2 ms·
This seems like a marketing spin when they failed to make 32 Gigabit modules viable. It's the same thing as when AMD couldn't make 4 core CPUs reliably and sold
by teaearlgraycold 4y ago
This seems like a marketing spin when they failed to make 32 Gigabit modules viable. It's the same thing as when AMD couldn't make 4 core CPUs reliably and sold a bunch as 3 core CPUs. "50% more cores!" "Sometimes you can unlock the 4th core!". Not that people who get a good deal and upgrade their system with these half-steps should be unhappy.
Does anyone with more knowledge of DDR5 memory know if 32 Gb modules are in use and if they are reliable and only double the cost of 16 Gb modules?
- ksec 4y ago>This seems like a marketing spin when they failed to make 32 Gigabit modules viable. No. It is exactly as the article have stated, Instead of of offering Servers with 128GB of Memory, they now have the option to offer 96GB. This also give Cloud providers ( Or simple VPS providers ) to mix and match their offering with CPU to RAM ratio inside a single unit. Or imagine, of you need more than 2TB of Memory, instead of jumping straight to 4TB, you now have the option of 3TB of Memory. For hyperscalers like Amazon, this extra options could easily save them hundreds of millions if not billions.
- hamandcheese 4y agoHow does this save Amazon money? Wouldn’t they always pick the optimal GB/$ DIMM? Do we expect half-increments to be a better value per GB? I would expect this to only make a difference for dedicated server offerings, and I imagine amazons margins will still be the same on a per-GB basis.
- wmf 4y agoAFAIK 32 Gb dies would be too large to fit in the standard DDR5 package and thus they aren't made. Also presumably yield of 32 Gb dies would be lower than 24 Gb, although maybe not much due to sparing.