Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Intel To Support 128GB of DDR4 on Core 9th Gen Desktop Processors (anandtech.com)

Posted by msmash on from the significant-improvements dept.

Ian Cutress, writing for AnandTech: One of today's announcements threw up an interesting footnote worthy of further investigation. With its latest products, HP announced that their mainstream desktop platforms would be shipped with up to 32GB of memory, which was further expandable up to 128GB. Intel has confirmed to us, based on new memory entering the market, that there will be an adjustment to the memory support of the latest processors.

Normally mainstream processors only support 64GB, by virtue of two memory channels, two DIMMs per memory channel (2DPC), and the maximum size of a standard consumer UDIMM being 16GB of DDR4, meaning 4x16GB = 64GB. However the launch of two different technologies, both double height double capacity 32GB DDR4 modules from Zadak and G.Skill, as well as new 16Gb DDR4 chips coming from Samsung, means that technically in a consumer system with four memory slots, up to 128GB might be possible.

172 comments

  1. Why? by DarkRookie2 · · Score: 2

    I mean beyond shits and giggles, is there anything out there that could use 128GB of RAM and even get close to that number.
    Or anything in the near future. Next 5-10 years.


    Chrome doesn't count. That will eat up all the RAM anyways.

    --
    http://progressquest.com/spoltog.php?name=Son+Of+Son+Of+DarkRookie
    1. Re: Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      VMs obviously. Adobe as well.

    2. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I run analyses that require ~30GB, so I'd love to be able to multi-thread that and get four instances going.

    3. Re:Why? by Lord_Byron · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Certainly, with virtualization. Perhaps not mainstream, but my home server is creaking under it's current memory limits if I have the Windows VMs up. Yes, there are other approaches, but this is a valid use for gobs of RAM.

      Maybe gaming too? Being able to cache the *entire* game to RAM would seem likely to speed things up, maybe make loading screens a thing of the past.

    4. Re: Why? by illiac_1962 · · Score: 0

      Data ETL, and analytics can use anything you will give it. If the network can keep up I would love to be able to punt 100gb of data to a user and they would love working with it in RAM.

    5. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every Java application ever written...

    6. Re: Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      128 GB RAM = pr0n. Interactive pr0n.

    7. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I put together a machine with one of the 6 core i7s a year or two ago with 128 GB, for 4K video post-production. Adobe will definitely use it.

    8. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I mean beyond shits and giggles, is there anything out there that could use 128GB of RAM and even get close to that number.

      Virtual machines ... CAD software ... databases ... rendering software ... huge data sets.

      There's a lot of things for which "too much RAM" can never be true.

      On a desktop I can burn through 16GB without even trying, and 32GB I can fill without trying that hard.

      I can guarantee you, someone somewhere can chew through 128GB of RAM for their specific problem.

    9. Re:Why? by mi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      is there anything out there that could use 128GB of RAM and even get close to that number.

      I'm dealing with 100GB-1TB databases at work on a regular basis — I'm sure, others have encountered even bigger ones. Fitting all — or most — of the dataset into RAM is greatly speeding things up. Indeed, there are database-software packages already (such as, ugh, "memcache"), that must load it all into RAM, offering dramatically-improved speeds in exchange for this requirement.

      On the OS level, swap — and the associated complexity of the kernels — is becoming unnecessary in more and more cases. On some of my FreeBSD machines, for example, I'm already compiling the kernel with options NO_SWAPPING.

      On the filesystem-level, ZFS — the revolutionary filesystem — can offer much better speed with more RAM. The abundance of RAM is also making its advanced features (like deduplication) practical.

      And for a layman's personal computer, editing a 4K video becomes much snappier too, if the the entire (uncompressed) clip fits into RAM.

      And then come things like "machine learning" — I'm waiting for a Thunderbird add-on, for example, to automatically sort my incoming e-mail. Not just "spam/not-spam", but all of it, based on the ongoing analysis of how I've been sorting it through the years... For those things to be effective, they need both CPU and memory — continuously...

      Other examples — legitimate and otherwise (like Chrome) — abound...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    10. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can buy 16TB RAM machines. I'd love to have that amount of RAM in a phone.

      There is no finite amount of RAM which is ever going to be "enough" to saturate demand if the price is low enough.

    11. Re:Why? by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      There is an 20/80 rules. 20% of the data is used 80% of the time.
      For a Database server of a modest size of 600 gigs. 128 gig ram, would be handy for most of your data requests that are handled. Speeding up the data access on the app.

      I happen to do a lot of data processing, the more I can stuff in RAM normally the better, because I don't need to go back and optimize code to handle slower drive reads, or because my OS is thrashing because I gave it too much data.

      For home use not so much. My Laptop has 32gigs of RAM and it is way more then I currently need.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    12. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you can load windows to a ram drive to boot and do updates faster.

    13. Re:Why? by sconeu · · Score: 1

      I remember thinking the same thing when the original Mac II came out, supporting 128MB.

      Never underestimate Parkinson's Law.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    14. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Manipulating large non-sparse matrices

    15. Re: Why? by acoustix · · Score: 1

      This. Yeah, you could go buy enterprise hardware but why? For the home user this would be perfectly acceptable. It's obviously not mainstream yet. But I could use it in the near future.

      --
      "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
    16. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just start Slack, Skype and Windows 10 telemetry and most of that 128GB is used.

    17. Re: Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet the prices on the memory modules alone (32Gb per module) would justify considering server grade gear.

      Remember, those modules won't have ECC. Running VMs that requires that much memory on consumer HW doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

    18. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are people who do real computing that involves number crunching and large datasets and for whom no amount of RAM is gratuitous. I'm kind of tired of people playing the "what do you need that for?" card when it comes to RAM. Gamers and the like seem to think that their needs are all there is to computing. No it isn't.

    19. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Audio processing with many sample libraries.

    20. Re:Why? by darkain · · Score: 1

      Under some NDAs, so I cannot fully answer it. But I did talk with a client once that had a use case for 128GiB RAM on a laptop in order to run a specific type of database for presentations to high ranking government officials. These of course were not standard laptops, but over-sized and high-powered, specialized systems. Essentially mobile desktops with attached screens.

    21. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh ye of little imagination.

      That's easy. VMs.

      I started seriously using VMs when systems with 8GB of RAM were still quite impressive. Then I quickly moved to 16, 32 and now 64GB. As a software developer, I have a 64GB VM host here at home, and a smaller 32GB one. As the *CPU* is underutilized on both, I wish I could combine both on a single machine that can use 128GB.

      Then why not 256GB? When it comes to VMs, there's no end in sight. Even with what I have today, I still have to turn VMs on and off as I need to reprioritize memory usage.

    22. Re:Why? by Sique · · Score: 1

      Any database. You want as many tables and indices as possible in RAM to speed up your queries. And you also want the rollback buffer in RAM too. And you want queries distributed to the threads to have as many queries in parallel as possible, which means that you need several rollback buffers.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    23. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now this'll work on some "gaming" laptops.

    24. Re:Why? by WilliamGeorge · · Score: 3, Informative

      Photoscan and other photogrammetry applications, when working with large image sets (1000+ photos) and high quality settings.

      After Effects uses RAM to store rendered frames, so increasing from 64 to 128GB means you can have twice as many frames stored in RAM preview at a time.

      Video editing with 6K and 8K footage, though usually in those situations you would want a CPU with more cores anyway (so a Core X processor, which can already support 128GB of memory without more dense modules.

      That is just what I can think of off the top of my head, and that others in this thread haven't already mentioned.

      --
      William George
    25. Re:Why? by geekmux · · Score: 1

      I mean beyond shits and giggles, is there anything out there that could use 128GB of RAM and even get close to that number. Or anything in the near future. Next 5-10 years. Chrome doesn't count. That will eat up all the RAM anyways.

      Less than 20 years ago 32 megabytes of memory was the norm under Windows NT Workstation. Not sure why you fail to see another exponential increase in memory demand, particularly for power users. Also, ever heard of VMs before? It's this "new" thing we've been playing with for about two decades now...

    26. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      > On the filesystem-level, ZFS — the revolutionary filesystem — can offer much better speed with more RAM. The abundance of RAM is also making its advanced features (like deduplication) practical.

      At scale, ZFS deduplication is a non-starter. The requirements of 5GB/TB are just not workable. I'm in the early investigative stages of a petabyte scale project and will be testing Red Hat's VDO layered on top of ZFS. The deduplication requirements of VDO are 268MB/TB, which means our 480TB storage nodes will be able to have deduplication with approximately 128GB of RAM reserved for deduplication, rather than the 2TB+ that would be required by the ZFS DDT.

      On the downside, VDO maxes at 256TB/volume, so we'll be running two volumes per Gluster node.

    27. Re:Why? by Targon · · Score: 1

      For databases that large, wouldn't something like AMD Threadripper or an Intel Xeon make more sense? Those would offer more memory channels to better access the amount of RAM you are looking to put in there.

    28. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. Running a shit ton of memory hungry VMs on the one machine.

    29. Re:Why? by Bobrick · · Score: 1

      Since you're asking this question on Slashdot, I'm gonna assume you're trolling. Most people here probably deal with a hell of a lot more RAM than this at their workplace. Hell, I "only" do video editing and I would jump on 128gb if I could afford it right now.

    30. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything you say sound reasonable, bu what about durability / persisting transactions to disk?

    31. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are of course plenty and more things that would love to use that much and many times more memory, but is a consumer desktop the right computer for such tasks? Probably not, but you know people will use any PC they have at hand, can't always look towards server hardware for this one thing you would like to do maybe just this once. It's nice to have the option.

    32. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lots of mem is very useful for valgrind.

    33. Re:Why? by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure of many non-enterprise workloads that would use that much, but it's nice to be given the option. My current i9 supports 128GB and I have 64 in it currently, using it for most of my daily activities, running a hand full of lab VMs in the background, and gaming. All at the same time if I want. If it wasn't for the VMs I could easily get away with half of that.

      For enterprise users, it means they can build beefy workstations without having to resort to Xeon W processors. There is a Xeon W version of my i9 7980xe and it cost $500 more than my i9. For that $500, you ECC RAM and slower clock speeds.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    34. Re:Why? by EnsilZah · · Score: 1

      I work with 3D, 2D, Video.
      At any one time I might have Photoshop, a couple instances of Maya, Mudbox, After Effects open.

      I have a 6 year old computer at home, it still works great, but I'm starting to bump into its 32GB RAM limit.
      At work I have 64GB, and RAM is not a problem.

      If I were buying a computer today I'd get 64GB with the intention of getting another 64GB somewhere down the lifecycle.
      We might at some point reach the limit of how many pixels and polygons we need want in a scene, but we're not there yet.

    35. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's awesome! I just overheard the same logic from these guys!

    36. Re:Why? by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      Less than 20 years ago 32 megabytes of memory was the norm under Windows NT Workstation.

      Minor quibble, but you might be off by a few years. 20 years ago, Dell was selling regular desktop computers that supported 256-512 MB of RAM. 32 MB would have been common more than 20 years ago, but probably less than 25 years ago.

      Just thought I'd mention it, since I remember upgrading my old 486 computer to 16 MB in 1996 or so, and the P2-400 I bought in 1998 came with 128 MB, I think.

    37. Re:Why? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Heavy graphics processing usually involving stacking and or stitching very large 16bpc images will. I've been doing that on a box with 32GB of ram with a SSD with 128GB allocated for swap space. A great example is stacking astro images. I don't have an equatorial mount but my camera has some tracking built in. So instead of taking 60x180s images like most would do I will take 200x30s images or even before I was able to enable the tracking, didn't have the camera add on at first, 2000x1s and then stack them. The raw images were 24megapixel images at 14bpc. Now go align and stack 2000 of them and see how much memory it consumes.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    38. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gigapixel panoramas like this: http://www.gigapixelperu.com/

      I'd love a system with a couple of current generation GPUs and enough memory to hold the whole gigapixel panoramic image in RAM, along with all the working intermediates.

    39. Re: Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No you didn't.

    40. Re: Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buy a fucking server then you cuck. Stop using workstations to do server work.

    41. Re: Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are you running a database on a workstation computer. Use a fucking server.

    42. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any database. You want as many tables and indices as possible in RAM to speed up your queries. And you also want the rollback buffer in RAM too. And you want queries distributed to the threads to have as many queries in parallel as possible, which means that you need several rollback buffers.

      Very few people would be willing to do that on a personal desktop computer, and the ones that do so generally don't need to they just want to.

      Anyone that needs to would never limit their database resources to that of a home desktop computer, they would use a server if not a cluster of servers.

      Xeon E7 chips can already address 3 TB of ram per cpu, and will be in a server with a much faster storage subsystem with a higher iops rating, likely with ECC everywhere and nice and redundant where ever possible.

    43. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe gaming too? Being able to cache the *entire* game to RAM would seem likely to speed things up, maybe make loading screens a thing of the past.

      I have 16GB and none of my games even come close to using half of that, most of the memory usage is in the GPU VRAM anyway. This is a side-effect of so many games being made for PC and Consoles, they have to be able to run on the older console hardware and as such can't be written to truly take advantage of a more powerful PC. For the past several years I'd been able to run new games in "ultra" mode even with hardware that is a generation or two behind.

    44. Re: Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If youâ(TM)re an experimenter or wanting to run a home lab in addition to wanting a gaming rig, without jet-engine noise from enterprise kit it makes perfect sense.

      To be fair I have a e5 in a Supermicro case thatâ(TM)s almost silent but it took some finding. It has 64GB which I occasionally hit but when purchased I couldnâ(TM)t justify more.

    45. Re: Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All those home brewed lab hadoop/AMP clusters ...
      DEV env with one machine hosting VM with "everything" (2 db, 2 appsrv, 2 web servers, load balancer ...) ...

    46. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not? Why continue with an artificial barrier when you don't need to? Assuming "no-one will need more than x" is the same stupid assumption we've made over and over again in the computer industry, and it's come back to bite us Every. Single. Time. Better to deal with it before it becomes an issue for most people.

      (Oh and fwiw in my work I do periodically hit the "not enough memory" bar. It's particularly annoying when I'm trying to run a set of time-consuming simulations, have a bunch of left-over cores that aren't being driven into the ground, but can't use them because I don't have enough ram left to squeeze in any more sims).

    47. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same here. Sure, there are ways to crunch complex models on large datasets within memory limits, but they tend to be slower and sometimes a pain to implement: give me an alternative and I'd be all over it!

    48. Re: Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you don't even have enough fucking RAM for the browser on your workstation, and you have to ssh -X into the server to run your browser. What's the point?

    49. Re:Why? by mi · · Score: 1

      The requirements of 5GB/TB are just not workable

      Why? By your numbers, you can have a 50TB filesystem needing 250GB of RAM for deduplication. That's only two of the 128GB DIMMs being discussed — your server can still use the rest of the RAM-slots for other things (like caching)...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    50. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, for one, run multiple VMs in my 24GB, 12 core workstation. I would have no difficulty making full use of 128GB RAM, if I had access to it.

    51. Re: Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you use top-tier Samsung IC's and have the memory voltage and timings set correctly then you will be waiting a looong time for a bit flip. In a relatively recent research paper no bit flips occurred when using top of the line G.Skill memory (with Samsung ICs), untill they started reducing memory voltage and messing with the timings. Poorer quality memory was experiencing bit fligs not matter how it was configured.

      In another paper on ECC for GPUs, the recommedation was to turn ECC off to increase the reliability of the computations. Again zero bit flips with ECC off. With ECC on the memory controller was causing some, infrequent, errors. However, if you are running a server that has to be online 24/7 then you would want ECC in case a memory module starts to fail. That's when you'll get numerous bit flips.

    52. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      20 years ago they did sell cheap systems : P233 MMX with 32MB. Maybe that one was bought in 1999 even. around 2003, even 2004 : saw a lab of Windows NT4 machines with 32MB RAM. And that was plenty. You ever see a blank NT4 desktop.. it's the basic interface without Internet Explorer junk (so, no little icon toolbar on the task bar), no need for a wallpaper, but you still get what looks like the task manager and cmd.exe from Windows XP.

      Maybe the single best GUI I've seen and used, and I'll never see it again.

    53. Re:Why? by yorgasor · · Score: 1

      128KB? 128MB would've been good around 2003-ish.

      --
      Looking for a computer support specialist for your small business? Check out
    54. Re:Why? by yorgasor · · Score: 1

      The new Thinkpad P52/P72 laptops support 128Gb using 4x32Gb DIMMs with their Xeon laptop chips. I'd _love_ to get my hands on one of those bad boys!

      --
      Looking for a computer support specialist for your small business? Check out
    55. Re:Why? by rhewt · · Score: 1

      Load the OS into RAM, duh.

    56. Re: Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hedt i7s supported 128GB

    57. Re: Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Web browser are kind of VMs, they eat gigabytes. VMs are VMs too. Segregating Windows into its own window will cost gigabytes. Something simple like VLC media player now takes 100MB. Really, I can't even run my two browsers on my PC, leave VLC open, and I'm still not doing much either useful or fun.

      Remember the price of RAM years back? Production capacity will come online and the prices will crash, maybe the oncoming global recession will help as well.
      Imagine $150 for a stick of 32GB. For just $300 I finally can get an new PC with some 8x increase in RAM and just fool around or do some kind of work (like learning to use CentOS 7 or 8 and set up an ldap with kerberos for single-sign-on, I don't know)
      I can even use a real low end motherboard, with two RAM slots. Ryzen 2C/4T with GPU got launched too. I wouldn't mind at all.

      Like, $500 for the base elements of a 64GB PC, not counting the case but there are basically no cooling requirements, something from a Pentium II will work.

    58. Re:Why? by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      Anything involving analysis of 3D structures (the stuff I remember using was an electromagnetic simulator called HFSS). Doubling your mesh resolution leads to increasing memory usage by a factor of 8 so you can very quickly eat up as much memory as you can throw at it in search of more accurate and/or higher frequency results.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    59. Re: Why? by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      Officially the first i7 parts to support 128GB were the broadwell-e parts released in may 2016 which is over two years ago. There are also reports that while not officially supported 128GB did in fact work on the older haswell-e parts.

      So the GPs claim is perfectly plausible.

      The question with these new modules is how much will they cost. Will the cost difference between 4x32GB and 8x16GB be more or less than the cost difference between a maintstream desktop CPU/MB and a high end desktop CPU/MB.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    60. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AMD Epyc supports 4TB of RAM, with that you have plenty.

    61. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because you're bad at math and reading.

      He doesn't have a 50TB filesystem. He has 480TB on one node. He'll need much more than 250gb of ram.
      The new memory support is for 128GB TOTAL on the system (32gb per dimm x 4 slots = 128gb), not 128gb sticks.
      480TB on zfs would require (based on 5gb/tb needed for dedupe) 2,400GB of ram.

      At 5gb ram per 1tb disk in zfs for dedupe, and zfs caps ARC usage to 1/4 the size of the ARC (https://constantin.glez.de/2011/07/27/zfs-to-dedupe-or-not-dedupe/), 128gb ram would likely support around 6.4tb of deduped data. It's highly variable depending on the situation and config, so 128gb ram might be able to support 25tb of deduped data... but that's pushing it, and that's far less than targeted (480tb).

    62. Re:Why? by mikael · · Score: 1

      CAD workstations. Try visualizing a modern jumbo jet with over 100,000 components represented using the commercial CAD formats. Each of those has so much meta-data you need all that Gigabytes. Then there are GIS systems that model entire cities and states using multi-layer information and Terabytes of textures.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    63. Re:Why? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The last "big computer" I worked on was a Sun E10k. It had 64 CPUs with 4 cores. And one terrabyte of RAM.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    64. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I mean beyond shits and giggles, is there anything out there that could use 128GB of RAM and even get close to that number.

      Sure. Minecraft could use it all as world map cache to avoid some world popping everytime you move around large distances.
      As for things getting close almost every modern game out there is like 10% of it.

      I suspect every video editor out there would love to have that amount of RAM.
      Raw video data eats space quickly. A 5 minute clip of 1080p 60fps video takes something like 100GB uncompressed.
      It's not something you'd like to chug from disk if you want to skip back and forth in it to find reference material.
      If you are working in higher resolution and more than 24bit color depth it will eat up the memory even quicker.

      There are some thing hobbyists doesn't do simply because it is too inconvenient with consumer hardware.

    65. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, I heard you like "emdash" (and parentheses — also, quotes and commas — as a way to "break" your sentences) — a lot...

    66. Re: Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really, I can't even run my two browsers on my PC, leave VLC open, and I'm still not doing much either useful or fun.

      What? I can do that on my 7-year-old Mac with plenty of CPU cycles to spare.

    67. Re:Why? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Back then ram was relatively expensive. Computers could support a lot more RAM than they usually shipped with. You could have a computer with 512 MB of ram in 1998 but be prepared to pay for it. A typical configuration would probably be 32-64 MB. This did come in handy a few years later when upgrading those PCs from Windows 98 (perfectly happy with 64 MB) to Windows XP (256 MB needed to run halfway decently).

      Nowadays, RAM is comparatively cheap - though more expensive than it was just a few years ago, so it's not uncommon to buy a new computer already maxed out on RAM.

  2. $20k Mac Pro? by pablo_max · · Score: 1

    Can you imagine what Apple would charge you for 126GB of RAM?
    They already charge you 1200$ for 64GB. I am guessing it will be massively more than that.

    At the moment I have 32Gb on my machine. I have never gotten even remotely close to using it up.
    Then again, I am not editing huge video files are doing renderings. Likely those people would welcome the extra ram.
    Assuming they are using a windows machine, so they could actually afford to buy it ;)

    1. Re:$20k Mac Pro? by pablo_max · · Score: 1

      I take it back.. Apple will already sell you 128GB on the iMac for 2400$. What a deal!

    2. Re: $20k Mac Pro? by illiac_1962 · · Score: 0

      32GB is the bare minimum for me. My puny work laptop has 16gb and I have maxed it several times. Some are very productive and those people will always find a use for more RAM. I can't wait until 4TB nvme SSD drives are everyday meh.

    3. Re:$20k Mac Pro? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      $2,400 for a higher end system isn't that bad. Yes you can build yourself a computer with better specs for less. But for a pre-made system that is about on par.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    4. Re: $20k Mac Pro? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Most laptops are 16gb maxed. Some of the newer ones are now 32 or 64gigs. But those are harder to find.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    5. Re:$20k Mac Pro? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      I think he meant $2400 for the 128GB RAM alone. You still need to buy the Mac.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    6. Re:$20k Mac Pro? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Can you imagine what Apple would charge you for 126GB of RAM?

