141–150 of 175 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I still don't get where all that memory goes.
Neither do the developers, because until recently, RAM was so cheap it didn’t matter, and we were in a situation where almost no one ever needed to consider “how much RAM will this take?” when writing code.
I am sorry to being rude, I just don't understand this publishing beyond getting the media exposure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
[flagged]
The memory manufacturers have made an interesting mistake. The tech giants of the world will be working to replace them from the supply chain as soon as possible. China already makes it's own RAM albeit at 16nm but you can bet they are working to get down to 4nm.
The problem is that DRAM is fundamentally based on storing charge in a capacitor and how much charge a capacitor can store is a result of the geometry of the capacitor. So either someone will have to figure out a way to make the same size capacitor take up less space on the RAM chip (this is what broke the previous 20 nm barrier) or someone will have to invent a practical way of making RAM with less than 1 capacitor per bit.
0: https://semiengineering.com/dram-scaling-challenges-grow/
1: https://www.techpowerup.com/333111/micron-announces-shipment...
With respect... I am surprised such a low-quality analysis is published on stanford.edu . What is compared here? What is the purpose of this? What are the conclusions of the analysis? Heck, where is the analysis? By what logic are the prices per GB(!) comparable between 1960(!) and 2026? I am sorry to being rude, I just don't understand this publishing beyond getting the media exposure.
With respect... I am surprised such a low-quality analysis is published on stanford.edu . What is compared here? What is the purpose of this? What are the conclusions of the analysis? Heck, where is the analysis? By what logic are the prices per GB(!) comparable between 1960(!) and 2026? I am sorry to being rude, I just don't understand this publishing beyond getting the media exposure.
At every point in time t, f(t) is the price per 1 GB of RAM which is 1GB/1B times the price per byte of RAM.
Because 1GB/1B is non-zero, it follows that f(t)=1GB/1B F(t).
It also follows that ratios are preserved, ie
f(t1)/f(t2)= 1GB/1B F(t1)/F(t2)
As long as f(t2) is non-zero, which in this context is never the case.
Visually, the two graphs are the same except scale is different.
But a linear graph that represents only the last decade and where the bottom is 0 (not the min value) would tell a different story, but I guess we already know that story because we're living it.
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.
It's amazing how consistently thr lower memory cost have expanded the set of economic viable applications : cheaper hardware doesn't just improve existing software it also enables software that was not possible before
Which is not always a good thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
[flagged]
But none of that matters here. As grandparent comment indicates, you're making a pretty fundamental math error. This is a log chart. Government may have devalued currency. It did not do so exponentially.