5 ms·

You 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-Processo

by d4vlx 12y ago

You 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 ago
No 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 ago
The 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 ago
  many 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 ago
  If someone needs more than 64 gigabytes, buying a new processor should not be a huge deal.
- tacotime 12y ago
  Idk... I'm struggling to see why an average user in the overclocking/high-end pc market would run into the 64 gig limit assuming the high end market has a relatively short part lifetime. I mean if you're in it for the video editing then the sky is the limit but for an average user? A user could ram-cache 4 hard drives with a 4gb buffer each, power up the entire adobe suite including Illustrator, Photoshop, start a browser session with 100 tabs and 10 video streams, torrent client, email client, backup client, vpn, a couple modest ftp and web servers, a transcoding media streaming server AND crysis 3 and still likely have 10-20 gigs to play with. I think if you need much more than that running concurrently you probably should be starting to think about server hardware. If you think 64gb will be an easy limit for an average user to hit in the near future I would love to hear your envisioned use case.
  - reitzensteinm 12y ago
    Your use case would not use more than 64gb of memory, no; but it would also run on the CPU side just fine with a $339 4c/8t 4770k. A user with that workload wouldn't need 128gb, but they'd also not need an 8 core CPU. Put it this way: a $120, dual core Core i3-2100 released in 2011 has support for 32gb of ram. But a $1000 eight core processor, released more than three years later, for nearly ten times the price, supports just twice as much memory. I believe this is imbalanced. And expecting to be able to upgrade a workstation tomorrow, when purchased today for likely well over $2000, is not unreasonable.
    - jiggy2011 12y ago
      I doubt many people pair an i3 with 32gb RAM.
  - bane 12y ago
    I think it's going to start becoming reasonable to package up applications in VMs and distributing the VMs "appliances" to run instead of installing software directly in the OS. I think this is going to start happening regularly in the consumer space sooner rather than later (and already has in some cases like with XP Mode). This is pretty much modus operandi in the service space today. There's lots of really good reasons to do this (sandboxing, ease of installation, compatibility, snapshots/state saving, etc.) and VM tech at the consumer level is good enough for most applications. Doing so also enables you to distribute the same application for different host architectures relatively easily (swap out the virtualization core with an emulation core). VM technology basically will allow consumer software vendors to start treating your computer like a set-spec videogame console instead of worrying about millions or billions of possible complications from how your computer is set up. Once VMs in the consumer space get good enough to really run high-end games, imagine everybody just writes to some Valve defined Linux spec that just happens to match some Steam Box, but you can install the VM for that game on your Mac or Windows or whatever and get to gaming. If this happens, VMs will chew through RAM faster than just about anything out there. So instead of installing and running Adobe Suite, you start up the Adobe Suite VM and boom, 8GB of your RAM vaporizes. Fire up your web browser VM and boom, there goes another 4GB. Your e-mail client annihilates 4GB more and now we've eaten up 16GB of RAM to run a handful of applications. Open up an MS-Office component and there goes another 8-16GB. Run a non-virtualized legacy app? Why those all just get sandboxed into an automatic "old shit" VM so the virii keep out. This isn't inconceivable and I wouldn't be at all surprised if this wasn't already on the drawing boards somewhere.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

by d4vlx 12y ago

Omniusaspirer 12y ago

No 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 ago

The 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 ago
many 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 ago
If someone needs more than 64 gigabytes, buying a new processor should not be a huge deal.
tacotime 12y ago
Idk... I'm struggling to see why an average user in the overclocking/high-end pc market would run into the 64 gig limit assuming the high end market has a relatively short part lifetime. I mean if you're in it for the video editing then the sky is the limit but for an average user? A user could ram-cache 4 hard drives with a 4gb buffer each, power up the entire adobe suite including Illustrator, Photoshop, start a browser session with 100 tabs and 10 video streams, torrent client, email client, backup client, vpn, a couple modest ftp and web servers, a transcoding media streaming server AND crysis 3 and still likely have 10-20 gigs to play with. I think if you need much more than that running concurrently you probably should be starting to think about server hardware. If you think 64gb will be an easy limit for an average user to hit in the near future I would love to hear your envisioned use case.
- reitzensteinm 12y ago
  Your use case would not use more than 64gb of memory, no; but it would also run on the CPU side just fine with a $339 4c/8t 4770k. A user with that workload wouldn't need 128gb, but they'd also not need an 8 core CPU. Put it this way: a $120, dual core Core i3-2100 released in 2011 has support for 32gb of ram. But a $1000 eight core processor, released more than three years later, for nearly ten times the price, supports just twice as much memory. I believe this is imbalanced. And expecting to be able to upgrade a workstation tomorrow, when purchased today for likely well over $2000, is not unreasonable.
  - jiggy2011 12y ago
    I doubt many people pair an i3 with 32gb RAM.
- bane 12y ago
  I think it's going to start becoming reasonable to package up applications in VMs and distributing the VMs "appliances" to run instead of installing software directly in the OS. I think this is going to start happening regularly in the consumer space sooner rather than later (and already has in some cases like with XP Mode). This is pretty much modus operandi in the service space today. There's lots of really good reasons to do this (sandboxing, ease of installation, compatibility, snapshots/state saving, etc.) and VM tech at the consumer level is good enough for most applications. Doing so also enables you to distribute the same application for different host architectures relatively easily (swap out the virtualization core with an emulation core). VM technology basically will allow consumer software vendors to start treating your computer like a set-spec videogame console instead of worrying about millions or billions of possible complications from how your computer is set up. Once VMs in the consumer space get good enough to really run high-end games, imagine everybody just writes to some Valve defined Linux spec that just happens to match some Steam Box, but you can install the VM for that game on your Mac or Windows or whatever and get to gaming. If this happens, VMs will chew through RAM faster than just about anything out there. So instead of installing and running Adobe Suite, you start up the Adobe Suite VM and boom, 8GB of your RAM vaporizes. Fire up your web browser VM and boom, there goes another 4GB. Your e-mail client annihilates 4GB more and now we've eaten up 16GB of RAM to run a handful of applications. Open up an MS-Office component and there goes another 8-16GB. Run a non-virtualized legacy app? Why those all just get sandboxed into an automatic "old shit" VM so the virii keep out. This isn't inconceivable and I wouldn't be at all surprised if this wasn't already on the drawing boards somewhere.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]