Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Want a PC With 192 GB of RAM?

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the yes-please dept.

Intel 353

ericatcw writes "Do you love the smooth, silky performance of a multi-core PC loaded to the gills with the fastest RAM? Take a look at Dell's new Precision T7500 desktop. According to Computerworld, the T7500 will come with 12 memory slots that can accommodate 16 GB of PC-106000 (1333 MHz) DDR3 RAM for a total of 192 GB. Dell's not the only one — Lenovo, Cisco (with blade servers reportedly up to 384 GB in memory) and Apple are all bringing out computers that leverage Intel's new Nehalem architecture to enable unprecedented amounts of RAM. But beware! Despite the depressed DRAM market, loading up on memory could see the cost of RAM eclipse the cost of the rest of your PC by 20-fold or more."

cancel ×

353 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Got that? (2, Insightful)

qoncept (599709) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345065)

loading up on memory could see the cost of RAM eclipse the cost of the rest of your PC by 20-fold or more

Uhh, yeah. Try 1000-fold! You know, since we're just making things up.

While we're at it.. I love when people say "Up to 10x OR MORE!" Like, anywhere from 0 to infinity. Nice.

Re:Got that? (2, Funny)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345101)

Uhh, yeah. Try 1000-fold! You know, since we're just making things up.

That's not true. 95% of all quoted statistics are accurate ;)

Re:Got that? (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345135)

But fully half of them are quoted by people whose intelligence is below median.

Re:Got that? (2, Funny)

just_another_sean (919159) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345243)

Well sure, 75% of those surveyed knew that!

Re:Got that? (5, Informative)

dave420 (699308) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345157)

Or you could read the article and see that if you buy said Dell at $1,800, and fill it up with RAM from Dell, you end up paying $50,760, which is over 20-fold. But please don't let the article get in the way of you bitching about the article. Where's the fun in that?

Re:Got that? (4, Funny)

Achromatic1978 (916097) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345281)

So by that metric, Apple will probably want in the order of $100,000 for their offering, given their attitudes towards RAM pricing. Of course, the Apple faithful will still defend it as being "higher quality", "but it's fully buffered and ECC", but yet recommending despite these details, "that no-one who knows /anything/ buys their RAM from Apple".

Re:Got that? (1)

Anachragnome (1008495) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345437)

But, will they sell me an application that can use that much RAM? I'm fresh out.

No point having that much gas if I've no car to put it in...

Re:Got that? (4, Funny)

gtall (79522) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345555)

Windows 8

Re:Got that? (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345915)

Duke Nukem Forever.

Re:Got that? (-1, Troll)

Smidge207 (1278042) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345443)

Or you could read the article and see that if you buy said Dell at $1,800, and fill it up with RAM from Dell, you end up paying $50,760, which is over 20-fold.

You didn't hesitate to throw your ignorant opinion in when the assholes where conspiring to triage maliciously, now you want to cry and act like a retard when called on your ignorance? How about you keep your mouth shut when someone who knows a whole lot better than you what is and isn't considered malpractice calls the dicks out that are conspiring to commit it and you can avoid the little butthurt, profanity-laced temper-tantrums?

Let's review, shall we? You ran your mouth, acting like you did. I correct you and you got butthurt and responded like a pissed off 3 year old. Did I miss anything, dave420?

=Smidge=

Re:Got that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27345609)

0/10, didn't even make sense.

Re:Got that? (1)

dave420 (699308) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345859)

I'm glad I'm not the only one confused by the lack of sense there.

Re:Got that? (1)

dave420 (699308) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345777)

Try reading my post again. You seem to be awfully confused about something.

Re:Got that? (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345785)

>>>fill it up with RAM from Dell, you end up paying $50,760

Well if you're willing to go with slower DDR2 16 GB sticks, that would only be ~$1600 * 16 == about $25,000.
Or if you're willing to settle for "only" 96 GB total memory, the DDR2 8 GB sticks would cost around $4000.

Man. I can't imagine having all that RAM. My Commodore Amiga only has 0.001 gig! My current XP-PC is only 1/2 gig. I have no idea what I'd do with almost 100 gig of RAM, except maybe turn-off the hard drive caching to speed things up.

Re:Got that? (1)

Aardpig (622459) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345895)

Load the whole OS into ramdisk at bootup. Then have fun.

