Slashdot Mirror
Want a PC With 192 GB of RAM?
ericatcw writes "Do you love the smooth, silky performance of a multi-core PC loaded to the gills with the fastest RAM? Take a look at Dell's new Precision T7500 desktop. According to Computerworld, the T7500 will come with 12 memory slots that can accommodate 16 GB of PC-106000 (1333 MHz) DDR3 RAM for a total of 192 GB. Dell's not the only one — Lenovo, Cisco (with blade servers reportedly up to 384 GB in memory) and Apple are all bringing out computers that leverage Intel's new Nehalem architecture to enable unprecedented amounts of RAM. But beware! Despite the depressed DRAM market, loading up on memory could see the cost of RAM eclipse the cost of the rest of your PC by 20-fold or more."
loading up on memory could see the cost of RAM eclipse the cost of the rest of your PC by 20-fold or more
Uhh, yeah. Try 1000-fold! You know, since we're just making things up.
While we're at it.. I love when people say "Up to 10x OR MORE!" Like, anywhere from 0 to infinity. Nice.
Whale
to run Vista. Finally h/w is catching up!!
Eclipse PDE and Me
at last, with 192GB ram, I can finally use Firefox.
Actually, I don't. I'd love some PC-106000 RAM.
I can finally run like thousands of useless linux instances. =P
You got the touch!
having just checked, DDR3 PC10600 only comes in 2GB at th moment, and even server sticks dont easily come in 16GB modules
I dont see 8x capacity reaching consummers anytime soon anyway. This sorta thing is just silly, if you have enough money this has been available for ages, for the consumer this is still a long way off
As my computer instructor said in 1991, the 4GB address space of a 32-bit CPU is all that you will ever need. Now that I have a computer with a 64-bit CPU/OS and 4GB RAM, I find it hard to justify upgrading more RAM (unless the price for another 4GB is dirt cheap) since running out of memory is not an issue.
Think of all the VM's you can run.
...640 GB should be enough for anybody.
Trolling is a art,
Most assuredly, your morally lax computer will get the RAM a little too drunk and have its way...
Hmm, I don't know. Not according to here... And according to an AMD page, "Energy-efficient DDR2 memory uses up to 30% less power than DDR1 and up to 58% less power than FBDIMM."
According to here a DDR2 DIMM needs 4.4 watts. Let's round up to 10 watts and say each DIMM is, oh, 4gb (pretty low, I'd say). That's 48 DIMMs to get up to 192, 96 to get up to 384. At a whopping 10 watts (pretty high) that's still ~ 500W for 192gb and ~1000W for 384gb. Cut the wattage down to 5W per DIMM and you get half (250W, 500W). >1000W "home user" power supplies aren't too uncommon these days (1600W on tigerdirect.com...)
...Microsoft shall taketh away.
End anonymous moderation and posting on
and see page 2 of it.
"An 8GB DDR3 memory module of the same speed costs between about $250 and $300 today.
The price of 16GB DDR3 modules remains far loftier, however. They were first announced this month by vendors such as Samsung Electronics and Smart Modular Technologies.
Samsung won't say how much it plans to charge, but Smart is charging PC makers $3,400 today for 16GB 1333-MHz RAM modules, a Smart spokeswoman said."
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Or.... you could do like this guy and make a RAID with 24 SSDs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96dWOEa4Djs
You'd get 6Tb of storage for half the cost of the machine in the article... much more useful, no UPS needed.
No sig today...
Eclipse + VMWare ... you'll love every bit above 4G.
Just think of how many Xterms you can open on that machine!
No sig today...
A few years ago when I was working at IBM, I did a back-of-the-envelope calculation on the price of one of the pSeries line with 256GB of RAM. Given the commodity price for RAM for that kind of hardware, using 8x32GB cards, the cost for the RAM was about $1M USD. Which was about the price we charged for the box, with storage, CPUs, AIX license, etc. It was kind of like "buy the RAM, get the server free".
Terrorist, bomb, al Qaeda, nuclear, yellowcake, kill, assassinate. Carnivore is dead... long live Echelon.
