16GB Hynix DDR3 RAM modules demonstrated at IDF

Remember that MetaRAM technology we figured was nothing more than a sophisticated joke back in February? Intel, one of the noteworthy backers, has proven that said tech actually is one rung above snake-oil at its own Developers Conference in San Francisco. Hynix-made DDR3 DIMMs packing 16GB of memory were reportedly created via the MetaRAM method (and subsequently shown off), and just in case you're not wowed by such wizardry, the demo system included no fewer than ten of these modules. Just in case that sort of flew over your head, the machine they were in possessed 160GB of RAM. Unfortunately, we've a feeling these are quite aways out from hitting the consumer market.

[Das Boot @ Aug 22nd 2008 9:00AM]

My gosh, you could do everything with 16 gigs of ram, burn a dvd, dl porn, create an SGI movie, dl porn, run multimedia applications, dl porn, all at the same time without no lag. i so need one of these machines, not to dl porn of course but for "educational" purposes.

[Maurizio @ Aug 22nd 2008 9:05AM]

Did you read the post? It has 160 Gigs of ram.

[David85 @ Aug 22nd 2008 9:11AM]

I think you do need it for educational purposes after using a double negative...

[Das Boot @ Aug 22nd 2008 9:13AM]

i did read it just a typo- no coffee yet this morning.

[avester @ Aug 22nd 2008 9:16AM]

Maurizio, 16GB modules, read the title too.

[Konstantinos @ Aug 22nd 2008 9:26AM]

saweet!

[Cooper @ Aug 22nd 2008 11:02AM]

Actually read the post, "no fewer than 10 mondules" and If your maths is any decent I hope you can multiply 10x16.

[v3xx @ Aug 22nd 2008 4:37PM]

i think its funny you're all bashing him but even with the typo does it make his post any less true?

[Maurizio @ Aug 22nd 2008 9:03AM]

I wonder what all that ram will do for CGI porn......can't wait to see!

[Das Boot @ Aug 22nd 2008 9:16AM]

it will open up many possibilities. it all depends what position you take on it.

[Harry Wagstaff @ Aug 22nd 2008 12:47PM]

Why pick just one position? With that much RAM you could watch them all.

[avester @ Aug 22nd 2008 9:02AM]

Now, someone just needs to make a "Does it run Crysis" joke, it's so damn funny every time I see it.

[/sarcasm]

[Will @ Aug 22nd 2008 9:25AM]

But can it play Doom?

Oooh, bet you weren't expecting that one!

[avester @ Aug 22nd 2008 9:27AM]

Ohh, sneaky you.

[Frankie @ Aug 22nd 2008 11:05AM]

Can it blend (I'm not even sure I ever understood what that really meant)?

[slarity @ Aug 22nd 2008 11:37AM]

Some guy had some industrial blender a while back that he use to throw gadgets into. Thats what "does it blend?" mean.

[Mike C @ Aug 22nd 2008 1:33PM]

Which is I believe a play on the phrase Elvis Costello used to say, "but does it bend?"

fyi probably wrong

[maveric101 @ Aug 24th 2008 1:23AM]

btw it's "WILL it blend"

if you're going to use an outdated internet meme, at least get it right

[Sudo @ Aug 22nd 2008 9:03AM]

Wake me up when we need that much.

[ebob9 @ Aug 22nd 2008 9:10AM]

Well, you will once you try and run Vista x64...

[Kamokazi @ Aug 22nd 2008 9:31AM]

Wake up.

There are lots of applications for this much RAM. I know I am drooling at the prospect of running our SQL databases entirely off the RAM (and yes, there are plenty of ways to build redundancy in case of power failure). Many other applications that need high I/O speeds would love to have this kind of RAM, too.

[bstear @ Aug 22nd 2008 9:40AM]

"640K of memory should be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates

[Dan Halen @ Aug 22nd 2008 9:44AM]

Vista x64 doesn't use any more than Vista x32. It just CAN.

[Jevanzz @ Aug 22nd 2008 10:13AM]

"640K of memory should be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates

That has to be one of the most wrongly-attributed quotes of all time.

