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.
posted Aug 22nd 2008 8:56AM
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.
Did you read the post? It has 160 Gigs of ram.
I think you do need it for educational purposes after using a double negative...
i did read it just a typo- no coffee yet this morning.
Maurizio, 16GB modules, read the title too.
saweet!
Actually read the post, "no fewer than 10 mondules" and If your maths is any decent I hope you can multiply 10x16.
i think its funny you're all bashing him but even with the typo does it make his post any less true?
I wonder what all that ram will do for CGI porn......can't wait to see!
it will open up many possibilities. it all depends what position you take on it.
Why pick just one position? With that much RAM you could watch them all.
Now, someone just needs to make a "Does it run Crysis" joke, it's so damn funny every time I see it.
[/sarcasm]
But can it play Doom?
Oooh, bet you weren't expecting that one!
Ohh, sneaky you.
Can it blend (I'm not even sure I ever understood what that really meant)?
Some guy had some industrial blender a while back that he use to throw gadgets into. Thats what "does it blend?" mean.
Which is I believe a play on the phrase Elvis Costello used to say, "but does it bend?"
fyi probably wrong
btw it's "WILL it blend"
if you're going to use an outdated internet meme, at least get it right
Wake me up when we need that much.
Well, you will once you try and run Vista x64...
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.
"640K of memory should be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates
Vista x64 doesn't use any more than Vista x32. It just CAN.
"640K of memory should be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates
That has to be one of the most wrongly-attributed quotes of all time.
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.
@ 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.
Oops, I mean that Vista has 64-bit LL values too.
@Jevanzz
He was right, for the timeperiod.
That's what I'm talking about!
soon we'll see dual channel 8 and 16 gigs.
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?
Vista 64 can handle up to like 128gb of ram i think (of course no motherboard in the world can handle that much ram)
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)
"16.8 million terabytes is ought for everyone"
@216
That's incorrect. Intel 5400 server chipsets can handle that much exactly:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813182155
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.
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
@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.
"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.
>And it's not a bug.
No, it's a soft limit. Your argument is invalid.
@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.
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.
@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!
@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.
@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.
@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.
geez Dan... give it up. move on to another article.
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.
well said Hung...its nice seeing another developer here.....
I've trialed machines with 96GB on one board running Redhat
Look into Egenera ... quad socket (with quadcore chips) with 96GB of ram.
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.
Did anyone else hit the read link and notice they were running a 16 core CPU? Gee wilikers batman!
It says that the system is running 2 Nehalem CPU. ( and Nehalem Bring back goog-old HT. That's why you see 8(real)+8(virtual)=16 cores)
It says that the system is running 2 Nehalem CPU. ( And Nehalem Brings back good-old HT. That's why you see 8(real)+8(virtual)=16 cores)
we will never use all of 640k of ram......
where is the newegg link, i need to order some....
How long does 160GB of RAM take to POST?
I remember an Intergraph workstation running WinNT with a whopping 1Gb of RAM (8 sticks of 128Mb ECC and 4 Pentium-Pro 200MHz procs) we had back in 1996 that took around 20 minutes to post as it laboriously counted up to 1Gb, 4K at a time. Go get a sandwich and maybe it'll be booted up by the time you got done eating it.
I can't imagine how much that puppy cost the company back then. It was a full tower case that stood over 3' high.
New computers don't need to scan the RAM to know how much there is at Boot.
There not counting the memory there looking for errors, I give up 2% speed just to run ECC memory with full scans at reboot. I see around 1 ECC error a week and only reboot once a month.
It's a small world, I was working for Intergraph at that time and knew those systems very well ;-)
@shaten:
you run full scans at every reboot.
you see errors from those scans about once a week
however you only reboot once a month?
does anyone else see anything wrong w/ this?
@jason
You misunderstand i see 1 ECC error a week, which the memory corrects.
If i saw an error in the initial boot sequence i would be replacing the memory.
Yeah that's nice and all but one question remains:
Will it run Crysys?
You mean the band Crysys?
Ask them and find out...
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=329336961
This technology isn't designed for desktops at all, existing DRAM densities are just fine there. It's for large servers that need 100s of GB, if not TBs of memory, we are a long way from needing that on the desktop
Windows Vista will run just fine with 640K of memory!
I have 3 1GB DDR2 sticks of RAM in my computer. I recently disabled quietboot and quickboot, allowing the computer to perform and show full POST. Now that it's actually doing a memory test, it says that it fails. When I boot to Vista, everything runs fine and Vista SP1 correctly reports 3GB of RAM. What's going on? What should I do about it?
I'm running 3GB with one stick that I'm pretty sure is bad and besides the infrequent BSODs, my computer runs fine so I've been too lazy to do anything about it.
Cool!
I hear Windows 7 will need 160GB RAM...
Wow! When Adobe finially updates Photoshop to 64 bit, many of us that work on huge files would adore having that much memory.
Jay, I was thinking the exact same thing. Never too much memory when dealing with photoshop...
Whoa. that's quite a lot of memory..
160GB? Heck, I'd be happy to get 4GB in my iMac 20" Core 2 Duo (the chipset doesn't support it). I can't imagine the things I could do with 5-10GB of ram...
re: Hung
I don't know why you threw my name into that discussion. I was merely pointing out how it's not as simple as what the OS supports. Your whole system must support 64-bit memory addressing in order to be fully capable of anything past 4 GB. This includes OS, Chipset, CPU, and BIOS.
re: Hung
I don't know why you threw my name into that discussion. I was merely pointing out how it's not as simple as what the OS supports. Your whole system must support 64-bit memory addressing in order to be fully capable of anything past 4 GB. This includes OS, Chipset, CPU, and BIOS.
I could load 2 of my primary work drives into 160gig of RAM, so the question is, WHY?
The Answer is Because its F-ing cool, Two, because you are a made geek, and it comes with bragging rights around the water cooler
1.) Because you can; and any respecting UberGeek that passes up on the opportunity should be smacked
2.) Because you could increase your productivity by a multiple of X; giving you more time to surf the net on the company nickel
3.)Just Because.
160Gb of RAM is definitely not required for Windows 7 but think about Windows version 15... At the rate at which Microsoft Windows is drinking RAM, 160Gb would be a recommended minimum ;-)
I saw an article about this stuff a while ago, it looks pretty freakin cool. They said that the price per gigabyte would be comparable to what it is for regular DDR2 now. That means, unfortunately, that at least to start with, 16GB modules would be fairly expensive. I can't wait for this technology to reach our desktops, which really shouldn't be that far away.
I can't believe nobody suggested using this extensive RAM for a RAMdrive. With 160 GB you could create an unbelievably fast 100GB RAMdrive and still have 60GB for memory.
I wouldn't mind 160mb ram - personally. I can't remember anything.
As the article says, it's unlikely we'll have this anytime soon, but it's always nice to see the boundaries being pushed.
Loved that first "education purposes" post, btw. Hilarious.