"Apple are all bringing out computers that leverage Intel's new Nehalem architecture"
Please tell me I'm not the only one that cringed at this example of newspeak? The word is *use*. "Apple are bringing out computers that **use** Intel's new Nehalem architecture".
The sentence isn't made any more profound, important or meaningful - no extra information is conveyed - by using faddish terms like "leverage"; designed exclusively to make MBAs sound like they have something to contribute (they usually don't).
Besides all that the topic is pointless since everyone knows we won't need more than 640K. ;)
Memory Testing: 1K OK
... 5 hours later
:)
Memory Testing: 201326592K OK
Yea no thanks
No.
Just 5.477 orders of magnitude more RAM.
Seriously, if they'd just pushed a little harder they could have supported 1337 MHz RAM. I don't know what geek wouldn't have jumped at that.
Author of Enyo: Up and Running from O'Reilly Media
First came the MHz Wars, then came the Core Wars, now come the On-Board Memory Controller Wars.
When Intel "innovated" and gave Nehalem on-board DDR3 memory controllers, they did something else as well : they made a "mine is bigger than yours" move by adding 1 more memory controller and thereby giving AMD's Shanghai the one-up. Well, AMD apparently isn't taking that lightly as next year they'll be releasing an upgrade to Istanbul ( which will ship this year ) which uses Socket G34 as well as a 12-core Socket G34 "chip" -- codenamed Magny-Cours -- which will basically be an MCM of 2 Istanbuls/Sao-Paolos. Socket G34 will purportedly support processors with 4 independent DDR3 memory controllers -- AMD's "mine is bigger than yours" riposte to Intel.
Business as usual it seems.
jdb2
But, will they sell me an application that can use that much RAM? I'm fresh out.
No point having that much gas if I've no car to put it in...
Some of was want more RAM than we will ever use. If I'm using all the available RAM on my system, then I don't have enough.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
And that, my friends, is why you shouldn't buy Intel processors supporting DDR3 only (Core i7 or Nehalem-based Xeon). For large memory config, DDR2 is cheaper and motherboards with lots of slots are more common (try to find one with 32+ DDR3 slots: it does not exist !). Check this out: a config supporting 128GB at about 1/6th the cost of the one referenced in TFA ($50k):
With this much RAM, the only reason to have a HDD is for incremental backup, just in case my computer freezes... Oh wait, I'm running Windo[BSOD]
WTF would you do with 192GB of RAM on a desktop? Easy:
RAMDisk, and VMs.
A nice big ramdisk will put most consumer-grade SSDs to shame, performance-wise.
A future in which every desktop has this kind of RAM available is a bright one indeed -- you'll never see a "Loading" screen again. The only time you'd be stuck waiting on permanent storage would be during boot, and while committing writes to disk. For many common desktop applications (web browsing, gaming) there's little need to commit much to permanent storage at all.
And hell, it's even easier to use this kind of memory on the server side. Memcached all the way. The kids over at facebook, with their multi-terrabyte memcached installation spread over hundreds (thousands?) of boxes would probably KILL for systems based on these motherboards -- a single 192GB box would be much cheaper to build and maintain than 6 32GB boxes. They could reduce the number of racks in their datacenters dramatically.
The biggest question would be whether or not a single box based could provide adequate IO bandwidth to get at all that data.
http://www.topcelebs.com/archive/Marina-Sirtis.htm
(posting as AC with bag over head.)
Yeah and then the cops kick in your door looking for your grow op.
Yea, you kids and your fancy limitless random access memory and direct access storage devices.
When I was a kid my first PC had 5000 bytes of RAM, of which only 3500 were available for user applications (the remaining 1500 bytes reserved for the OS.) The screen showed 22 characters across and 23 characters down, each character as big as your thumb. It used 16 different colors, all 16 of which were ugly. If we wanted graphics we had to sacrifice a few characters from the alphabet and remap the 8x8 pixel character map into whatever graphic we wanted. And finally, after only having it a few months we got a tape drive to save our programs (so we didn't have to type them in each time we shut off the computer.) It took 15 minutes to load a single program from tape.
And we were THANKFUL!
And no marking this funny. It would be hilarious, if it weren't true. But I'm serious as a heart attack. Made a helicopter game on that machine once, cost me half my alphabet!
Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer