Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Want a PC With 192 GB of RAM?

Posted by timothy on Thu Mar 26, 2009 01:00 PM
from the yes-please dept.
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."
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by TheCybernator (996224) on Thursday March 26 2009, @01:03PM (#27345075) Homepage

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

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

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

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by eebra82 (907996)
      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.
    • by Joce640k (829181) on Thursday March 26 2009, @01:36PM (#27345685) Homepage

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

      • This is more than 6 orders of magnitude more RAM than anyone could possibly use.

        No.

        >>> import math
        >>> math.log10(192e9/640e3)
        5.4771212547196626

        Just 5.477 orders of magnitude more RAM.

  • by Xocet_00 (635069) on Thursday March 26 2009, @01:03PM (#27345087)
    Actually, I don't. I'd love some PC-106000 RAM.
  • Wow! (Score:4, Funny)

    by GeorgeMonroy (784609) on Thursday March 26 2009, @01:09PM (#27345191) Homepage

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

  • 24GB is not 192GB (Score:4, Insightful)

    by wjh31 (1372867) on Thursday March 26 2009, @01:10PM (#27345205) Homepage
    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
    • by way2trivial (601132) on Thursday March 26 2009, @01:27PM (#27345551) Homepage Journal

      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."

  • by creimer (824291) on Thursday March 26 2009, @01:15PM (#27345301) Homepage
    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.
  • VM's (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Tweaker_Phreaker (310297) on Thursday March 26 2009, @01:16PM (#27345321)

    Think of all the VM's you can run.

  • by grub (11606) <slashdot@grub.net> on Thursday March 26 2009, @01:23PM (#27345461) Homepage Journal

    ...640 GB should be enough for anybody.
  • by hwyhobo (1420503) on Thursday March 26 2009, @01:27PM (#27345545)
    ...Microsoft shall taketh away.
  • by mdf356 (774923) <mdf356@nOspAM.gmail.com> on Thursday March 26 2009, @01:46PM (#27345867) Homepage

    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".

  • by draevil (598113) on Thursday March 26 2009, @01:46PM (#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. ;)

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      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).

      Normally I'd agree with you on this sort of thing, but I don't think "leverage" and "use" are equivalent here. To me, "leverage" implies that they are taking advantage of a tool that applies more force than some other, simpler, tool. Metaphorically, this is exactly the point they are making--Nehalem can do more than its predecessors, and Apple is using that advantage. This seems like a case where reasonable people could disagree.

  • Boot time (Score:5, Funny)

    by nickdc (1444247) on Thursday March 26 2009, @02:02PM (#27346129)
    Memory Testing: 1K OK

    ... 5 hours later

    Memory Testing: 201326592K OK

    Yea no thanks :)
  • by jdb2 (800046) * on Thursday March 26 2009, @02:36PM (#27346631) Journal
    First came the MHz Wars, then came the Core Wars, now come the On-Board Memory Controller Wars.

    When Intel "innovated" and gave Nehalem on-board DDR3 memory controllers, they did something else as well : they made a "mine is bigger than yours" move by adding 1 more memory controller and thereby giving AMD's Shanghai the one-up. Well, AMD apparently isn't taking that lightly as next year they'll be releasing an upgrade to Istanbul ( which will ship this year ) which uses Socket G34 [wikipedia.org] as well as a 12-core Socket G34 "chip" -- codenamed Magny-Cours -- which will basically be an MCM of 2 Istanbuls/Sao-Paolos. Socket G34 will purportedly support processors with 4 independent DDR3 memory controllers -- AMD's "mine is bigger than yours" riposte to Intel.

    Business as usual it seems.

    jdb2
  • by this great guy (922511) on Thursday March 26 2009, @02:43PM (#27346781)

    ...the cost of RAM eclipse the cost of the rest of your PC by 20-fold or more

    And that, my friends, is why you shouldn't buy Intel processors supporting DDR3 only (Core i7 or Nehalem-based Xeon). For large memory config, DDR2 is cheaper and motherboards with lots of slots are more common (try to find one with 32+ DDR3 slots: it does not exist !). Check this out: a config supporting 128GB at about 1/6th the cost of the one referenced in TFA ($50k):

    • PSU Corsair 1000HX 1000 Watt: $218 [provantage.com]
    • Mobo Tyan S4989WG2NR: $872 [provantage.com]
    • 4 x CPU Opteron 8350 HE Quad-core 2.0 GHz: 4 x $917 [provantage.com]
    • 32 x 4GB DDR2-667 ECC Registered: 32 x $84 [newegg.com]
    • Case + HDD + GPU: say about $300 for a simple tower case
    • Total: $7746
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Shakrai (717556)

      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? (Score:5, Informative)

      by dave420 (699308) on Thursday March 26 2009, @01:06PM (#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?
      • by Achromatic1978 (916097) <robert AT pennyonthesidewalk DOT com> on Thursday March 26 2009, @01:14PM (#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".
      • by FunkyELF (609131) on Thursday March 26 2009, @02:04PM (#27346163)

        Take a piece of paper and fold it 20 times... it will be 1,048,576 times as thick.

        20 fold is 2^20

        so.. (2 ** 20) * $1800 == 1.887436800 Billion Dollars

        So..somebody is wrong. Didn't read TFA to tell whether it is you or the article.

        • by UnknowingFool (672806) on Thursday March 26 2009, @02:56PM (#27346983)

          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.

          This is slashdot. The acceptable answers are:

          1. Running Vista
          2. Playing Crysis
          3. Hosting a bittorrent of the Library of Congress
          4. pr0n

          Now turn in your geek card.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Harodotus (680139) *

            I'm sure the design targets memory intensive applications like VMware ESX virtualization hosting servers. (You could also use Solaris Zones or Xen Server)

            With 8-16GB of ram statically assigned to each Guest VM (Virtual Machine), 128GB only covers 7 to 15 hosted Servers (less ESX memory overhead)

            If you're doing VDI (Virtualized Desktops with Vista), that's only up to 31 VM PCs per blade.

            Storage is commonly not an issue/botteneck since a SAN is often used (It works even with VMotion).

          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

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

            The whole OS? Most /.ers could load their entire porn collection into ramdisk with 192GB.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by egcagrac0 (1410377)
      Most assuredly, your morally lax computer will get the RAM a little too drunk and have its way...
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Joce640k (829181)

      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.

      • by CannonballHead (842625) on Thursday March 26 2009, @01:25PM (#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...)