[Stern @ Aug 22nd 2008 12:07PM]

In response to the Vista x64 using the same amount of RAM as Vista x86, that's not true. 64-bit programs use more RAM than 32-bit programs because they require things like 64-bit pointers (as opposed to 32-bit pointers). It doesn't necessarily make much of a difference, but it can.

[Hung @ Aug 22nd 2008 12:43PM]

@ Dan

Stern is right. Vista x64 DOES use more memory because of the larger pointers. More complex data models, such as SILP64 not only use 64-bit pointers, but 64-bit short, long, and super long integer values as well. Thus, everything takes up more space.

[Hung @ Aug 22nd 2008 12:48PM]

Oops, I mean that Vista has 64-bit LL values too.

[rock99rock @ Aug 22nd 2008 1:24PM]

@Jevanzz

He was right, for the timeperiod.

[KEROLiUKAS @ Aug 22nd 2008 9:11AM]

That's what I'm talking about!

soon we'll see dual channel 8 and 16 gigs.

[anonymousaversa @ Aug 22nd 2008 9:12AM]

What OS's will run this amount of RAM? Are we just talking Linux for the time being?

How long will it be before we can use this ridiculous amount of ram for general purposes?

[216 @ Aug 22nd 2008 9:18AM]

Vista 64 can handle up to like 128gb of ram i think (of course no motherboard in the world can handle that much ram)

[Mario @ Aug 22nd 2008 9:19AM]

Any 64bit OS can use 160GB RAM. Practically, there is no limit to how much RAM they can use. (technically, the limit is 16.8 million terabytes)

[avester @ Aug 22nd 2008 9:21AM]

"16.8 million terabytes is ought for everyone"

[Kamokazi @ Aug 22nd 2008 9:34AM]

@216

That's incorrect. Intel 5400 server chipsets can handle that much exactly:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813182155

[atbnet @ Aug 22nd 2008 9:39AM]

If you look at the screenshots, it is running Windows. By the looks of the task manager it appears to be Windows 2003 Server. The Enterprise version can handle up to 1 TB and the Datacentre version can handle 2 TB. Windows 2008 Server supports 2 TB on both the Enterprise and Standard Edition. Plenty of room left to grow.

[Dan Halen @ Aug 22nd 2008 9:47AM]

Mario was highest ranked for being wrong...? Come on, Engadget readers.

Windows Vista Edition 64-bit Maximum Memory Sizes:
Home Basic = 8 GB
Home Premium = 16 GB
Ultimate = 128+ GB
Business = 128+ GB
Enterprise = 128+ GB

[Good_Bytes @ Aug 22nd 2008 9:53AM]

@Dan, Sorry he is correct.
If you look at Vista it says 128+ GB.
That means Microsoft tested Vista to run with 128GB, but knows that it can handle even more... just expect that it might have an issue and a bug fix will be required.

[Dan Halen @ Aug 22nd 2008 10:02AM]

"Any 64bit OS can use 160GB RAM."

How is that "right," Good_Bytes? Vista x64 is a 64-bit OS. Home Basic and Home Premium max out at 8GB and 16GB respectively. So, yeah. I don't know what else to say.

And it's not a bug.

[A1 @ Aug 22nd 2008 10:39AM]

>And it's not a bug.

No, it's a soft limit. Your argument is invalid.

[jason @ Aug 22nd 2008 10:51AM]

@Dan

Microsoft put those limitations on there. They typically put stupid limitations on their lower end stuff.

It doesnt take a rocket scientist:
Basic: uses vista kernel
Premium: uses exact same kernel

difference? none.


just that microsoft put a limit on it like they put ridiculous limits on that "starter" vista that they are selling (like only old CPU's like PIII and stuff) which was hacked to unlock all hardware in about a day.

[Silverfrog @ Aug 22nd 2008 10:56AM]

It has nothing to do with 32 or 64-bit OS. The amount of RAM a computer can have has to do with it's number system addressing. Part of the problem here is something that motherboard manufacturers and chipset designers must fix. That part could be fixed with a simple BIOS update. Next, the OS must support the correct addressing. If the kernel supports it, then you're good. 32 or 64 makes no difference, strictly speaking. All that has to do with is processing ability.

