Live data from Hacker News

Historical memory prices 1960-2026

dam.stanford.edu

81–90 of 175 posts

Re: Historical memory prices 1960-2026

#81

is multi-level DRAM worth considering? storing multiple voltage levels per DRAM capacitor?

If you care about only capacity and cost yes, but not if you care about performance.

Can you back that up with anything about semi-recent nodes? The voltages are so fragile that I'm not convinced you would actually save space once you adjust the design to handle more levels.

Re: Historical memory prices 1960-2026

#82
TIL someone took over the now defunct jcmit dataset[1] (archive[2]). I expected his dataset to die off when his website did, but I guess someone found the data dump on archive.org and revived it. Which raises a question: how will this dataset fare five years from now?

[1]: https://www.jcmit.com/mem2010.htm [2]: https://web.archive.org/web/20250716092935/https://jcmit.net...

Re: Historical memory prices 1960-2026

#84

TIL someone took over the now defunct jcmit dataset[1] (archive[2]). I expected his dataset to die off when his website did, but I guess someone found the data dump on archive.org and revived it. Which raises a question: how will this dataset fare five years from now? [1]: https://www.jcmit.com/mem2010.htm [2]: https://web.archive.org/web/20250716092935/https://jcmit.net...

The dataset about memory prices now has a memory preservation problem. Very meta.

Re: Historical memory prices 1960-2026

#86
post #29

A perfect example of how graphs are often misleading. $/GB is a totally useless unit value because it's an arbitrary size. The unit needs to be tied to the relative usefulness for its time. The y axis should be something like $/average workstation memory or $/requirement for common compute task. It's obvious that ram is expensive right now, but it's not expensive per GB. It's expensive relative to what you need to ac…

Gas is priced in $/gal, not dollars per mile or hour of lawn mowing or whatever. The resource and the use are completely different concepts and the resource owner/producer cares not of the buyers purpose for it.

Re: Historical memory prices 1960-2026

#88
post #3

Says, not inflation-adjusted. With reason; adjusting those 1960-1980 prices for inflation would make the graph a lot taller. Pricing "per GB" before 1990 is unrealistic, though; nobody thought in GB or purchased GB quantities, or conceived of GB systems. I remember a moment circa 1973 when I saw an IBM CE about to do an upgrade on a 370 system at Cal Berkeley. He had a box with several carefully-packed, large circuit…

> adjusting those 1960-1980 prices for inflation would make the graph a lot taller.

It won't though. One dollar in 1960 is just about ten dollars today. The graph is already in logarithmic scale so it won't make much difference.

Re: Historical memory prices 1960-2026

#89

Were we really paying more for RAM per GB in the late 2010s than we are now? Just really doesn't feel like it. Interesting.

We're paying more now than we paid in the late 2010s, but less than we paid in the early 2010s.

I guess ‘per GB’ doesn’t really capture it, because the base number of gigabytes available to people (ie- the smallest compatible RAM kit you need to build a computer) and the base number of gigabytes you really need (OS bloat, feeling responsive, etc) have gone up so much.

Re: Historical memory prices 1960-2026

#90
post #29

A perfect example of how graphs are often misleading. $/GB is a totally useless unit value because it's an arbitrary size. The unit needs to be tied to the relative usefulness for its time. The y axis should be something like $/average workstation memory or $/requirement for common compute task. It's obvious that ram is expensive right now, but it's not expensive per GB. It's expensive relative to what you need to ac…

[dead]
Post reply on HN