4 ms·
Even the 5960X, the $999 8 core part, has a maximum memory size of 64gb, unchanged since Sandy Bridge E. That's disappointing, because while the CPU will likel
by reitzensteinm 12y ago
Even the 5960X, the $999 8 core part, has a maximum memory size of 64gb, unchanged since Sandy Bridge E.
That's disappointing, because while the CPU will likely remain close to state of the art for quite some time to come, you'll most likely max out the memory on day one and be stung by an inability to upgrade.
Of course, this was probably by design, so that they can sell you another, virtually identical 8 core processor in two more years for another $999.
http://ark.intel.com/products/82930 http://ark.intel.com/products/82930
- bryanlarsen 12y agoAccording to the AnandTech article, they expect 16GB DIMM's to be certified soon, which would allow 128GB.
- nullc 12y agoConsidering the haswell parts don't support ECC, how many random bitflips per hour are your 128GB of DDR ram going to be taking and how many instances of unrecoverable data loss per year does that translate into on average?
- Joyfield 12y ago5
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- tacotime 12y agoummmmmm, twice the number I get from my current 64GB non-ecc system?
- sp332 12y agoThat's it, I'm running my RAM in a ZFS pool from now on! Now I just need 128GB of RAM to run ZFS... /s
- drewg123 12y agoYou joke, but running ZFS on disk w/o ECC RAM is not a good idea. See https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/zfs-macos/qguq6LCf1QQ https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/zfs-macos/qguq6LCf1Q...
- sp332 12y agoI've heard this from several sources, but is it worse than any other FS? I mean it seems obvious that data corrupted in RAM will be corrupted when you write it to disk. I think people are worried about software RAID vs hardware RAID, since all hardware RAID platforms have ECC cache and software RAID should too.
- j00lz 12y agoIt is worse as ram corruption can cause a loss of the entire zfs pool. there are no zfs recovery tools available, so data recovery can be next to impossible or very expensive.
- d4vlx 12y agoYou could buy a slower Xeon for around the same price if you really needed more than 64 gigs of memory. http://ark.intel.com/products/75269/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-2650-v2-20M-Cache-2_60-GHz http://ark.intel.com/products/75269/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-... And it supports ECC.
- Omniusaspirer 12y agoNo overclocking support though which is a huge deal if you're interested in top end performance right now for cheap. If it's anything like the 6 cores from the previous generation it can go up to 4.5 ghz reliably and possibly higher. Having only 3.4ghz turbo also leaves you with pretty poor single threaded performance in general.
- reitzensteinm 12y agoThe Xeon isn't overclockable, which is a big part of the niche this processor sits in. If you read my post again, I'm not saying that 64gb is too little right now. It's probably the right match for the processor for most workloads, today. 32gb would seem weak with 8c/16t (I have that much in my 4770 system), and 128gb could be excessive. But in two years, swapping in 128gb would be the no-brainer upgrade to this thing. That this is being ruled out ahead of time is not a good thing. (Barring an Intel microcode revision, as is being speculated by the sibling commenters. But I'm not holding my breath, as Intel Ark is pretty definitive.)
- kayoone 12y agomany people today still use 8GBs, pro users might use up to 32GBs but its not that RAM usage has been rising rapidly in the last 4-5 years. In 2009 8GB was pretty standard for high end desktops like 16GB is today. This is a desktop cpu mind you, workstation and server cpus obviously support much more ram.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- rbanffy 12y agoIf someone needs more than 64 gigabytes, buying a new processor should not be a huge deal.
- dbcooper 12y agoSamsung's stacked die modules enable 64GB per channel. i.e. 256GB per processor. http://techreport.com/news/26985/samsung-ddr4-modules-for-servers-have-quadruple-stacked-memory-dies http://techreport.com/news/26985/samsung-ddr4-modules-for-se... I'm not sure why you wouldn't get a Xeon version if you wanted to work with so much RAM?
- pantalaimon 12y agoHynix already showed 128GB modules http://www.kitguru.net/components/memory/anton-shilov/sk-hynix-reveals-128gb-ddr4-memory-module/ http://www.kitguru.net/components/memory/anton-shilov/sk-hyn...
- pwarner 12y agoI would love to see more than 32 GB RAM in regular desktops and 16 GB in laptops while we are at it too!
- aortega 12y agoLenovo supports 32 GB of RAM in Laptops since the W510, that model was out like 5 years ago.
- Andys 12y agoThe Workstation Xeon parts are almost identical, and allow much more ram, and don't cost a whole more.
- nkurz 12y agoI agree that buying Xeon over i7 is often a good choice, but despite the similar names, the available workstation chips are not directly comparable to the newer chips. Intel's naming scheme intentionally makes it hard to decipher, but all the available Intel processors that allow more than 64GB of RAM are from a previous (Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge) generation rather than the current (Haswell) generation. The clock speeds are similar, but there are lots of differences under the hood. Whether these matter depends on your use case, but in many situations with integer compression algorithms, I'm finding that I can get 50%-150% better performance per core with Haswell. Partially this is due to the AVX2 instruction set (which adds integer operations for 32B vectors), but more than I'd expected this is due to the BMI/BMI2 instructions and improved memory throughput.
- Andys 12y agoWOW. That is a huge improvement. Most uses will never see any more than 5-15% more for Haswell.
- nkurz 12y agoI agree, it's certainly higher than it would be in most cases. I have the luxury of being able to design the algorithms to match the strengths of the processor. You rarely see this much improvement unless you are optimizing specifically for Haswell with intrinsics or assembly, although occasionally Intel's compiler manages some magic vectorization I never would have anticipated. And you almost certainly won't see this amount of gain if you are running an older precompiled binary.
- yuhong 12y agoYes, but that kind of thing always happens with new gens and won't last long.
- riffraff 12y agopeople use desktops with 64GB of ram this days? I haven't owned a desktop PC in a decade but I seem to recall by brother still got by with 8 GB.