      Yes. Yes I can. They didn't get to be a trillion dollar company by cutting their own throat with cheap hardware.

    7. Re: $20k Mac Pro? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This I'm using is 32GB max, it was some $400+ piece of crap or some such. Low end 15.6", 15 watt laptops have two RAM slots and RJ45. Oh, this one is new crap so it only has HDMI out instead of HDMI + VGA out, but it has an USB3 type C that I have nothing to plug into yet.
      (on this level of quality, the screen is 1080p but that's a low end TN. It's bright and low contrast, poor angles. there's some rattling noise too. an IPS display should be a priority)

      It will probably never get a BIOS update for that but I suppose it would take up to 64GB with the new 16Gb RAM chips. I have no idea if it'll take the new RAM with no BIOS update.
      Per the article Intel seems to play asshole and pretend this is only for 9000-series CPU. Judging by past behavior they are likely lying. The new CPUs are another Skylake iteration and might have the exact same memory controller, so the 6000, 7000 and 8000 series CPU might be compatible with the new RAM (and "lower" named Pentium and Celeron), though this can have better chance of working on a retail desktop motherboard.

      To sum it up the upside is : plain regular laptops with RJ45, USB-A, full size HDMI will readily support 64GB at least if it's a new model laptop, no matter how low end or high end.

    8. Re:$20k Mac Pro? by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      Can you imagine what Apple would charge you for 126GB of RAM?

      I guess much more than for 128GB.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    9. Re:$20k Mac Pro? by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Somewhat in their defense, that's ECC memory.

  3. I agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    640k ought to be enough for anybody.

    1. Re:I agree by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      It is for a 16bit program. During that type most applications could fit in 64k of RAM, that has enough room for the OS and a fully operational BASIC interpreter.

      Then we wanted 80 column display, then graphics then we wanted the graphics with higher resolution and more colors....

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:I agree by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Yeah, like we're ever going to need more than EGA for the new flat GUI fad...

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    3. Re:I agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Yeah, like we're ever going to need more than EGA for the new flat GUI fad...

      Luxury!

      Except for resolution - as far as colors go, you could reproduce today's GUIs with high fidelity on CGA cards. At a time when you can reliably count on every video device being capable of rendering 24-bit colors.

    4. Re:I agree by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      EGA, almost.
      CGA? You must be joking.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    5. Re:I agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      640Gb ought to be enough for anybody.

      Corrected for you

    6. Re:I agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you know that EGA had a great mode with a 16 color palette taken out of 64 colors? But this only works in high resolution (640x350)
      Games were in 320x200 and had the crappy default 16 colors, with are dumb RGBI and compatible with CGA monitors, as well as the resolution itself (200 line monitor).

      EGA didn't support the prettier colors in low resolution, hence the games had to look crappy! despite most people only ever playing EGA games on VGA monitors and cards.

    7. Re:I agree by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      CGA was a horrible "four colours" palette, with a choice between four equally crappy palettes.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
  4. Java by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Java could use that RAM. Java would then be able to compile and run "hello world" in just 5 mins, providing all the class libraries are in cache.

    remember, every iteration would get faster, by 10X, at just a small cost of additional ram, and just a few cores.

  5. Enough. by king+neckbeard · · Score: 2

    128GB ought to be enough for anybody.

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    1. Re: Enough. by illiac_1962 · · Score: 0

      Yeah but getting there right now costs a bloody fortune. You have to purchase Chinese hacked server hardware to do it. I'm looking forward to 1TB on the desktop. The frumpy sys admins laughed when we said we needed VMs with 1TB but we put it to good use. If you need to transform 10TB of data in a few minutes that amount is required...on top of face melting flash storage. This is the age of data...big data.

    2. Re:Enough. by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Still not enough to make a simulation of the universe on the subatomic level. (Granted making a universe on a subatomic level, would require a system the size of the universe, unless you are going to make shortcuts)

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:Enough. by flink · · Score: 1

      Due to the holographic principal, at the most compact, the entire universe's information could be stored on the surface of a black hole the size of Sagittarius A*. You'll have to wait for the black hole to decay to get your simulation results out however.

    4. Re:Enough. by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      If you build it, a software developer will find a way to exhaust it.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    5. Re:Enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That sim is already running, if I'm not mistaken.

  6. It's just an extra address-line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    stop reporting it like it was some technology breakthrough.

  7. Gearing up for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Windows 11 release I see. Now with more bloated goodness.

  8. Is this new? by xtal · · Score: 1

    I'm running 128GB of RAM on a i7 6800k on a Asus TUF x99.

    Works great. Virtual machines FTW.

    --
    ..don't panic
    1. Re:Is this new? by djhertz · · Score: 1

      I read this article and thought the same thing. I'm only at 64gig on my x99 but I could certainly rip some more sticks in there :)

      --
      Modest doubt is called the beacon of the wise - William Shakespeare
    2. Re:Is this new? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is like when 8GB DDR3 sticks of memory came out, up from the older 4GB per stick.

      So, you can run 128GB on the new $50 Athlon 200GE CPU and some $80 to $100 motherboard. This will be useful when the price of RAM will crash. Get 16GB RAM now, add 64GB for about the same price the following year. You get 80GB on something affordable.

      Been stuck on 2GB to 8GB for over a decade!

    3. Re:Is this new? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      x99 is the HEDT or high-end desktop platform, and it has 4 channels of memory. Some of those boards even have registers which allow better stability so more chips can connect to the memory controller. This announcement is claiming that higher capacity DDR4 chips are being released which could double the capacity of the only 2 channel desktop platform.