Re:Got that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27345219)

You mean, anywhere from -infinity to +infinity. -40 is less than 10, after all,

Re:Got that? (2, Funny)

The Grim Reefer2 (1195989) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345369)

-40 is less than 10, after all,

Yes, but at least it's the same in Celsius and Fahrenheit.

Re:Got that? (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345427)

1000-fold? We've told you a million times, don't exaggerate!

Re:Got that? (1)

garaged (579941) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345873)

at least you are not bart simpson

Re:Got that? (1)

zigurat667 (1380959) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345549)

Samsung won't say how much it plans to charge, but Smart is charging PC makers $3,400 today for 16GB 1333-MHz RAM modules, a Smart spokeswoman said.

why bother and RTFA....

This shall do (3, Funny)

TheCybernator (996224) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345075)

to run Vista. Finally h/w is catching up!!

Re:This shall do (2, Funny)

dtml-try MyNick (453562) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345215)

Still......could it run Crysis on Vista?

Re:This shall do (2, Funny)

ausekilis (1513635) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345323)

RAM on main board != RAM on video card. Maybe once my GeForce/Radeon card has 16 bays for PC10600 I can run Crysis...

Re:This shall do (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27345379)

Joke in post != Joke you got

Re:This shall do (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27345813)

even 1 bay will help

GPU extra ram (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27345949)

"Maybe once my GeForce/Radeon card has 16 bays"

That's actually a very good idea. If they did make graphics cards where we can put a lot of DDR3 on them, then it would greatly help work in GPGPU/OpenCL/CUDA etc.. which is exactly what people like NVidia want to happen.

Re:This shall do (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27345491)

to run Vista.

Don't be ridiculous. This is more than 6 orders of magnitude more RAM than anyone could possibly use.

Re:This shall do (3, Insightful)

eebra82 (907996) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345595)

Why are people still modding these comments as funny? Granted, Vista required quite a bit of power on the day of its release, but performance has since then improved and new hardware is more than capable of handling Vista.

I bought a medium range computer a year and a half ago and it runs Vista as fast as XP.

Re:This shall do (5, Funny)

Jamie's Nightmare (1410247) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345715)

Why are people still modding these comments as funny?

Linux Zealots are the ones doing the modding. To them, comments like these are not only funny, but provide a kind of sexual release somewhat similar to viewing a nude photo of Deanna Troi.

Re:This shall do (0, Troll)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345843)

that's ridiculous.

we only get a third of that kind of release watching ms. sirtis. http://www.celebritymoviearchive.com/tour/movie.php/2303 [celebritym...rchive.com]

also, I find a Windows desktop requires about twice the ram as a Linux box, those jokes about Windows being a bloated pig have a basis.

Re:This shall do (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27345753)

Humour through exaggeration [public-speaking.org]

Vista, schmista...! (4, Funny)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345685)

Just think of how many Xterms you can open on that machine!

Re:This shall do (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27345807)

Might also speed up KDE 4?

finallly! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27345077)

at last, with 192GB ram, I can finally use Firefox.

Re:finallly! (1)

detox.method() (1413497) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345391)

Stop visiting so many porn sites. That's probably what's crowding your memory.

Re:finallly! (4, Funny)

gnick (1211984) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345513)

My memory is largely filled with things I saw on porn sites. I like it that way.

Oh, wait. Did you mean RAM? Never mind.

Re:finallly! (1)

Talderas (1212466) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345827)

Filled with the large things you saw on porn sites?

I hope they mean PC-10600 (3, Informative)

Xocet_00 (635069) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345087)

Actually, I don't. I'd love some PC-106000 RAM.

sigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27345093)

Insert overused can finally run vista comment.

Re:sigh (-1, Redundant)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345197)

Insert overused can finally run vista comment.

Ooooh! And Time Crysis!

And imagine a beow... oh fuck it.

/ties noose. inserts neck. kicks stool.
//Forgot to tie rope to rafter. Can't do ANYTHING right today.

Re:sigh (1)

ausekilis (1513635) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345819)

my PS1 could run Time Crisis... Unfortunately it kicked the bucket before Vista came out.

Finally! (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345105)

I can run Octave for more than a few hours without swapping!

Awesome (0, Redundant)

MarkGriz (520778) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345115)

Just in time for Windows 7

Re:Awesome (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345325)

Unless Windows 7 is doing a lot better than Vista or XP, a lot of devices won't come with 64-bit drivers. If you have one of these devices, running the 64-bit version of Windows isn't an option. And if you run the 32-bit version, you're can't address more than 3.5 GB.

Even if you have the 64-bit Windows, most of the apps you're running won't have 64-bit versions. So no single app can use all that extra RAM. If you have a lot of big apps running at once (say, 8 GB total) you'll see a lot less VM thrashing. But that's the only benefit you'll see.

In other words, even though Windows is famous for being bloatware, you can't really utilize all the RAM the newer chips support.

What's that sound I hear? Sort of sounds like a million Linux fanboys going "LOL!"

Re:Awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27345373)

A purpose built desktop with 192GB of ram that doesn't have drivers for a 64bit OS... Something tells me they've got their act together on this one.

Re:Awesome (0, Troll)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345457)

If windows can use it, then the aps being able to address the memory is pointless since windows can allocate 3.5 gigs to one app and 3.5 gigs to another app.

Re:Awesome (1)

agallagh42 (301559) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345783)

2007 called. They want their argument back.

Seriously, I've been running Vista x64 for over a year, and Win7 x64 for a few months, with not a single driver issue. I have 4GB in my desktop, and it's nice to be able to use it all. Even for those with less than 4GB physical RAM, or with all 32 bit apps, there are still some huge advantages to x64 in terms of memory management.

I'm also running "Hyper-V Server" on a homebuilt box with 6GB RAM, and it handles 8-10 VMs without breaking a sweat.

Dell and Sony (1)

menexis (1516425) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345165)

I believe dell has this to compete with the Sony which is a great sell on their website

Wow! (4, Funny)

GeorgeMonroy (784609) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345191)

I can finally run like thousands of useless linux instances. =P

Re:Wow! (3, Insightful)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345279)

Why is there not a "+1 Oh, Snap!" mod?

24GB is not 192GB (3, Insightful)

wjh31 (1372867) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345205)

having just checked, DDR3 PC10600 only comes in 2GB at th moment, and even server sticks dont easily come in 16GB modules

I dont see 8x capacity reaching consummers anytime soon anyway. This sorta thing is just silly, if you have enough money this has been available for ages, for the consumer this is still a long way off

Re:24GB is not 192GB (1)

Achromatic1978 (916097) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345347)

Dell has sold memory risers for a long time now for their PowerEdge servers, which have, funnily enough, 8 slots on each riser.

yea, slashdot I know- RTFA (5, Informative)

way2trivial (601132) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345551)

and see page 2 of it.

"An 8GB DDR3 memory module of the same speed costs between about $250 and $300 today.

The price of 16GB DDR3 modules remains far loftier, however. They were first announced this month by vendors such as Samsung Electronics and Smart Modular Technologies.

Samsung won't say how much it plans to charge, but Smart is charging PC makers $3,400 today for 16GB 1333-MHz RAM modules, a Smart spokeswoman said."

Re:24GB is not 192GB (1)

alen (225700) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345703)

When HP first started selling the Proliant DL380 G5 it supported 32GB RAM. With 8GB chips it can now support 64GB.

same here, the memory slots are forward compatible so you can scale up to ridiculous specs and virtualize everything

Not enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27345221)

Still not enough RAM to run Vista

Any Improvement is Better Than None (1)

Plekto (1018050) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345225)

I'd be happy with even 6 or 8 slots. It's been largely worthless to try to run large amounts of ram on most OSs lately because with 2 or 4 slots at most on most motherboards, you're limited to 8 or 16GB. At least cheaply, since nobody can afford 8 or 16GB modules.

Re:Any Improvement is Better Than None (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27345519)

IMO the threshold where ram stops really coming into play for the average user is 2GB for XP, and 4GB for vista. So I think it breaks down like this:

4 slots * 1GB = Reasonable amount of ram for dirt cheep.
4 slots * 2GB = Still cheep and plenty for 99% of people out there.
4 slots * 4GB = 16GB of ram for ~1600$. IMO, That's not really all that insane for that much ram as few people are going to notice going over 8GB.

If you don't really believe me drop your system down to 4GB and see how much you really notice.

