> DDR5 is about 2.5x the speed of DDR4: https://www.anandtech.com/show/15699/sk-hynix-ddr5-8400 https://www.anandtech.com/show/15699/sk-hynix-ddr5-8400 2) No i

> DDR5 is about 2.5x the speed of DDR4: https://www.anandtech.com/show/15699/sk-hynix-ddr5-8400 https://www.anandtech.com/show/15699/sk-hynix-ddr5-8400 2) No it isn't, it's ~1.5x the speed of DDR4: 4800 vs. 3200. The 8400 is a hypothetical module that they _plan_ to make not that they've actually managed to make. And the first generation of CPUs with DDR5 support are unlikely to immediately support the maximum DDR5's spec plans to achieve. Just like CPUs only very recently officially supported DDR4-3200, despite that being on the market for years and years (the 9900K only officially supports up to DDR4-2666 even). > AMD could add extra memory channels, a 50% increase is reasonable. Say what now? A 50% increase is reasonable? You're expecting 12-channel memory? The 8-channels in Epyc Rome is already the most of any CPU on the market. I don't see any chance at all that this jumps to 12 in a single generation? 12 channel starts to become a physical packaging problem. dual-socket with 8-channels already is basically the maximum width of a board: https://www.supermicro.com/a_images/products/Aplus/MB/H12DSU-iN_spec.jpg https://www.supermicro.com/a_images/products/Aplus/MB/H12DSU... So you'd have to do a max of 12 dimms per CPU instead of the current 16 dimms, which cuts your max realistic capacity down by a lot.