New Raspberry Pi 4 Model Splits RAM Across Dual Chips (omgubuntu.co.uk)
- Reference: 0180759482
- News link: https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/26/02/09/0644255/new-raspberry-pi-4-model-splits-ram-across-dual-chips
- Source link: https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2026/02/raspberry-pi-4-rev-1-5-dual-ram
> The Raspberry Pi 4 Model B (PCB 13a) adopts a dual-RAM configuration to 'improve supply chain flexibility' and manufacturing efficiency, per a company product change notice document. Earlier versions of the Raspberry Pi 4 use a single RAM chip on the top of the board. The new revision adds a second LPDDR4 chip to the underside, with a couple of passive components also moved over... In moving to a dual-chip layout, Raspberry Pi can combine two smaller — and marginally cheaper — modules to hit the same RAM totals amidst fluctuating component costs...
>
> This change will not impact performance (for better or worse). The Broadcom BCM2711 SoC has a 32-bit wide memory interface so the bandwidth stays identical; this is not doubling the memory bus, it's just a physical split, not a logical one. Plus, the new board is fully compatible with existing official accessories, HATs and add-ons. All operating systems that support the Pi 4 will work, but as the memory setup is different a new version of the boot-loader will need to be flashed first.
[1] https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2026/02/raspberry-pi-4-rev-1-5-dual-ram
Re:RAM recycling? (Score:4, Interesting)
Recycling was a lot easier when RAM was on SIMMs and DIMMS (and socketed DIPs for the old-timers).
Re: (Score:2)
Unlikely that it would be compatible. You would need a reflow oven and xray machine at the minimum.
My ZX Spectrum had 4 memory banks (Score:2)
Way ahead of its time in 1984
Re: My ZX Spectrum had 4 memory banks (Score:5, Interesting)
> I wonder if anyone made a magnetic core memory module for the Pi?
[1]Core memory [core64.io] for the Raspberry Pi Pico.
[1] https://www.core64.io/buy
Re: (Score:2)
The ZX81 is an even better example. Officially it was a four chip solution - ULA, CPU, RAM, and ROM. This was announced at release and heavily advertised (part of the appeal was you could buy it in kit form and put it together with minimal soldering.) In practice multiple models, for the same reason, came with two half-kilobyte RAM chips instead of a single kilobyte chip, because Uncle Clive found it was easier to source them.
There is much better hardware anyways (Score:1)
Get an Orange Pi, for example. Designed by people with some actual understanding of hardware, not the clowns that designed the RP. Typically cheaper, more options, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
Can you elaborate?
Re: (Score:2)
The Pi folks fuck up bigly on approximately every design. I've been watching casually since I had the raspi model A with the shitfest USB that all the fanboy clowns defended to the death even though it made the device completely worthless for any USB traffic heavy applications. They especially half-ass the power supply section of the board almost every time, which is very very bad since if that doesn't work right, nothing else does either.
Re: (Score:3)
And yet the RPi still sell very well after all these years...
The purpose of the RPi was not to build pocketable super computers, it was to introduce a new generation of students to a computing experience akin to the late 70s and 80s, Apple, Tandy, Commodore, etc, as well as encourage harware mods like leds, relays, and sensors.
The original designs were based on cellphone chips, which oddly lacked things like Ethernet, so yes, early designs were not optimal, but they were functional.
This hardware change make
Re: (Score:2)
Bingo. It was a product designed to be made as cheaply as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
> And yet the RPi still sell very well after all these years...
Consumer ignorance is always a good bet.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. That is why you can make tons of money with inferior products. You just need to find enough idiots that cannot tell the difference.
Re: (Score:2)
> it was to introduce a new generation of students to a computing experience akin to the late 70s and 80s
Which is does not do at all. Just the boot loader is more complicated than the entire software stack on many of those early 80s vintage machines. Yes you can learn about doing some digital logic stuff with GIO pins and interfacing them to python and what not as a true beginner but that is about it.
They all got used by geeks wanting to make cheap media pcs/home servers/smart sensor projects.