Re:Any Improvement is Better Than None (1)

greed (112493) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345935)

Depends what you're doing.

Where I work, it's fairly easy to get working sets that can use 60 or 80 GB up nicely.

It's also fairly easy to get working sets that are a measly 512 MB per core, which means 4 GB on our 8 core Lenovo D10 is usually plenty. (But we've got 32 GB in it because of an experiment which someone else paid for. Yum!)

For a development shop, my current recommendation is 1 GB per physical core. And if you like those Sun "64 virtual cores with 1 physical" chips, I can't help you.

If you really want to know if you've got enough RAM, turn off swap. At least on AIX and Linux, which are the only systems I've had enough access to try this on. You still get dynamic loading and demand paging, but dirty pages have to remain in-core. If you start getting out of memory errors, or performance goes through the floor (as unmodified but in use pages get replaced) you could use more RAM.

For fun, I ran a -j 32 make on the above-mentioned D10 after telling the kernel it had only 2 GB of RAM. Instead of 50 minutes (for -j 1) or 20 minutes (for -j 4), it took over 8 hours. That's the power of swap!

I still configure a bunch of swap on large RAM machines, 'cause then I don't feel bad putting /tmp on it.

(...must...get...budget...for...D20...)

Hmmm, who needs a hard drive. (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345239)

With 384GB RAM, get a good UPS and generator and run your entire system in RAM. Use a hard drive in case the power goes out (dump to hard drive). Seems like this would be a rather fast system. Forget about "no swapping," just don't use any disk at all... hehe.

Re:Hmmm, who needs a hard drive. (1)

HTMLSpinnr (531389) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345317)

It's going to take a substantial UPS to support that much power hungry RAM. Anyone else going to see their lights dim when they fire this system up?

Blinkenlights (1)

troll8901 (1397145) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345453)

You can tell your neighbours that your entire house is one huge Blinkenlights project. Double the geek points if you live in Silicon Valley.

Re:Hmmm, who needs a hard drive. (4, Informative)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345517)

Hmm, I don't know. Not according to here... [rampedia.com] And according to an AMD page, "Energy-efficient DDR2 memory uses up to 30% less power than DDR1 and up to 58% less power than FBDIMM."

According to here [interfacebus.com] a DDR2 DIMM needs 4.4 watts. Let's round up to 10 watts and say each DIMM is, oh, 4gb (pretty low, I'd say). That's 48 DIMMs to get up to 192, 96 to get up to 384. At a whopping 10 watts (pretty high) that's still ~ 500W for 192gb and ~1000W for 384gb. Cut the wattage down to 5W per DIMM and you get half (250W, 500W). >1000W "home user" power supplies aren't too uncommon these days [tigerdirect.com] (1600W on tigerdirect.com...)

Re:Hmmm, who needs a hard drive. (1)

jank1887 (815982) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345929)

I thought in general PC makers capped total power draw at about 1kW for home PC's since that's about all you want to rely on being able to draw continuously from a standard outlet.

Re:Hmmm, who needs a hard drive. (1)

egcagrac0 (1410377) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345421)

You cannot run without swap, but you can spare some space for a RAMdisk. Swap to RAMdisk!

Re:Hmmm, who needs a hard drive. (0)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345559)

Slightly confused... you can disable swap... and if you have enough RAM, I would imagine you can not swap at all, just load everything in RAM. I've never run a system that used 192GB ram+swap, so 192gb ram would be more than enough ;)

Re:Hmmm, who needs a hard drive. (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345659)

How is swapping to a RAMdisk any different than running without swap? The whole point of swapping is to exceed your ram capacity by storing pages on the hard drive. So how is 4G RAM + a 4G RAMdisk swap any better than 8G of RAM? It's still 8G.

Re:Hmmm, who needs a hard drive. (2, Interesting)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345581)

Or.... you could do like this guy and make a RAID with 24 SSDs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96dWOEa4Djs [youtube.com]

You'd get 6Tb of storage for half the cost of the machine in the article... much more useful, no UPS needed.

Vista (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27345295)

Sure, people thought Windows was slow because it was low on memory, this computer will prove that untrue. Just wait until you click the 'Start' button and Vista spends 5 minutes searching through 192 GB of memory looking for the hook.