      Of course, with the fortune that you'll pay for a "i9" platform, you might wonder why it only has 2 memory channels.

  9. I'm your browser by xack · · Score: 1

    And I'm confiscating your 128GB ram for telemetry purposes.

  10. Double-height is "new", you say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://www.anandtech.com/show/978/2

    Double-height modules in 2002. There's probably earlier uses, too.

    Unless these "new" ones only function when using Apps.

  11. Re:Why? Not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You need a better algo if you are that over your head. I recommend travelling to India. You will gain insight on how better to use memory. I know of what I speak.

  12. Thats great for the embedded NSA spyware! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Intel owes us money. For more than a decade they claimef untrue speeds and lied about selling us all out.

    FUCK INTEL. THEY OWE US MONEY.

  13. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  14. Threadripper by Weaselmancer · · Score: 5, Informative

    From this link:

    Max Mem 1 TiB

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:Threadripper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was my first thought. Looks like Intel is trying to play catch up again. Seems to happen every 10 years or so for Intel after they forget they have competition.

    2. Re:Threadripper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Intel Xeon E7 chips have been able to address 3 tb ram for years now, and in the same price-class as the Threadripper.

      The Core i9 is a desktop CPU and a third to a fifth of the price accordingly.

      Your confusion only comes about because AMD doesn't differentiate low, mid, and high end CPUs so it isn't apparent at first glance what class it is in.

      If you're willing to drop the $800 for a Threadripper able to use 1 TB ram, the equiv Intel CPU for that price is the Xeon which can address 3 TB ram.

      An AMD CPU in the same class as the i9, such as the Ryzen 7 series, only just this year got to the 128 GB mark, previously being limited to 64 GB just like the i7 series.

      AMD only beat Intel to the 128gb ram on desktop mark by a few months, not even one year let alone 10.
      AMD still offers nothing even close to Intels high end offerings like the Xeon E7 series, and AMDs best still only offers a third of the memory possible to Intels last year offerings.

    3. Re:Threadripper by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      If you're willing to only drop $800 on a CPU, You're not going to want to drop $80,000 on 1TB of RAM.

    4. Re:Threadripper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know what a TiB is. I don't speak chank.

  15. Use Cases by JBMcB · · Score: 4, Informative

    Multitrack high-res audio editing. Video editing and compositing. Medium format 48-bit image editing.

    Anything needing a few gigabytes of RAM just to load a project will just get faster the more you can buffer stuff into memory.

    --
    My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    1. Re:Use Cases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      192KHz * 8 channels * 32b per channel = 5.9 hours (uncompressed) fits in 128GB, how much audio do you load at a time?

    2. Re:Use Cases by Shinobi · · Score: 1

      Add in effects, virtual instruments, all of those requiring working RAM too. Oh, and while actually creating and editing, you can have way more than 8 channels too.

    3. Re:Use Cases by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      It's not unusual for me to have 30 to 40 channels in a project, and many of those are going to be stereo (so, effectively two tracks).

      As you said about virtual instruments taking RAM: Alicia's Keys is 18 GB of samples. For one fucking piano.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    4. Re:Use Cases by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Medium format 48-bit image editing

      Image editing in general:

      - Normal images with many layers eat RAM.
      - Creating gigapixel images.
      - Advanced processing for images e.g. stacking to 64bit images, deconvolution, etc. They can all happily eat up as much RAM as you let it.

  16. Fluid simulation in Houdini by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I have 64 GB, but I'm not limited to 64 GiB on my HP Z820 workstation ( with a dual Xeon, I can go to 512 GB) , but it's barely enough to do FLIP fluid simulations in SideFX Houdini 17.
    With 128 GB it's really a lot more comfortable.

  17. Double-height? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    Double-height is nothing.

    How about octuple-height?

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
    1. Re:Double-height? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Warning: the post above is SFW unless you work for Intel, AMD, Micron, Samsung or Hynix.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
  18. That puts it between Ryzen and Threadripper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A Ryzen CPU can support half that, up to 64 GB of RAM, but a Threadripper CPU can support eight times as much, up to 2 TB.

    1. Re:That puts it between Ryzen and Threadripper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      TFA actually states that Ryzen supports the 128GB. AMD will test the new quantities, then when qualified they will update their official spec.
      Intel doesn't but you'll be able to search on the web and learn if this worked on older CPUs.

      e.g. the i7 920 officially supported 24GB. i7 2600K supported 32GB. i7 920 worked perfectly with 48GB but Intel will never tell you, in the hope you'll buy something bigger, newer or both.

  19. intel wants to buy an xeon cpu for that AMD is ope by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    intel wants to buy an xeon cpu for that AMD is open and does not lockdown the desktop cpus like that.

  20. $2,400 upgrade vs $1,600 full kit. OWC cheaper as by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    $2,400 upgrade vs $1,600 full kit.
    OWC cheaper as well with pro install + ram at $2049.00 and take off $180 more if you trade in your old ram.

  21. Re:In memory processing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Parallelism is your friend for really big data sets.

  22. Already happening on 8th gen by aaron44126 · · Score: 1

    Considering that Dell is already shipping laptops with 128GB of memory as an option (Dell Precision 7530, 7730) — these are single-CPU, 8th gen systems — hasn't the ship sailed on this already?

  23. Chasing AMD taillights by Tough+Love · · Score: 1, Informative

    Epyc supports 2TB per chip. WTF is up with Intel?

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    1. Re:Chasing AMD taillights by ZiakII · · Score: 3, Informative

      You are looking at Server CPUs... Intel supports up to 3.06 TB a CPU.

