[ffsm8]

I'm not sure how this would impact the server market in any way considering that epyc thread ripper has supported 4 TB for over 5 yrs now.

Is it the usual Apple distortion effect where fanboys just can't help themselves?

It's definitely a sizeable amount of RAM though, and definitely enough to run the majority of websites running on the web. But so would a budget Linux server costing maybe 100-200 bucks per month.

[Moto7451]

The question is about embedded DRAM, not trying to put a Mac in the data center. I am unaware of an apples to apples comparison here, but on the same Intel and AMD platform there can be a performance increase associated with embedded high speed LPDDR5 vs something on an SODIMM, which is why CAMM is being developed for that space.

I would be interested as well in what an on chip memory bank would do for an EPYC or similar system since exotic high performance systems are fun even if all I’ll ever touch at this point is commodity stuff on AWS and GCP.

[ffsm8]

He edited his comment. The previous version did reference the 512 GB being so big that it'd be a game changer for servers.

[jmb99]

Yeah, 512GB was a game changer for servers... with DDR3...

And that wasn’t even where it topped out, there were servers supporting 6TB of DDR3 in a single machine. DDR4 had at least 12TB in a single (quad-CPU) machine that I know of (not sure if there were any 96*256GB DDR4 configs). These days, if money’s no object, there exist boards supporting 24TB of DDR5. I think even some quad-CPU DDR2-era SKUs could do 1.5TB. 512GB is nothing.

(Not directly in response to you, just adding context.)

[cellularmitosis]

While I did make a couple of cosmetic edits within a few minutes of posting (before there were any replies), even the original was referring to the speed of the memory ("on-chip"), not its size.

You misunderstood my post, and I don't appreciate the tone of your reply.

[ffsm8]

I didn't appreciate you removing everything I responded to either, replacing it with something making my comment look entirely out of context.

While I believe you that you meant to write about the different performance profile of on chip memory, that's not what you did at the time I wrote my reply. What you actually did write was how 512 GB of RAM might revolutionize i.e. database servers. Which I addressed.

And if you hadn't written that, I wouldn't have written my comment either, because I'm not a database developer that could speculate on performance side-grades of such kind (less memory, but closer to the CPU)

[cellularmitosis]

This is ridiculous, I changed like 3 words. While I did originally mention 512GB, the context (“on-chip”) made it clear I was referring to the speed, not the size.