4GB RAM Is All You Need... (2, Funny)

creimer (824291) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345301)

As my computer instructor said in 1991, the 4GB address space of a 32-bit CPU is all that you will ever need. Now that I have a computer with a 64-bit CPU/OS and 4GB RAM, I find it hard to justify upgrading more RAM (unless the price for another 4GB is dirt cheap) since running out of memory is not an issue.

Re:4GB RAM Is All You Need... (1)

davegravy (1019182) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345525)

"640k ought to be enough for anybody"

[citation needed]

Re:4GB RAM Is All You Need... (1)

rockNme2349 (1414329) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345615)

4GB is all that you will ever need.

Please tell me that was an attempt at sarcasm.

Re:4GB RAM Is All You Need... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27345619)

Eh. It won't take long, and you WILL run out of memory.

There's nothing special about 4 GB of RAM per se, after all. Sure, it's 2^32 bytes. So what? 512 MB is 2^29 bytes. 128 MB is 2^27 bytes. In fact, they're ultimately entirely arbitrary numbers without any real meaning, and the same is true for 4 GB as well.

Of course, you may go into a diatribe about software bloat now if you feel so inclined, but that's neither new (remember "Eight Megabytes Always Continuously Swapping"?) nor will it change the fact that you WILL need more RAM - even if it's true (and it may not necessarily be, depending on how you define "bloat"), complaining about the fact that a tsunami is gonna hit your house won't turn it away. It's still gonna happen.

Of course, if you're happy with 4 GB, by all means, don't get more RAM for now. But the idea that you'll *never* need it is astoundingly naive, to say the least, and the idea that *noone* ever will is even more so.

I see you're not running Eclipse (5, Insightful)

Nicolas MONNET (4727) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345641)

Eclipse + VMWare ... you'll love every bit above 4G.

Re:I see you're not running Eclipse (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27345835)

I regularly use Eclipse and VMware server to test on different platforms and to test networking, an often have 10-20 tabs open in firefox, and I still have a little ram to spare. BTW - firefox is the biggest in ram out of all of those programs.

Re:4GB RAM Is All You Need... (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345781)

Agreed. the only thing I have is this crappy java app that likes to chew up 2.5GB RAM sometimes, but it'd easily eat 8 or 16GB too, it just needs to be taken out back and shot. If i really needed more RAM for something already 16GB (4x4GB) was quite doable with DDR2.

Re:4GB RAM Is All You Need... (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345901)

That was true back in 1991. The VGA monitor was 320x200 8bit color, A Large Hard Drive was about 80Megs. External Loading of data via Floppy Disks were slow. Modems were very slow 2400bps. Having 4GB of RAM for the current usage seemed excessive. As the speed to fill the memory would take so long that it wasn't worth using it.

Yes please... (1)

ricky-road-flats (770129) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345303)

....especially with the way the new systems connect the RAM to the CPUs directly - and as it's split over 6 channels (3 per socket), you get a theoretical RAM bandwidth of 42.6 GB/sec. Yum.

And the prices are great, if you steer clear of 4 GB and so-far-non-existent 8 GB DIMMs. A 6 GB kit of three 2 GB sticks of the DDR3-1333 can be had for only 79 GBP (around 120 USD), and that's from a decent supplier (Crucial). Four of those in one of these beasts and you have a very useful 24 GB for relatively little spend. Bring it on!

not even available on Dell's website (1)

t35t0r (751958) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345309)

These new systems aren't even available on Dell's website yet. The new poweredge machines won't be available until the 30th. Don't know about the workstations.

VM's (3, Interesting)

Tweaker_Phreaker (310297) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345321)

Think of all the VM's you can run.

Will my computer take advantage of it? (0, Offtopic)

keiofh (1223410) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345341)

I've got 6GB of ram on my Mac Pro and it has never been filled up. I've yet to see any application that has taken advantage of at least 75% of my current amount of ram.

Re:Will my computer take advantage of it? (1)

jaavaaguru (261551) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345483)

One word: Oracle.

Re:Will my computer take advantage of it? (3, Funny)

egcagrac0 (1410377) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345499)

Most assuredly, your morally lax computer will get the RAM a little too drunk and have its way...

Re:Will my computer take advantage of it? (1)

ettlz (639203) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345793)

You've obviously never tried computing Feynman integrals on Mathematica.

