HP forces Intel to officially support 128GB DDR4 on 9th gen core CPUs

[Jito463]

3 hours ago, dizmo said:

Seems...unnecessary for the minuscule percentage of people on the mainstream that will use 128GB of RAM.

That was my thought, as well.

3 hours ago, grimreeper132 said:

This isn't for main stream its for business cause they will want 128GB of RAM sure they probably should be using xeon at that point there is some reasons why they might not wanna

In my opinion, if you need 128GB on the desktop, you may as well go HEDT (AMD or Intel) for the quad-channel RAM support.

[NumLock21]

Does the cpu support up to 128gb?

[Dylanc1500]

Hey @CUDAcores89, I just wanted to give you a heads up, but you said AMD's POWER series servers. I just wanted to let you know so you could clarify that, since I was sure if you meant IBM's power series, or AMD's EPYC series, since you referred to the EPYC series later on.

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, CUDAcores89 said:

If you don't know how memory technology works, a memory "rank" is really just a 64 bit wide data bus of which the processor can address a memory module. Most standard memory modules will have either 1 or 2 ranks to populate the memory module with 8 chips for one rank and 16 chips for 2 ranks. On consumer memory modules, a single memory chip is 8 bits long so 8 chips x 8 bits = one 64 bit data bus or memory rank. But there's a problem, what if you need more memory and are still limited to only dual rank DIMMS per memory slot on a given processor?

These Samsung ones are Dual Rank, it's just an increase on chip density ( (2G x 8) x16 vs (1G x 8) x16 ) which allows all current configurations to increase capacity. Not sure about these other ones mentioned but the Samsung ones will be fine, for all Intel CPUs with DDR4 support. Only way I can see it not working is microcode bug not liking that much ram but that hasn't really been a thing in the past, larger modules have dropped in fine before above the original supported maximum DIMM size (because the rating was the biggest possible at the time).

 

Edit:

Product link here: https://www.samsung.com/semiconductor/dram/module/M378A4G43MB1-CTD/?UniqueId=jnb4elwvbs01045l024qb

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, CUDAcores89 said:

Now you see, each processor manufactured by intel or AMD has a maximum number of "ranks" the processor can physically address. For most consumer grade processors, it's 8 ranks. For Intel and AMDs enthusiest platform, it's 16 ranks. Your processor is not only limited by the number of DIMM slots available on your motherboard, but also the number of memory ranks it can phyically address.

Think you might have mathed that wrong somewhere, not that it changes your point though. There exists Single Rank (1R), Dual Rank (2R), Quad Rank (4R) and Octal Rank (8R).

[grimreeper132]

18 hours ago, Jito463 said:

That was my thought, as well.

In my opinion, if you need 128GB on the desktop, you may as well go HEDT (AMD or Intel) for the quad-channel RAM support.

Single core performance of both of HEDT is lower, and when your software license is based off of core you can use (a number of simulation software do this for example) especially for smaller business being able to buy a PC with great single core performance and very good RAM is useful. Also what used to be classed as HEDT CPUs are now more main stream e.g. 8 cores which means that companies and people who were using these CPUs in the past with 128GB of RAM still want/need to use them like that so by cutting them out by not offering them people start getting annoyed and start thinking that technology is moving backwards not forward, which intel nor AMD want people to even think when it comes to their products

[Terryv]

On 10/15/2018 at 5:52 PM, AluminiumTech said:

Windows 10 Home is artificially limited to just supporting 128GB of RAM.

Seriously?

 

What's the point of this arbitrary limit?

[AlTech]

Just now, Terryv said:

Seriously?

 

What's the point of this arbitrary limit?

Product Segmentation or something.

 

Windows 10 Pro supports Up To 512GB RAM.

[vanished]

20 minutes ago, Terryv said:

Seriously?

 

What's the point of this arbitrary limit?

Windows 7 had even more limits on RAM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7_editions

[Drak3]

2 hours ago, grimreeper132 said:

Single core performance of both of HEDT is lower

When overclocking, only by an insignificant margin that only really shows in benchmarks, and only on the higher core models for the Intel side.

 

At stock, the difference between the 7800X and 8700K isn't going to mean much either. You'll either hit a bottleneck from dual channel, or what you're doing doesn't really benefit from single core performance.