    2. Re:Chasing AMD taillights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But Threadrippers aren't server CPUs and they support 1TB (see the post farther above),

    3. Re:Chasing AMD taillights by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Intel supports up to 3.06 TB a CPU.

      Intel's high end Xeons have 6 channels, looks like 1.5TB to me.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    4. Re:Chasing AMD taillights by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Right, i9 is Intel's top of the line HEDT product so Threadripper is the proper comparison, which has 4 channels vs i9's two.

      Actually we were all baited, because the article is not about memory channels, it is about DIMM capacity. The headline is a pure troll.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    5. Re:Chasing AMD taillights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well it says Core 9th gen and this includes the i5-9600K, the i3-9100 and all others. Also the goddamned i9 9900K but it's launching at super high prices both due to Intel pricing and to serious shortages on Intel's production.

    6. Re:Chasing AMD taillights by ZiakII · · Score: 1

      https://ark.intel.com/products... Was the one I found the specs on so I went with it.

    7. Re:Chasing AMD taillights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except they just released an "i9" to the z370/z390 mainstream platform.

    8. Re:Chasing AMD taillights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The top of the line i9's (skylake-x) have 4 memory channels and already support 128GB of ram. Does seem like old news.

    9. Re:Chasing AMD taillights by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      You can buy workstations loaded with 3TB and 2 Xeon CPUs.

      Where do you buy Threadripper motherboards that support 1TB of RAM?

    10. Re:Chasing AMD taillights by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      The news is, Intel artificially restricted their desktop parts to 16GB dimms until now while AMD did not. So 128GB Ryzen desktop is just a matter of swapping the dimms when 32GB actually arrives at retail, but with Intel you need a new processor. New motherboard too? Not sure about that but it would be consistent with the usual Intel experience.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  24. Triple channel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Normally mainstream processors only support 64GB, by virtue of two memory channels

    Pretty sure triple channel has been out for close to a decade at this point.

    1. Re:Triple channel? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Quad channel was done by AMD in 2010 for their Opteron CPU's
      Intel did quad channel on their LGA2011 sockets in 2011 and 3 channel on LGA1366 in 2008
      The "desktop" 1151 sockets are only 2 channel, not enough pins. You'd need ~150 pins minimum for just the signals for each channel. I assume each bit is a diff pair and the channels are 64 bits with, with clocks, ras, cas, etc.

    2. Re:Triple channel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Intel also made another triple channel socket, but for dual Xeon servers only (LGA1356, Ivy Bridge). So they had three sockets at that point : dual, triple and quad channel. They gave up on the triple channel since the quad channel socket (later 2011-3 succeeding to 2011) did everything it did like low end and midrange dual CPU servers.

  25. cool nsa loves using your new ram by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    cool nsa loves using your new ram

  26. Chinglish Nigger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    intel wants to buy an xeon cpu for that AMD is open and does not lockdown the desktop cpus like that.

    I've met níggers who use English more skillfully than you do.

    1. Re:Chinglish Nigger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True dat.

    2. Re:Chinglish Nigger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mah nigga

  27. Mi forgets his primary use, Vlad Putin cock porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mi sucks Putin's cock with zeal in his bitch dreams. Hang this traitor.

  28. Re:Good by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    5 tabs now they're removing the RSS reader code.

  29. Yawn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My Precision T7500 already supports 192GB. Get back to me when you get a TB of RAM.

    1. Re: Yawn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amd threadrippers support a 2tb of ram. Step your game up and stop dealing with a child company like Intel.

    2. Re: Yawn by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      You're confused.
      A Precision T7500 is a computer.
      A Threadripper is just a CPU and doesn't have any memory slots. You need to find a motherboard with enough RAM slots to put 2TB in it. There are none available for a child company like AMD.

      You have been able to buy HP workstations with Xeon CPUs and 3TB of RAM for a year now. The RAM alone costs $220,000 though.

    3. Re: Yawn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at dual Epyc motherboards then, that is real hardware. Does at least 1TB, probably 2TB. Maybe it will double to 4TB since TFS is about doubling of memory density. As for AMD, can't really get older than the 1970s for a CPU company.

      It is possible that "Threadripper does 1TB" is a misquote. It's stupid. The site made a mistake, then a guy runs with it and posts on slashdot and then a cascade of people are posting nonsense. They probably fucked up : 1TB vs 1Tb, or confused with an Epyc, or plain wrong entry.

    4. Re: Yawn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I'm confused.

  30. Google Chrome bliss by CMBologna · · Score: 1

    I can finally run all the tabs I would ever want!

    1. Re:Google Chrome bliss by nojayuk · · Score: 1

      I can finally run all the tabs I would ever want!

      Firefox sez: "Hold my beer and watch this!"

  31. Re:Why? Not by kingbilly · · Score: 1

    In my experience most of our freelancers from India write less-optimized code than freelancers from the United States.

  32. Lack Of Imagination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude, not everyone is you, and not everything is about you. Just because you don't have a need, doesn't mean everyone else doesn't have a need either.

    Your lack of imagination says a lot about you. Maybe try to get out more.

  33. Trade-Off by ytene · · Score: 1

    It's worth bearing in mind that as you increase the amount of RAM, particularly in high performance systems like those with i9 processors, that the system has to reduce the memory access speeds accordingly.

    I know that this is something to do with the actual RAM timing profile, but I am not aware of the precise technical driver behind it.

    In other words, if you are adding RAM to gain maximum performance, then there is a sweet spot that you can actually go beyond - and to go beyond will have the effect of slowing your machine down. Note that this "maximum speed limit" is really only related to machines with memory running at absolute maximum performance, so it's possible that RAM clocked at "normal" speeds might not experience this limitation.

