Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by skunkworker 1247 days ago
I wish those motherboards didn't cost $450+, I've contemplated building a home server with a 13th gen + ECC because you also get quicksync onboard.
2 comments

Exactly. $450 for a motherboard just to get ECC support is ridiculous. I don't know how it is with AM5, but on AM4, my understanding is that you could use ECC memory with many normally-priced motherboards. (Even if it wasn't "officially" supported.)

Mentioning W680 feels pointless. You've always been able to buy high-end workstation-class motherboards and stick ECC in them. The entire point of the article is that all computers should be using ECC RAM, not just the expensive, workstation class computers.

If you sincerely /need/ ECC, any amount of money is of no concern because you need it. It's just a cost of doing business, as accountants might say.

If you just /want/ ECC, then yes $450 bucks is expensive. You don't /need/ it, though, so this is neither here nor there.

> You don't /need/ it, though, so this is neither here nor there.

The whole point of this article and discussion says otherwise. Don't come to me to complain about that. Your comment should be a top-level comment complaining at the author.

I fully agree with the author that ECC should not be reserved for expensive computers, of course, but I'm just here to point out that W680 is not a response to the author's concerns at all, period. W680 is a continuation of Intel's status quo.

Also, you can use asterisks to create italics.

I believe AMD APUs also have decent hardware acceleration like quicksync, for example available through VAAPI.
Unlike the CPUs, I think the AMD APUs that support ECC (the "Pro" versions) aren't available through normal retail channels.