4 ms·

So I have to say, ECC memory is definitely something we should not have gotten away from for consumer hardware. My current PC, which is rocking a Core i9 14900k

So I have to say, ECC memory is definitely something we should not have gotten away from for consumer hardware. My current PC, which is rocking a Core i9 14900k (pray for me) and an ASUS W680M ACE SE motherboard, allowed me to install some 5600MHz speed DDR5 ECC memory, and it works flawlessly. The only downside in my view is the cost. Unbuffered ECC and the cost of using a workstation class chipset really pushes this into luxury territory. Plus, I'm never too sure what Intel's future plans are for successor processors and chipsets, which is why I settled on W680. I don't really want to go full blown Xeon.

pixelpoet 2y ago
14900k might be one of the least reliable CPUs in recent times, pairing it with ECC seems almost ironic!
- vardump 2y ago
  The recent trend with Intel CPU (at least 13900K and 14900K) reliability is indeed rather worrisome.
  - walteweiss 2y ago
    Do you mind sharing more details for those who weren’t paying attention? I’m still on 10 years old generations with my home PCs and my laptop. And don’t feel the urge to upgrade anything yet. Hence, I’m not following the trends. The only thing I’m considering is the upgrade of my iPad Pro and probably MacBook at some point (not sure if I need it at all). My home computer is doing just fine with 4th generation Intel CPU and I don’t see any need for upgrade in upcoming years, if not a decade.
    - vardump 2y ago
      There are significantly more errors occurring on those CPUs. I don't have much time now, but you can check details: https://www.google.com/search?q=14900K+failures https://www.google.com/search?q=14900K+failures
    - zrm 2y ago
      Intel stagnated for several years, allowing AMD and Apple (both using TSMC) to produce CPUs that are simultaneously faster and more power efficient than Intel's. There wasn't really anything Intel could do about the power efficiency in the short run so they went all in on performance and started selling desktop CPUs with a 6 GHz turbo that draw >250 watts. Apparently this is not great for reliability.
- TheAmazingRace 2y ago
  Perhaps… but maybe I see the ECC as an insurance policy on top of a dodgy CPU. Frankly, I set my CPU to Intel Baseline and then ran Cinebench for over an hour on the multi-core test with zero ill effects. Hopefully I’m lucky in the end.
Sweepi 2y ago
the more significant downside than cost is speed, with your DDR5-5600 ECC having most likely a latency of 16ns, while DDR5-7000 non-ECC 12ns (10ns if you are only interested in Column Strobe) is available for your platform, which has 25% more Bandwidth while also featuring a 25% - 40% lower latency. Dont be fooled (like me) by the DDR5-6000/6400/6800 ECC registered Modules, all Desktop Motherboards only support unbuffered Modules, and most dont even support DDR5-5600 ECC, only DDR5-4800/5200 ECC.
- TheAmazingRace 2y ago
  Yeah I realize I have pretty sloppy timings, courtesy of JEDEC. But despite this, I feel like my new ECC memory runs rings around the old overclocked DDR3 kit I ran in my previous Z97 build. It's all relative.
pseudalopex 2y ago
> Unbuffered ECC and the cost of using a workstation class chipset really pushes this into luxury territory. Plus, I'm never too sure what Intel's future plans are for successor processors and chipsets, which is why I settled on W680. Some cheap AMD motherboards support ECC. But the future is unknown. Ryzen 8000 CPUs don't.
- TheAmazingRace 2y ago
  AMD has a sort of unofficial stance on ECC. The support isn't explicitly stated for desktop parts, although unofficially it typically works. I like having 100% assurances and guarantees that it will work, making the W680 based platform I'm on a no-brainer for this application.
  - pseudalopex 2y ago
    AMD's product pages say yes with motherboard support or no.[1] [1] https://www.amd.com/en/product/12741 https://www.amd.com/en/product/12741
    - TheAmazingRace 2y ago
      Hmm I actually didn't see this before. I stand corrected.

pixelpoet 2y ago

14900k might be one of the least reliable CPUs in recent times, pairing it with ECC seems almost ironic!

vardump 2y ago
The recent trend with Intel CPU (at least 13900K and 14900K) reliability is indeed rather worrisome.
- walteweiss 2y ago
  Do you mind sharing more details for those who weren’t paying attention? I’m still on 10 years old generations with my home PCs and my laptop. And don’t feel the urge to upgrade anything yet. Hence, I’m not following the trends. The only thing I’m considering is the upgrade of my iPad Pro and probably MacBook at some point (not sure if I need it at all). My home computer is doing just fine with 4th generation Intel CPU and I don’t see any need for upgrade in upcoming years, if not a decade.
  - vardump 2y ago
    There are significantly more errors occurring on those CPUs. I don't have much time now, but you can check details: https://www.google.com/search?q=14900K+failures https://www.google.com/search?q=14900K+failures
  - zrm 2y ago
    Intel stagnated for several years, allowing AMD and Apple (both using TSMC) to produce CPUs that are simultaneously faster and more power efficient than Intel's. There wasn't really anything Intel could do about the power efficiency in the short run so they went all in on performance and started selling desktop CPUs with a 6 GHz turbo that draw >250 watts. Apparently this is not great for reliability.
TheAmazingRace 2y ago
Perhaps… but maybe I see the ECC as an insurance policy on top of a dodgy CPU. Frankly, I set my CPU to Intel Baseline and then ran Cinebench for over an hour on the multi-core test with zero ill effects. Hopefully I’m lucky in the end.

Sweepi 2y ago

the more significant downside than cost is speed, with your DDR5-5600 ECC having most likely a latency of 16ns, while DDR5-7000 non-ECC 12ns (10ns if you are only interested in Column Strobe) is available for your platform, which has 25% more Bandwidth while also featuring a 25% - 40% lower latency. Dont be fooled (like me) by the DDR5-6000/6400/6800 ECC registered Modules, all Desktop Motherboards only support unbuffered Modules, and most dont even support DDR5-5600 ECC, only DDR5-4800/5200 ECC.

TheAmazingRace 2y ago
Yeah I realize I have pretty sloppy timings, courtesy of JEDEC. But despite this, I feel like my new ECC memory runs rings around the old overclocked DDR3 kit I ran in my previous Z97 build. It's all relative.

pseudalopex 2y ago

> Unbuffered ECC and the cost of using a workstation class chipset really pushes this into luxury territory. Plus, I'm never too sure what Intel's future plans are for successor processors and chipsets, which is why I settled on W680. Some cheap AMD motherboards support ECC. But the future is unknown. Ryzen 8000 CPUs don't.

TheAmazingRace 2y ago
AMD has a sort of unofficial stance on ECC. The support isn't explicitly stated for desktop parts, although unofficially it typically works. I like having 100% assurances and guarantees that it will work, making the W680 based platform I'm on a no-brainer for this application.
- pseudalopex 2y ago
  AMD's product pages say yes with motherboard support or no.[1] [1] https://www.amd.com/en/product/12741 https://www.amd.com/en/product/12741
  - TheAmazingRace 2y ago
    Hmm I actually didn't see this before. I stand corrected.