    1. Re:Trade-Off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a weird concept. With i9 processors, i7 and such we're talking consumer desktop systems. A conventional wisdom is that you lose a bit performance when populating all the slots (e.g. four slots taken on a dual channel system, or eight slots taken on a quad channel) but that's small or relates to a bit of overclocking performance. We can ignore it and maybe 4x4GB is slower than 2x16GB if this is what we're talking about. That old PC on dual channel ddr3 still will be better off with 12GB (2x4GB + 2X2GB) than with 8GB.

      If you want to extract maximum memory performance, then we'll talking overclocking, and on the Intels there's the lesser known "uncore" frequency you might want to mess with. With the new AMD the relevant bus frequency is derived from the memory speed, so everyone says, put 3200 RAM on your Ryzen (or 3000, 3600, etc.)

      On the really big memory system, we're talking Xeon W, Xeon, Epyc, then the memory DIMMs themselves deliberately introduce a latency (it's the small buffer chip), on top of that the official supported memory speed may get slower if you load it with tons of DIMMs (e.g. slightly older Intel chips that support 3 DIMM per channel at DDR4 1866).
      This is what I may relate to, but then we're not maxing out a gaming motherboard. We're plugging something like 192GB, 256GB, 384GB, half terabyte or more on a single CPU (multiplied by the number of CPU if more than one).

    2. Re:Trade-Off by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      It's worth bearing in mind that as you increase the amount of RAM, particularly in high performance systems like those with i9 processors, that the system has to reduce the memory access speeds accordingly.

      AIUI

      A processor has a limited number of memory channels. On Intel desktop chips (not sure about the AMD side) each channel can drive up to two modules with up to two "rank"s each. Each "rank" normally consists of 8 chips and the more ranks are present on a channel the higher the loading on the bus and the slower the timings needed to make the channel work reliably.

      Server chips often use "registered" memory which allows a larger number of ranks (both more modules and more ranks per module) but adds an extra clock cycle of delay to memory reads.

      So higher capacity chips like the ones Samsung are promising mean more memory at the same speed or the same amount of memory at a higher speed.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    3. Re:Trade-Off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, "keep it in mind", but that's a pretty esoteric consideration for most.

      In general RAM is used to reduce disk access. When used that way you win with more RAM 99.99999% of the time, regardless of how your RAM is clocked, or how many cache misses are triggered simply by the huge RAM store that cannot be cached in L1-L3.

      You'd also gain by having quad channel RAM versus dual or even single channel RAM. However much as I'd like to promote multi-channel RAM configurations, when you are cutting down on disk access times, you are cutting down on I/O wait states that could be millions of CPU clock cycles.

      What I'm saying is that it is hard not to win with a large RAM bank. The rest is fine-tuning with correspondingly smaller performance gains.

  34. Re:Why? Not by ad0le · · Score: 1

    That's been my experience as well. Our US based contractors write better code. It seems cheaper to hire the Indian guys, but it never is. You either have to pay them to go back an optimize or you get stiffed with no reciprocity.

    --
    My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch.
  35. Xeon by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    From this link:

    Max Mem: 1,536 GiB

    50% more memory bandwidth too, due to 6 channel instead of 4.
    They're not just for servers. HP sell them in workstations with up to 3TB of installed RAM for dual CPU models.

    1. Re:Xeon by pezezin · · Score: 1

      https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/a...

      Max Mem: 2 TiB

      And even more bandwith, due to 8 channels instead of 6.

    2. Re:Xeon by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      and still no motherboards with enough slots to test it.
      You'll just have to take AMD's word for it.
      You can however buy a Xeon machine with 3TB of RAM and a 2 CPUs

    3. Re:Xeon by pezezin · · Score: 1

      Just a quick Google search:

      https://www.supermicro.com/Apl...
      https://www.tyan.com/EN/campai...

      Several models mention being able to use 2 TB of RAM, with dual socket ones being able to reach 4 TB.

    4. Re:Xeon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only xeon servers I've worked with that have 3 TB of RAM are 4 way. And cost far more than any mortal would have in their pocket..

      Anyway, we're talking desktop processors here. Threadripper is a desktop processor - high end desktop but still desktop. Show me someone with a four socket desktop and I'll show you an idiot who doesn't understand the benefits of running a separate server and desktop.

  36. Without ECC, why bother? by SIGBUS · · Score: 1

    As long as Intel insists on not supporting ECC on desktop chips, they don't stand a chance of getting my business. Even with "only" 16 GB, I want ECC.

    --
    Oh, no! You have walked into the slavering fangs of a lurking grue!
    1. Re:Without ECC, why bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell yeah. Less quantity, more quality. Just like the bitches I bang.

    2. Re:Without ECC, why bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They in fact do, but they're playing stupid games
      ECC Memory : Yes
      https://ark.intel.com/products/129487/
      https://ark.intel.com/products/129951/
      https://ark.intel.com/products/126688/
      ECC Memory : No
      https://ark.intel.com/products/126687/

      Technically, we might say they expanded the support of ECC recently as it is supported on 4C/4T products : i3-8100 and i3-9100.
      But no matter which you use you need a motherboard with a goddamn "professional", "workstation" chipset. (and the ones I've looked are for pre-Coffee Lake CPU)

  37. Just (Insert Intel tax here) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to unlock it on your already capable mobo.

  38. We can already do that by hvidstue · · Score: 1

    Threadrippers support 128GB of ram already

  39. wait. we have more than 4 GB now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... Because of the 32 bit limitation in the days of old, I'm still amazed anything has more memory than 4GB. Then I remember that the 64 bit switch happened ages ago.

  40. Without ECC support... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're begging for silent data corruption by using dimms of that density.

  41. Re:wait. we have more than 4 GB now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is breaking the limit of 32bit + PAE.

    Had linux 32bit with 8GB for a little while and it worked (immediately, nothing to do or pay attention to)