[Dan Halen @ Aug 22nd 2008 11:10AM]

@A1

My argument is invalid? Okay Hal. And no it isn't.

"Any 64bit OS can use 160GB RAM."

Vista Home Basic x64 is a 64-bit OS. It can not use 160GB of RAM. No matter WHAT THE REASON, it can't! End of story!

[KC @ Aug 22nd 2008 11:17AM]

@Dan

I'm sure most engadget readers would agree that the keyword here is "can"
all 64bit OS including Vista can use most (if not the whole) of 64bit bus, M$ just didn't enable it because they don't want people to buy Home Basic for Servers.
Anyhow I don't think you can call Home Basic and Ultimate a different OS, it's the same Vista, with different features enabled.

[Dan Halen @ Aug 22nd 2008 11:20AM]

@KC

Right. If the keyword here were "COULD," I would agree. All 64-bit operating systems COULD use 160GB+ of RAM if they were designed to do so. However, not all of them CAN use that much, as some (see above) have limitations placed on them.

[kal326 @ Aug 22nd 2008 11:22AM]

@Kamokazi
Possible to run 128GB on that board, cost is pretty high though.

2x4GB kits run around 500 so 64GB for 4,000. Which really isnt ALL that bad of price.

To get to 128GB, you need 16*8GB sticks and this is were it gets expense. 1 8GB stick is around 1600, so 16*1,600=25,600
http://shopper.cnet.com/ram-random-access-memory/kingston-valueram-memory-8/4014-3046_9-32848071.html?tag=srch_4_1

Now one interesting think I did see at the Heros happen here launch was a box demo by IBM in the vendors area. They had a 3U or 5U server that could be connected with up to 3 other identical boxes to run as one physical system. Each box had 4 quad core Xeons and up to 128GB of DDR3. So you max out all 4 boxes and you have 4x4x4= 16 physical chips with 64 cores and 4x128GB = 512 GB of DDR3 ram. Cost? Well lets not get into that.

[B @ Aug 22nd 2008 12:25PM]

geez Dan... give it up. move on to another article.

[Hung @ Aug 22nd 2008 12:37PM]

My advance apologies to Anonymousaversa (/b/, by any chance?) for the influx of additional emails he'll receive.

@ Dan

Good_Bytes is addressing the fact that Vista could run 160GB memory, but only under Ultimate, Enterprise, and Business flavors, as per your provided info. But yeah, I see what you mean.

@ A1, Jason, Silverfrog, KC

No, 64-bit OSs aren't that simple. Vista uses the LLP64 data model. Though the pointers are 64-bit, the short, integral, and long values remain 32-bit. Yes, 64-bit data models are ABLE to hit 16.8EB, but for the sake of ease, Windevelopers chose a less complex 64-bit data model. LLP64 can still hit these limits, but problems such as the int overflowing long, or long long overflowing int can occur because int and long aren't 64-bit (NOTE: These aren't typos). Also, the drivers for Direct Memory Access must take into account device memory restrictions. A cap means that instead of checking for 0-16.8EB, it'll check for 0-128 GB (or whatever the current Vista drivers support). This makes their and your lives a lot less complicated. Note that "crippling" might not connote the right meanings, since the soft cap is typically out of practical range.

A lot of operating systems employ soft caps because of the OS's ability to address all the memory. Ubuntu 8.04 x64 just recently added support for more than 8GB of RAM. Seeing as how Ubuntu is FREE, it doesn't have anything to do with Canonical crippling the kernel so consumers have to bust out cash on more expensive editions. Redhat Enterprise, knowing their server market well, set the physical limit at 256 TB.

L2 code. Noobs.

[JMMGoalster @ Aug 22nd 2008 12:55PM]

well said Hung...its nice seeing another developer here.....

[Ben @ Aug 22nd 2008 1:56PM]

I've trialed machines with 96GB on one board running Redhat

Look into Egenera ... quad socket (with quadcore chips) with 96GB of ram.

[Matthew C @ Aug 22nd 2008 10:37PM]

Well Hung, I can only hope that one day I'll be able to understand all of what you said (I'm only a junior in high school at the moment).

You clearly know more about this than the previous 10 commenters combined.