Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Samsung's 60% DRAM price hike signals a new phase of global memory tightening

buysellram.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 449 posts

Re: Samsung's 60% DRAM price hike signals a new phase of global memory tightening

#331

Post by mitthrowaway2 »

sowbug wrote: post #164
mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can't afford the electricity to afford to run the model on free hardware, you'd certainly never be able to afford the subscription to the same product as a service! But anyway, the trick is to run it in the winter and keep your house warm.

I think you're underestimating economies of scale, and today's willingness of large corporations to provide cutting-edge services at a loss.

I don't think I am. I don't think economies of scale on hardware will drive costs below free, and while subscription providers might be willing to offer services below the cost of the hardware that runs them, I don't think they'll offer services below the cost of the electricity that runs them.

And while data centers might sign favorable contracts, I don't think they are getting electricity that far below retail.

Re: Samsung's 60% DRAM price hike signals a new phase of global memory tightening

#332

Post by sixothree »

sokoloff wrote: post #43
sixothree wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's odd about this is I believe there does exist a winner takes all technology. And that it's AR. The more I dream about the possibilities of AR, the more I believe people are going to find it incredibly useful. It's just the hardware isn't nearly ready. Maybe I'm wrong but I believe these companies are making some of the largest strategic blunders possible at this point in time.

Why would AR be particularly likely to have a single winnner?

While the technical features are what attract me, I'm convinced what most people are going to be interested in are social features.

Re: Samsung's 60% DRAM price hike signals a new phase of global memory tightening

#333

Post by [deleted] »

zrail wrote: post #262
humanfromearth9 wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last night, while writing a LaTeX article, with Ollama running for other purposes, Firefox with its hundreds of tabs, multiple PDF files open, my laptop's memory usage spiked up to 80GB RAM usage... And I was happy to have 128GB. The spike was probably due to some process stuck in an effing loop, but the process consuming more and more RAM didn't have any impact on the system's responsiveness, and I could calmly quit…

On consumer chips the more memory modules you have the slower they all run. I.e. if you have a single module of DDR5 it might run at 5600MHz but if you have four of them they all get throttled to 3800MHz.

[deleted]

Re: Samsung's 60% DRAM price hike signals a new phase of global memory tightening

#334

Post by drtgh »

zrail wrote: post #262
humanfromearth9 wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last night, while writing a LaTeX article, with Ollama running for other purposes, Firefox with its hundreds of tabs, multiple PDF files open, my laptop's memory usage spiked up to 80GB RAM usage... And I was happy to have 128GB. The spike was probably due to some process stuck in an effing loop, but the process consuming more and more RAM didn't have any impact on the system's responsiveness, and I could calmly quit…

On consumer chips the more memory modules you have the slower they all run. I.e. if you have a single module of DDR5 it might run at 5600MHz but if you have four of them they all get throttled to 3800MHz.

Intel's consumer processors (and therefore the mainboards/chipsets) used to have four memory channels, but around the year 2020 this was suddenly limited to two channels since the 12th generation (AMD's consumer processors had always two channels, with exception of Threadriper?).

However this does not make sense, as for more than a decade the processors have only grown increasing the number of threads, therefore two channels sounds like a negligent and deliberately imposed bottleneck to access the memory if one use all those threads (Lets say 3D render, Video postproduction, Games, and so on).

And if one want four channels to surpass such imposed bottleneck, the mainboards that nowadays have four channels don't contemplate consumer use, therefore they have one or two USB connectors with three or four LAN connectors at prohibitive prices.

We are talking about consumer quad-channel DDR4 machines ten years old, wildly spread, keeps being competent compared with current consumers ones, if not better. It is like if all were frozen along this years (and what remains to be seen with such pattern).

Now it is rumoured that AMD may opt for four channels for its consumer lines due to the increased number of pin connectors (good news if true).

It is a bad joke what the industry is doing to customers.

Re: Samsung's 60% DRAM price hike signals a new phase of global memory tightening

#335

Post by wat10000 »

Aerroon wrote: post #210
wat10000 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our national debt is from our unwillingness to raise taxes to balance the budget. Federal spending is somewhat high historically, but not absurdly so. Relative to the economy, it's at about the same level as it was in the 1980s. Measured as a percentage of GDP, the current military budget is the lowest since before the Second World War, aside from a brief period at the end of the 1990s where it was slightly lower. Co…

But federal spending has been historically high ever since like the New Deal. Budget-to-GDP ratio in the US is close to 40%. (On that note, you should really consider federal + state combined rather than just federal.) In early 1900s this same ratio was around 5-10%. It has been increasing pretty much everywhere during the 20th century. It has made me wonder whether much of the prosperity we've seen and felt might no…

The New Deal was 90+ years ago. At some point it stops being abnormally high and becomes just how things are done.

I don't see why we'd eventually have to stop this level of spending. The debt is unsustainable, but that's a policy choice to keep taxes too low for the level of spending we've chosen.

Re: Samsung's 60% DRAM price hike signals a new phase of global memory tightening

#337

Post by [deleted] »

ls612 wrote: post #324
ksec wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am so glad both top rated and majority of comments on HN finally understands DRAM industry instead of constant DRAM is a cartel that is why things are expensive. Also worth mentioning DRAM and NAND's profit from Samsung is what keep the Samsung Foundry fighting TSMC. Especially for those who thinks TSMC is somehow a monopoly. Another things to point out which is not mentioned yet, China is working on both DRAM and…

DRAM manufacturers have literally been convicted of price fixing in the past why do you have to white knight for them?

[deleted]

Re: Samsung's 60% DRAM price hike signals a new phase of global memory tightening

#338

Post by hollerith »

ls612 wrote: post #324
ksec wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am so glad both top rated and majority of comments on HN finally understands DRAM industry instead of constant DRAM is a cartel that is why things are expensive. Also worth mentioning DRAM and NAND's profit from Samsung is what keep the Samsung Foundry fighting TSMC. Especially for those who thinks TSMC is somehow a monopoly. Another things to point out which is not mentioned yet, China is working on both DRAM and…

DRAM manufacturers have literally been convicted of price fixing in the past why do you have to white knight for them?

Most of us who've been on Earth for a while know that courts often get it wrong. Even if the particular court decision you mention was correct does not mean that price fixing is the main reason or the underlying reason DRAM prices sometime go up.

Re: Samsung's 60% DRAM price hike signals a new phase of global memory tightening

#339

Post by wat10000 »

Aerroon wrote: post #326
wat10000 wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think I’m proposing anything like the Soviet system?

No? I'm saying that power concentration is pretty much unavoidable. The question is more about what they can do with that power. I suspect that people getting more power through wealth in the modern world is better than people concentrating power through politics.

I don't think it's unavoidable. I don't see why you couldn't have a relatively weak government that's otherwise pretty laissez-faire besides taxing the hell out of extreme wealth. And a strong government doesn't have to have extremely powerful individuals. Power can be divided, and representatives are ultimately accountable to the people.

What you're saying basically boils down to: kings are inevitable, might as well choose them by economic success instead of the more old-fashioned approaches. I reject the first part.

Re: Samsung's 60% DRAM price hike signals a new phase of global memory tightening

#340

Post by robotresearcher »

phoboslab wrote: post #31
sbarre wrote: post #6

I'm so mad about this, I need DDR5 for a new mini-PC I bought and prices have literally gone up by 2.5x.. 128GB used to be 400$ in June, and now it's over $1,000 for the same 2x64GB set.. I have no idea if/when prices will come back down but it sucks.

I just looked at the invoice for my current PC parts that I bought in April 2016: I paid 177 EUR (~203 USD) for 32GB (DDR4-2800). It's kinda sad when you grow up in a period of rapid hardware development and now see 10 years going by with RAM $/GB prices staying roughly the same.

If the sticker price stayed the same since 2016, it got about 35% cheaper due to inflation.
Post reply on HN