Live data from Hacker News

RAM now represents 35 percent of bill of materials for HP PCs

arstechnica.com

301–310 of 355 posts

Re: RAM now represents 35 percent of bill of materials for HP PCs

#301
post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the likes of Zed save so much ram over VS Code... oh, wait...

I use vim for everything so I have no idea. My main machine has 16Gb of RAM and I don't think I've ever seen it go over 4Gb and that was when I had a 200gb mmap'ed sparse array.

On my personal desktop, I have 96gb... I've never gone over 70 or so.. but that was with a lot of services running a fairly complex system with data loaded locally. I generally don't five a f*ck about the ram I'm using day to day. I'll run various updates and reboot between once a month and once a quarter.

Re: RAM now represents 35 percent of bill of materials for HP PCs

#302

Maybe this RAMmageddon will trigger a wave of optimized softwares that don't need GBs of memory for anything and everything.

Part of the reason programs use so much memory is because of optimization, but of a different kind. Memory is fast-ish, so if you know or think that you will require X Y Z anyway then just load it in RAM. And, if you think you might need it later, don't bother unloading it. Just keep it around.

Garbage collectors also use similar strategies. Collecting garbage is expensive, so just don't until you need to. The extra memory usage in this case isn't a downside, it's an upside. Your code runs faster.

That's how Java and dotnet are able to achieve insane performance times in some benchmarks, like within 50% of native. They're not collecting garbage, and their allocators are actually faster than malloc.

If you've ever run a Java program at consistent 90% heap usage, you'll notice it absolutely grinds to a halt. I'm talking orders of magnitude slower. Naturally, this isnt highlighted in benchmarks, but it illustrates the power of allocating more memory.

Re: RAM now represents 35 percent of bill of materials for HP PCs

#303
post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Im always shocked how much good IT equipment is shoved into the trashbin: At a lot of companies I could make a great deal - either for using it on my own or selling it on Ebay later on. Big Corporations offen trash IT equipment thats only 3 - 4 years old. And there is no recycling etc. Very sad.

Big corporations tend to send old hardware through the surplus marketplace. There's lots of 3-4 year old corporate computers for sale. Often, the company leases the computers and then the lessor will sell them when they're returned.

Apple themselves make pretty good business leasing their own products that way.

Re: RAM now represents 35 percent of bill of materials for HP PCs

#304

Maybe this RAMmageddon will trigger a wave of optimized softwares that don't need GBs of memory for anything and everything.

Let's see. A) Programmers will get their shit together and start shipping lean software. OR B) New laptops will become neutered thin clients, and all the heavy lifting will be done by cloud service providers. Which one seems more likely?

1. Most Web clients aren't light weight.

2. People will buy laptop with low RAM because that's only what they can afford (hopefully upgradable).

3. They'll crib Chrome being slow, and will be suggested to use lightweight apps.

Re: RAM now represents 35 percent of bill of materials for HP PCs

#305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RAM production is highly inelastic and controlled by an oligopoly. They have little desire to increase production considering the lead time and the risk that the AI demand might be transient. They actively prefer keeping confortable margins than competing between each other. They have already been condemned for active collusion in the past. New actors from China could shake things up a bit but the geopolitical situat…

They are increasing production as fast as they can (which is not fast at all, it's more like slowly steering a huge ship towards the correct direction) because current prices are too high even when accounting for the historical oligopoly dynamics. They can easily increase their collective profits by making more.

RAM manufacturers don't increase production as fast as possible, because they've been through enough boom and bust.

Rapid increase in capacity leads to oversupply which leads to negative margins. They've been there before, and they don't want to go there again.

RAM manufacturers do routinely setup new fabs and decommision old fabs. Maybe they're trying to hurry up new fab construction in times like these, and they would likely defer shutting down old fabs or restart them where possible. But they're less likely to build new fabs that weren't already part of their long term plans.

Re: RAM now represents 35 percent of bill of materials for HP PCs

#306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Android's investing significantly in reducing the memory usage of the next release simply because the BOM cost of RAM for their low-end partners is becoming prohibitive.

But if that new or different because of this event? No it's not, Android has had several initiatives to enable low end devices, from optimizing full fatter Android, to inventing new versions of Android.

Android has been talking about these kinds of things for a long time. But if they're actually meaningfully making progress on them, it's most likely because of real pressure. (He types on his phone with 6GB of ram)

Re: RAM now represents 35 percent of bill of materials for HP PCs

#307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And then memory expanded so much that all kinds of “optimal” patterns for programming just become nearly irrelevant. I don't think that ever happened. Using relatively sparse amount of memory turns into better cache management which in turn usually improves performance drastically. And in embedded stuff being good with memory management can make the difference between 'works' and 'fail'.

It obviously never became completely irrelevant. But I think programmers spend a lot less time thinking about memory than they used to. People used to do a lot of gymnastics and crazy optimizations to fit stuff into memory. I do quite a bit of embedded programming and most of the time it seems easier for me to simply upgrade the MCU and spend 10cents more (or whatever) than to make any crazy optimimzations. But of co…

While thinking less about memory optimizations is possible since we have more memory, it was enabled by the languages and libraries we use. Fourty years ago, you were probably implementing your own data structures. Sure, there were plenty of languages that offered them back then (LISP was based on linked lists, and that language is from the 1960's). Chances are you weren't using such languages unless you were using big computers or writing software that didn't handle much data. These days, pretty much any language will provide at least some data structures and their related algorithms. Even systems programming languages like C++ and Rust. Of course, there are an absurd number of libraries if you need anything more specialized.

Re: RAM now represents 35 percent of bill of materials for HP PCs

#308
There were years in the 1990s and early 2000s when it was easy to get faster runtimes by using more memory, back when even on a multi-user system like Linux or BSD was typically running one main program at a time. We had multiple hardware web servers, multiple hardware email servers, and multiple hardware database servers. Getting the most CPU performance out of the system for your applications was the order of the day.

Now, almost everything on the server side is a VM or a container. We have lots of neighbors who want to share the CPU and the RAM, and the RAM is the bigger constraint because the CPUs have 192 cores and each of those cores does a dozen times as much work as a decade ago. Heck, we used to have the memory controller on the motherboard and the last level of cache was a chip or module of SRAM outside the CPU.

We also have a situation now in which the multiple in speed of the CPU over RAM has skyrocketed, but the caches have gotten far larger and much smarter. Smaller things arranged differently in RAM make things run faster because they make better use of the cache.

Now that RAM is expensive, shared, and program and data size and arrangements are bound to cache behavior, optimization can lean heavily into optimizing for RAM again.

Some of these arguments hold true for desktop systems as well.

I have wondered for years when the time will come that instead of such huge and smart caches, someone will just put basically register-speed RAM on the chip and swap to motherboard RAM the way we swap to disk. HBM is somewhere close, being a substrate stacked in the package but not in the CPU die itself.

Re: RAM now represents 35 percent of bill of materials for HP PCs

#309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1060 6GB here. Figured the headroom would get me a couple extra years out of it. At this rate I’m wondering if the card is going to outlast the concept of owning graphics cards. Partly because, as you mention, maybe NVIDIA will stop selling them. Partly because, maybe APUs will get good enough…

Strix Halo is already good enough. It's a premium product, though.

Strix Halo looks quite good. Hoping the stars will align, and my GPU will hold on long enough for the RAM famine to end and some Strix Halo successor to come out.
Post reply on HN