Being a vendor... (1)

Narnie (1349029) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345351)

Being a vendor in the semiconductor industry whose client's business is strictly DRAM, this is very good news. Finally a reason to buy an assload of ram and rid the market of some of the DRAM glut that's built up.

Build a system with more ram slots and the users will fill them.

Build a... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27345501)

...inflatable woman with more orifices and some creepy slashdot weenies will fill them up!

No, thanks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27345359)

I don't run that many concurrent applications. Well, I do, but xterms don't seem to use much RAM.

Oh yea (1)

haystor (102186) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345451)

Emacs' day has arrived.

Not enough... (4, Funny)

grub (11606) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345461)


...640 GB should be enough for anybody.

Umm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27345489)

Why?

What Intel giveth... (5, Insightful)

hwyhobo (1420503) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345545)

...Microsoft shall taketh away.

I Hope It Supports ECC (1)

darkmeridian (119044) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345587)

All that RAM would be great for virtual systems. But you need to get ECC RAM, which is much more expensive than the regular stuff. Without ECC, random errors would wipe out your system especially if you have 192 GB of the stuff.

This is a good thing, I think (1)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345631)

to make ram cheaper again relative to hard drive size (in proportion).

8-9 years ago, in 2001, I already had upgraded to 1GB ram in my desktop PC. I suppose it was the 32bit limit and what not, but while hard drive space grew a lot back then, ram size growth really seemed to slow down since then. Even now the manufacturers are getting to grips with 64bit Windows and often the computers sold with 2GB ram (pretty much standard) can't be upgraded past 3.5GB with the limitations of the Windows software it came with. What happens when the standard size will be 4GB? OS X will be well equipped for it with snow leopard.

Ramdisk (1)

noppy (1406485) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345633)

And about time we abuse it. :]

Re:Ramdisk (1)

Plekto (1018050) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345677)

A feature that I
d love to see added to a motherboard is to add 1-4 dedicated slots that can be configured as a ramdisk at the BIOS level. That way you'd need no drivers and it would survive a reboot. Surely this could be done fairly easily.

Question (1)

einer (459199) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345667)

Could you put together a device that ZFS'd up a buttload of old ram chips? The cost of ram doesn't seem to have much to do with how much ram storage is available on earth as much as it's speed and utility in today's hardware. Could you build a device that was essentially a huge ram bus for old chips addressable over ... I dunno a pcix or agp bus? Agp might not be good, but something that had big i/o in both directions. Someone please do this. I have tons of old ram sticks that I paid waaaaaay too much for back in the day, and I'd like to be able to claim that they weren't a waste of money. :)

DRAM sticks is the new hyperinflation hedge (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27345669)

Everyone should have a couple hundred gig in their portfolio.

Don't bury it in the backyard.

P.S. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for one of these monsters to hibernate.

Apple does not belong on that list, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27345739)

as the Mac Pro is effectively limited to 6GB or 24GB.

The 4-core Mac Pro has only three usable RAM slots which accept at most 2GB DIMMs. The 8-core model has six usable slots which accept 4GB DIMMs.

For whatever reasons, Apple machines often do not work with higher density memory modules. As is typical at Apple, it would not be surprising if the low end model was intentionally crippled.

Buy the RAM, get the server free! (4, Interesting)

mdf356 (774923) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345867)

A few years ago when I was working at IBM, I did a back-of-the-envelope calculation on the price of one of the pSeries line with 256GB of RAM. Given the commodity price for RAM for that kind of hardware, using 8x32GB cards, the cost for the RAM was about $1M USD. Which was about the price we charged for the box, with storage, CPUs, AIX license, etc. It was kind of like "buy the RAM, get the server free".

Please ban the word "leverage" (3, Insightful)

draevil (598113) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345869)

"Apple are all bringing out computers that leverage Intel's new Nehalem architecture"

Please tell me I'm not the only one that cringed at this example of newspeak? The word is *use*. "Apple are bringing out computers that **use** Intel's new Nehalem architecture".

The sentence isn't made any more profound, important or meaningful - no extra information is conveyed - by using faddish terms like "leverage"; designed exclusively to make MBAs sound like they have something to contribute (they usually don't).

Besides all that the topic is pointless since everyone knows we won't need more than 640K. ;)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?