Are the useful dang right they are, are they fun sure, but for mission of intro to computing, way to tall a stack. Th
Re: (Score:2)
An 8088? Seriously? A kludgy, ugly, CPU from an era where it was expensive to add pins to chips resulting in weird multiplexed buses, and an ISA only a motherboard designer could love*?
This would be better than a RISC CPU why?
And this is being proposed because... the bootloader on the Pi is complicated? Why not just propose simplifying the bootloader? Or a minor architectural change that'll result in a simplified bootloader for specific tasks, such as using an EEPROM for the firmware?
* Yes, that's a really
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, apologetics
Re: (Score:2)
There's a ton of value in broad availability of supply, huge support and peripheral ecosystem and so on.
If I need to squeeze performance on a budget, then sure. But for many cases the RasPi is fine, and the time spent not faffing around with niche hardware greatly outweighs the few tens of dollars of extra cost for the Pi.
Re: (Score:2)
> There's a ton of value in broad availability of supply, huge support and peripheral ecosystem and so on.
I suppose it depends what you're going to do with it. If you're going to make and market an industrial controller, or a networked bathroom snitch puck, and require (moderately) guaranteed-stable-and-available hardware that you can vibe code in Python, Pi is a good solution. If you've got children and want to teach them about computers from YouTube videos but miss out all the fun parts of actually understanding how they work and how to fix them when they don't, Pi is the answer.
If you're doing DIY stuff an
Re: (Score:2)
I should follow this up with the addendum that the RPi folks hit it out of the park with the Pi Pico.
Custom silicon rather than taking a shitty SOC and drawing a smiley face on it, features no one else has (mainly the PIO blocks), and a price point so good that no one's really going to bother knocking it off (there are clone boards, but they all seem to use the RP chip).
Different market, but a full embrace of the DIY maker ethos that RPi started with.
Re: (Score:3)
"Better" requires you to define your requirements. All Orange Pi models come at a considerable price disadvantage compared to RPis. So already it is a failure for the requirements of many people, those who already consider the RPi 4 to be too expensive.
Please stop suggesting solutions to people without even asking what the problem is.
As to your complaints, there's been one major screwup and that was the power design on the original Pi. Everything else is a tradeoff. The original RPi had a perfectly find USB
Re: (Score:2)
> The original RPi had a perfectly find USB interface for many of the applications it was designed for
Where "applications it was designed for" means "things I used it for without problem".
> If it doesn't suit your needs and you bought it, then you are the person who has no clue.
No, that's not how this works.
> Next time spend more and buy a device commensurate with your project requirements.
I do agree with you on this point.
With the Pi, you 100% get what you pay for.
> There's a reason the RPi was a success despite your assertion that the people don't understand hardware (and it's easy to be a criticising arse of a keyboard warrior when you never tried designing such a system yourself)
Ah, yes. The good ol' appeal to popularity.
Re: (Score:2)
> Where "applications it was designed for" means "things I used it for without problem".
No, it means applications it was designed for. If you shoehorn it into something beyond its capabilities then *you* are the problem, not the RPi. USB 2.0 is a perfectly fine interface for many applications.
> No, that's not how this works.
This is exactly how it works. That's why we have things such as spec sheets. No one with a single braincell bought an original Raspberry Pi expecting USB 3 performance. It was clearly advertised what was on offer.
> Ah, yes. The good ol' appeal to popularity.
It's stating the fact that the RPi has a proven track record of being excellent in a huge var
Re: (Score:2)
> Get an Orange Pi, for example. Designed by people with some actual understanding of hardware, not the clowns that designed the RP. Typically cheaper, more options, etc.
And BetaMax had superior video quality. And yet, people ended up at VHS because technical quality is not always the sole determining factor of who wins.
Also: do you think OrangePi is immune to the current RAM sourcing problems?
SODIMM (Score:2)
Just give us a SODIMM slot already.
Performance impact (Score:2)
They say no performance impact, presumably meaning compute performance. But what about power efficiency performance?
Re: (Score:3)
It's LPDDR4 RAM. Having a second chip is insignificant, an entire SODIMM typically uses 300mW of power and usually has 8 of these things on them.