[schmorptron]

Maybe not that low, but given it's using LPDDR5 instead of GDDR7, at least the ram should be a lot cheaper.

[Neywiny]

Certainly an interesting choice. Dramatically worse performance but dramatically larger only time will tell how it actually goes

[magicalhippo]

With 160GB, surely they can add more channels to compensate?

[benob]

Is there anything preventing them from using heterogeneous memory chips, like 1/4 GDDR7 and 3/4 LPDDR? It could enable new MEO-like architectures with finer-grained performance tuning for long contexts.

[vetrom]

You'd have to burn more die space for the duplicate but different ram controller logic and cache trees, I bet.

If the internal bus architecture is anything similar to QPI, getting the 'different' parts to communicate reliably is probably also a pain.

[schmorptron]

Rumor has it (according to MLID, so no one knows whether it's accurate) that AMD is also looking to use regular LPDDR memory for some of it's lower end next gen GPUs to not have to contend with nvidia over limited and cartelled GDDR7 supply. Maybe they're going to increase parallel bandwidth to compensate it? Or have wholly different tricks up their sleeve.

[woleium]

probably just a lot more of it, to capture that consumer ai market

[Tepix]

It‘s LPDDR5X

[wtallis]

LPDDR5x really just means LPDDR5 running at higher than the original speed of 6400MT/s. Absent any information about which faster speed they'll be using, this correction doesn't add anything to the discussion. Nobody would expect even Intel to use 6400MT/s for a product that far in the future. Where they'll land on the spectrum from 8533 MT/s to 10700 MT/s is just a matter for speculation at the moment.