321–330 of 587 posts
Is the end result of this is that anything that is useful to AI going to be permanently more expensive, as the value a human hobbyist can get out of a certain amount of RAM will always be far less than the value a frontier AI model can get out of it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would strange if just when a lot of articles mention computing / social networks are detrimental, governments start passing laws to forbid platforms and/or phones for kids, and now price gouging flares up everywhere, this would entice people to just stop using these devices and maybe enjoy natural taper-off.
I like this idea! Perhaps folks will game less on PCs and consoles. But would they shift to playing on their phones? Or play less video games overall? Also, when OpenAI's new device comes out, would people shift to talking to these small devices?
500% in a year is just insane. I knew RAM prices were going up, but $3k+ for 128GB of DDR5 makes me wonder how much of this is actually AI demand, and how much is this just manufacturers taking advantage of it. They have done this in the past after all
I don't understand the distinction you are making. If you have a massive excess of demand ready to pay any price, and a limited supply, of course the sellers will take advantage, that's how any market works. They can do that because of the lack of supply. Over the long term demand will rationalise and supply will adjust. But in between there is a squeeze, and the right price is the maximum price buyers are willing to…
Everything else you said is accurate, but this is not. Supply will go to those most able to pay, not those who need it the most. It is not a moral allocation, which your language implies.
500% in a year is just insane. I knew RAM prices were going up, but $3k+ for 128GB of DDR5 makes me wonder how much of this is actually AI demand, and how much is this just manufacturers taking advantage of it. They have done this in the past after all
I don't understand the distinction you are making. If you have a massive excess of demand ready to pay any price, and a limited supply, of course the sellers will take advantage, that's how any market works. They can do that because of the lack of supply. Over the long term demand will rationalise and supply will adjust. But in between there is a squeeze, and the right price is the maximum price buyers are willing to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand the distinction you are making. If you have a massive excess of demand ready to pay any price, and a limited supply, of course the sellers will take advantage, that's how any market works. They can do that because of the lack of supply. Over the long term demand will rationalise and supply will adjust. But in between there is a squeeze, and the right price is the maximum price buyers are willing to…
> I don't understand the distinction you are making. If you have a massive excess of demand ready to pay any price, and a limited supply, of course the sellers will take advantage, that's how any market works. They can do that because of the lack of supply. The question is how much of this demand is actually based on AI, or just an excuse to fleece regular buyers (and AI is not really the actual demand driving such p…
In a market with healthy competition (no collusion), this generally can't happen. Every single vendor is incentivized to lower their prices slightly at all times, with a floor at cost plus margin.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Memory fab build out times are years not months. The existing ones already run 24/7. If these companies could pull more supply out of thin air they would, but they cannot.
I'm curious what the limiting factor is for "years not months" when building these fabs. DRAM is a commodity, there are only threeish major manufacturers, all have huge amounts of capital, multiple nations bend over backwards for new semiconductor production projects, and there seems to be unlimited money going into purchasing these things. Even when it comes to manufacturing the tooling/testing infrastructure, it's…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand the distinction you are making. If you have a massive excess of demand ready to pay any price, and a limited supply, of course the sellers will take advantage, that's how any market works. They can do that because of the lack of supply. Over the long term demand will rationalise and supply will adjust. But in between there is a squeeze, and the right price is the maximum price buyers are willing to…
>that the limited supply goes to the buyer who need it the most Everything else you said is accurate, but this is not. Supply will go to those most able to pay, not those who need it the most. It is not a moral allocation, which your language implies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The same thing will happen with RAM. A glut will come eventually. It might take a year, maybe two.
Isn't next year's capacity already sold out? Is there any reason to hope for significant additional capacity to come online during that term?
In addition to that there are extra fabs build and (for example) China can use the high margin to catch up with their processes without breaking the bank.
I think there is a real point people are missing here. Memory is going sky high because most of it is being shifted to GPU specific ram for server build out. This means that when this ram hits EOL it -won't- flood the consumer market in a meaningful way. It is disposed of because most people won't put a server GPU into anything. It is like a used big rig, built for purpose and when it reaches end of life it is truly at end of life. Consumer DRAM will stay very high while the cartel retools and moves back into that space. This means that the cartel wins and pays no real price for it when they shift back to producing consumer ram, they step immediately into a massive demand for pc RAM and keep raking in $$$. But they all have to do it in lockstep so that they have a market to come back to. Otherwise someone would become the king of PC ram and they couldn't re-enter easily if/when the AI server market fails. Being in lock-step means they rake in more money and mitigate the risk of an AI bubble, all at the cost of the consumer.
At least that is what this looks like to me. They know they could make a lot of money ignoring the AI server build out but they all magically didn't. A competitive market would have seen a spike in price when this much demand came in, but the lockstep movement of the big three shows that they are coordinated and not competing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm saving a ton of money by simply not upgrading. I used to do upgrades every 1-2 years just to keep up on things, pass the old box down to my son or otherwise donate it. Now I intend to keep my current setup for 7+ years. Its 2 years old next month. I may even stay with it longer. I just see no reason to upgrade with things how they are. I considered a Mac Studio a couple months ago. Price was up but might have pul…
I'm running a 12 year old i5 3.2ghz CPU with 16 GB of memory, an SSD and an AMD RX 480 (8 GB) GPU. Currently using a 100% scaled 4k monitor and a 2nd 1440p monitor. I keep the machine on 24 / 7. It's great for software development along with video + image editing and casual gaming. Everything feels fast and snappy. I will use this until the hardware stops. There's a 0% chance I'd buy hardware at the current prices.
It runs Factorio and Zelda BOTW, why do I need more? :)