16GB Hynix DDR3 RAM modules demonstrated at IDF
By Darren Murph 
posted August 22nd 2008 8:56AM
posted August 22nd 2008 8:56AM
posted August 22nd 2008 8:56AM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
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.