why not LPCAMM?
Intel's lunar lake laptops won't let you upgrade your RAM. Here's why thats fine
11–20 of 28 posts
Re: Intel's lunar lake laptops won't let you upgrade your RAM. Here's why thats fine
#12I can see the advantage from the manufacturer side but I don't think this will be good for longevity of these devices.
In my experience DDR3/4 on laptops is a common component to fail and will often fail before even discs or a CPU. DDR5 is not old enough yet but I would wager this pattern will continue.
One can hope their integrated RAM is more durable. It would be a shame to see soldered CPUs being unusable because of RAM failures. This would make repair for old devices even more financially unviable.
Re: Intel's lunar lake laptops won't let you upgrade your RAM. Here's why thats fine
#13I need 64GB, this Intel new generation will be useless to me. I think Dell XPS is the only laptop with Qualcomm Snapdragon X that offers 64GB currently. I see upgradable RAM as on of the big advantages of x64 laptops over Apple and Qualcomm. Not sure Intel's current strategy to emulate their competitors, rather than play to it's own strong points is a good one.
From the article: "In fact, Intel’s future hardware will offer upgradeable RAM. Jim Johnson, Senior Vice President at Intel, explicitly said about user-upgradeable RAM: “We will offer those options in the future.” He also said that the “next turn of the roadmaps will offer more traditional options.”"
Ideally, some RAM on a tight and close bus with high bandwidth is a good thing to have in the CPU package. Xeons have HBM since the Phi alongside motherboard based memory.
Re: Intel's lunar lake laptops won't let you upgrade your RAM. Here's why thats fine
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
SoC RAM let's the vendor abuse the user. The 8GB needed to go from 8GB to 16GB on a MacBook Air cost Apple less than $10, but it charges the customer extra $200 for it. Don't see how Apple makes more money is a good thing - it means millions of their clients have less money left.
"on a MacBook Air cost Apple less than $10" I don't think $200 is justified nor do I want to defend Apple... but where do you get 8GB with 100 GB/s bandwidth for $10?
Am I right that you as a consumer want to get the memory at the price Apple gets it from the fabs? That's a bit silly.
Re: Intel's lunar lake laptops won't let you upgrade your RAM. Here's why thats fine
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
SoC RAM let's the vendor abuse the user. The 8GB needed to go from 8GB to 16GB on a MacBook Air cost Apple less than $10, but it charges the customer extra $200 for it. Don't see how Apple makes more money is a good thing - it means millions of their clients have less money left.
"on a MacBook Air cost Apple less than $10" I don't think $200 is justified nor do I want to defend Apple... but where do you get 8GB with 100 GB/s bandwidth for $10?
I can go buy two sticks of 6400MHz DDR5 for $20 per 8GB, to match the bus width and speed. The manufacturer might be paying more than $10 for the chips, but not much more. I don't know if I should expect much price difference between DDR5 and LPDDR5?
Re: Intel's lunar lake laptops won't let you upgrade your RAM. Here's why thats fine
#16Intel lately has been throwing everything under the sun to see if it sticks: first the heterogeneous P- and E-Cores, then the silicon-on-silicon packaging, unhinged power profile to the point of system instability, and now embedded RAM. Everything, everything except for a significant architectural improvements.
They are just being desperate. Desperate because they can't crack the code on improving the fundamental architecture. So they are pushing everything else to their limit and bulldozing over consumer choice and repairability in the process.
There's no other explanation. AMD does none of this and still eats Intel for lunch.
Re: Intel's lunar lake laptops won't let you upgrade your RAM. Here's why thats fine
#17At least it creates jobs for IT from all the problems having systems with too little ram will cause. This already happens with the Apple M series devices. Can't say much else for it.
Re: Intel's lunar lake laptops won't let you upgrade your RAM. Here's why thats fine
#18Intel learned from Apple. Not many people want to upgrade RAM, but Soc RAM is cheaper and faster - part of the Mx performance over Intel/AMD is from a 3x faster memory access (70gb/sec DDR4/5, 200+gb/sec Mx). "According to Intel, this move will make the RAM use up to 40 percent less power." On top of the performance gains integrated RAM uses less power. On top of these two things, Intel has better margins if they sel…
> part of the Mx performance over Intel/AMD is from a 3x faster memory access (70gb/sec DDR4/5, 200+gb/sec Mx).
With DDR5 I'd say more like 2.4x. And it should be made clear that that's mostly by virtue of fitting the equivalent of four memory channels on the Pro models. The non-Pro models don't see a very big boost.
In that context, CAMM stays exciting, because if you design a CPU to support two LPCAMM2 modules you can get 200+GB/s on upgradable memory. Though in a laptop form factor it would be hard to double that again to compete with a Max chip.
Re: Intel's lunar lake laptops won't let you upgrade your RAM. Here's why thats fine
#19I need 64GB, this Intel new generation will be useless to me. I think Dell XPS is the only laptop with Qualcomm Snapdragon X that offers 64GB currently. I see upgradable RAM as on of the big advantages of x64 laptops over Apple and Qualcomm. Not sure Intel's current strategy to emulate their competitors, rather than play to it's own strong points is a good one.
Are you in the market for a 4+4 core 15 watt CPU to go with your 64GB of memory?
This is not a full lineup of chips. This is a very narrow set of parts.
Re: Intel's lunar lake laptops won't let you upgrade your RAM. Here's why thats fine
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
"on a MacBook Air cost Apple less than $10" I don't think $200 is justified nor do I want to defend Apple... but where do you get 8GB with 100 GB/s bandwidth for $10?
Am I right that you as a consumer want to get the memory at the price Apple gets it from the fabs? That's a bit silly.
Right, but 20x seems like excessive