x32=768 bits of (pre-ECC) total bus width.

I'm sorry, but I don't see whatsoever how what you said here relates to my post that you quoted nor the post I was responding to. It's obviously entirely possible for AMD (and any other SoC vendor) to equip their chips with however many channels of RAM they want to, within the constraints of physics and manufacturing technology. That's not what I was addressing at all. I was responding to the possibility of AMD moving to a "4-channel" (which I interpreted as 4x2x32-bit channels, i.e. equivalent to what would have been a 4-channel layout on DDR4, not 4x32-bit channels). And for consumer use cases, outside of iGPU gaming, there is essentially no reason to go above two "channels" (i.e. 2*n DIMMs, or 2x2x32-bit DDR5 channels) on consumer motherboards. There are no workloads that truly benefit from this, while it would significantly affect motherboard complexity and thus price. This doesn't relate whatsoever to the theoretical possibility of non-power-of-2 channel layouts, core layouts, or anything in that direction.

As for why they wouldn't reserve space for that on the socket:
- Segmenting a single platform into multiple RAM channel widths is a really bad idea. Do all chips support all channels, or only some? How many motherboards will support each tier? You're suddenly requiring a massive increase in the SKUs produced by OEMs, as users will have different desires and needs.
- This segmentation also doesn't make much sense economically: iGPU gaming is generally a low-end endeavor. High RAM channel counts are expensive, and thus are a high end thing. So, this would lead us to a situation where we high end motherboards are the best suited for low end applications, which ... yeah, that doesn't work. Nobody would buy those boards outside of some very, very niche use cases.
- High speed I/O is already ballooning pin counts on chips. Intel is up to 1700, AMD likely something similar on AM5, and that's with "dual channel" (2x2x32). Another two channels on top of that is another >500 pins on the CPU (can't find the number for DDR5, but DDR4 had 288 pins, and while some of those are power and other non-CPU-bound, most are connected to the CPU). That would necessitate a much larger socket, making board designs even more complicated, dense and expensive.
- All of this for something that doesn't benefit the vast majority of consumer applications whatsoever.

user556Yep, all my comments have been exactly that. You pointed out Intel saying otherwise so I then came up with options for Intel to be merging channel pairs so as to make four channels into two with their 12 series CPUs.

TheinsanegamerNDdr5 channels are always 32 bit each, so you're looking at a total 384 bits of memory bus, the equivalent of 6 channel RAM on older platforms.

TheinsanegamerNDdr5 channels are always 32 bit each, so you're looking at a total 384 bits of memory bus, the equivalent of 6 channel RAM on older platforms.

Punkenjoyark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/134599/intel-core-i912900k-processor-30m-cache-up-to-5-20-ghz.html

Intel state DDR5 as dual channel even if it's 2x32 x2.

The current status is to name all DIMM slot linked to the same channel as a "channel" even if it contains 2x32 channel. Because when you think about it. If you load a 4 DIMM z690 Motherboard with 4 DDR5 DIMM that still give you 2*32 *2 and not 2*32 *4. You get the exact same amount of channel if you populate 2 or 4 dimm or the 4 dimm (if you populate them correclty indeed...).

This is why this is what people continue to use as Channel and why they do not use the 2x32 DIMM channel as channel. Simply because it would cause too much confusion.

EPYC currently have 8 channel or 1 channel per CCD. Zen 4 EPYC will have up to 12 die so the 12 channel (or 2*32 *12....) is what they will use. They won't go back on memory bandwidth because it's DDR5...

ValantarI'm sorry, but I don't see whatsoever how what you said here relates to my post that you quoted nor the post I was responding to. It's obviously entirely possible for AMD (and any other SoC vendor) to equip their chips with however many channels of RAM they want to, within the constraints of physics and manufacturing technology. That's not what I was addressing at all. I was responding to the possibility of AMD moving to a "4-channel" (which I interpreted as 4x2x32-bit channels, i.e. equivalent to what would have been a 4-channel layout on DDR4, not 4x32-bit channels). And for consumer use cases, outside of iGPU gaming, there is essentially no reason to go above two "channels" (i.e. 2*n DIMMs, or 2x2x32-bit DDR5 channels) on consumer motherboards. There are no workloads that truly benefit from this, while it would significantly affect motherboard complexity and thus price. This doesn't relate whatsoever to the theoretical possibility of non-power-of-2 channel layouts, core layouts, or anything in that direction.

As for why they wouldn't reserve space for that on the socket:
- Segmenting a single platform into multiple RAM channel widths is a really bad idea. Do all chips support all channels, or only some? How many motherboards will support each tier? You're suddenly requiring a massive increase in the SKUs produced by OEMs, as users will have different desires and needs.
- This segmentation also doesn't make much sense economically: iGPU gaming is generally a low-end endeavor. High RAM channel counts are expensive, and thus are a high end thing. So, this would lead us to a situation where we high end motherboards are the best suited for low end applications, which ... yeah, that doesn't work. Nobody would buy those boards outside of some very, very niche use cases.
- High speed I/O is already ballooning pin counts on chips. Intel is up to 1700, AMD likely something similar on AM5, and that's with "dual channel" (2x2x32). Another two channels on top of that is another >500 pins on the CPU (can't find the number for DDR5, but DDR4 had 288 pins, and while some of those are power and other non-CPU-bound, most are connected to the CPU). That would necessitate a much larger socket, making board designs even more complicated, dense and expensive.
- All of this for something that doesn't benefit the vast majority of consumer applications whatsoever.

user55664-bit channels, as has been the norm up till now, or 32-bit channels? Remember, DDR5 DIMMs are spec'd with dual 32-bit channels per DIMM.

WirkoYou mentioned doubling the number of channels, which wouldn't make sense, and I agree. I however said that there's a middle ground too, which is somewhat more probable than doubling. One reason for going to 3 64-bit channels could be the IGP; but core counts are going up too, in Epyc, TR and probably Ryzen as well, so all of them will benefit from a 50% increase in RAM data width.

WirkoSegmenting would be a minor marketing (and stock keeping) nightmare, that's right. But it does not preclude all CPUs and APUs from being compatible with all motherboards, and at worst, you'd have 2 channels instead of 3, if you pair wrong parts.

WirkoI suspect Intel has already reserved space for more RAM width on LGA1700/LGA1800. 500 or 600 new pins is a huge increase. We'll find the pinout diagram one day. As for DDR5, I can only find this: media-www.micron.com/-/media/client/global/documents/products/technical-marketing-brief/ddr5_key_module_features_tech_brief.pdf?la=en&rev=f3ca96bed7d9427ba72b4c192dfacb56
and it seems that the number of command/address pins has actually gone down, not up, between DDR4 and DDR5: