[coder543]

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.

[Dalewyn]

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.

[coder543]

> 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.