Top
Best
New

Posted by ihsw 5 days ago

Meta reuses old RAM in new servers with custom bridge chip(www.networkworld.com)
236 points | 159 commentspage 2
blobbers 3 hours ago|
I am have an old Pentium 4 with RDRAM, think I could sell it to them? I think it has like 256MB. Haven't turned it on in awhile. Hope the first 640KB still work.
baerbelblue 2 hours ago||
Thank you, LLM / AI dorks! I cannot even sensibly finance a proper homelab firewall / router these days, thanks to you and your agentic shit.
platevoltage 23 minutes ago|
Yeah seriously. Thanks for ruining everything I love.
ok123456 5 hours ago||
Literally the "new old thing":

https://www.andysarcade.net/store2/all-other-stuff/vintage-c...

jvdongen 4 hours ago|
It reminded me more about these kind of things actually: https://www.ebay.com/itm/277636244509 (ISA RAM Expansion Boards from the PC/XT era)
westurner 5 days ago||
ScholarlyArticle: "Vistara: Making CXL Real—Full Path from ASIC Design and OS Support to Hyperscale Deployment" (2026) https://aisystemcodesign.github.io/papers/isca26/vistara_cam...

TIL there are 2x 2.5GbE PCI-E HAT adapters for Pi 5.

How to attach RAM to the new NVLink/UALink fiber buses?

piinbinary 4 hours ago||
I wonder if it would ever start to make sense to burn an AI model into ROM, replacing a large portion of an inference machine's RAM with ROM. (Probably not, since I'm sure those machines do dual-duty and run training when the inference workload slows down)
jmillikin 4 hours ago||
That's the idea behind Taalas (https://taalas.com), except as silicon rather than ROM. They run a demo at https://chatjimmy.ai/ which serves an old open weights model (Llama 3.1 8B) at something like 15,000 tokens per second.
HarHarVeryFunny 3 hours ago|||
Companies are building chips specialized for inference, so dual use for training isn't necessarily a consideration, but there are other considerations such as:

Weights need to be loaded into the accelerator's processor fast, which means they need to be physically adjacent to it, but there is limited physical space for that - not enough to fit the all the weights of a 1T+ param model, so weights get loaded into VRAM dynamically according to what part of the model is being run.

ROM (I guess we're talking Flash memory) can be dense, since it is built vertically - many hundreds of layers, but this comes at the cost of poor performance, so even if you could fit enough ROM next to the processor it would not be fast enough.

torginus 8 hours ago||
With regards to RAM price I never understood the following: A 16GB RAM stick has 16*8=128 billion bits, with 1 transistor per bit, thats still 128B, yet its supposed to cost like $60 before the price hikes? In contrast, a 5090 GPU was $2000 (true it has RAM, but you're paying for the GPU ASIC really, I guess the rest of the GPU was less than $500), it had 93B transistors.

GPU transistors are smaller due to the more advanced process node (cost per transistor metrics aren't really clear, if they improve on advanced node or not, but I'd say they get cheaper as they get smaller, as technology costs are amortized).

I'm sure both RAM and logic use a process that is quite similar in both inputs and manufacturing steps. So while RAM is a commodity product, this insane price difference didn't make any sense.

So I guess when those fundamental inputs become a constraint, it would make sense for $/transistor move closer for both, which is a massive hike for RAM.

rcxdude 8 hours ago||
Chip fabrication processes are not fungible: GPUs and CPUs might be made on roughly the same process, but DRAM is not (flash is a different process again, as is power electronics, analog electronics, MEMS, etc. And even within those broader categories there are different variations). While there are some overlaps in machines and techniques, a fab set up for one cannot generally switch to the other, and the economics of each process can also be drastically different.
joha4270 7 hours ago||
You're not the first person to say so (and I don't mean to dispute it), but I have never been able to find a clear answer for /why/ those processes are incompatible.

Is it built in different silicon, is it physical steps that's incompatible (ie its actually incompatible), is it different physical preparations that needs to be made (making it economically infeasible to combine)

I cannot help but wonder, even if the answer doesn't change anything in my life.

dlenski 6 hours ago|||
To add to the other comments…

At a very abstract level, when you're manufacturing DRAM you need to manufacture a lot of circuit elements that have HIGH capacitance, since a DRAM cell is basically a capacitor and the higher its capacitance the less frequently it needs to be refreshed.

On the other hand, when manufacturing logic (CPU/GPU/ASIC) you want to minimize the capacitance of almost all circuit elements, since capacitance introduces delay and switching energy cost.

Nearly everything about the manufacturing processes for DRAM and logic is optimized around this fundamentally incompatible figure of merit.

I worked on the development of Intel's eDRAM process, which was used to integrate DRAM into the CPU/GPU die for Iris Pro embedded graphics from 2013-23. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6576667/

jahnu 7 hours ago||||
https://www.reddit.com/r/Semiconductors/comments/r1dqmw/how_...

A Reddit user explains a bit here.

pjc50 6 hours ago||||
Medium ELI5 answer: each company and to a great extent each individual fab has a slightly different recipe, which is known as a "process node". This defines all the fabrication steps, every individual layer and its chemical/physical processing.

This in turn affects the electrical properties: parasitic resistance/capacitance, gate dielectric properties and so on. The dielectric in particular is critically different between DRAM and regular CMOS, because DRAM needs to minimise leakage (as that determines how long the memory lasts between refresh cycles).

Regular factories will retool somewhat between jobs. Because it is quite difficult to finetune a silicon process node, it is more common that a fab will set up for a particular node and then switch to "do not touch or change anything under any circumstances", as doing so may wreck yields.

("different substrate entirely" does exist: that's GaN, for power transistors in phone chargers, and SiC, for even higher power transistors.)

rcxdude 4 hours ago||||
To expand a little on this: a chip fabrication process is a series of steps from incoming bare wafers to finished chips (potentially multiple wafers get combined into a finished chip, as well). To build up the physical structure of the chip, there are a series of steps where different materials are deposited or grown on the surface, masked through photolithography, and removed in order to shape the structure of the chip layer by layer. Each of these depends on not just what that layer itself requires (material, thickness, resolution), but also on the layers around it, because these steps are not independent: a lot of process design is in finding a way to construct a given chip that means each step is compatible with the others.

What's more, the configuration and flow of the machines used for each step are quite sensitive: you cannot in general just stand up another fab with the same machines, apply the same settings, and hit go on a new chip design and expect any yield: you need to dial in each step, certainly for each process, and likely for each design. This makes switching things around more difficult as well.

So, while in general a fab will have certain common features: spin coaters, photolithography machines, vapor deposition chambers, ovens, etc, the number and specification of each one will vary based on the process, and a production fab will generally not want to change their process drastically, or even to swap between different designs too often.

crote 7 hours ago||||
The physical structure is completely different. Just compare DRAM ([0]) with compute ([1]). As a result, the production process is completely different.

If you want to know more, the Asianometry youtube channel has some fairly good deep dives, such as [2] going through a decent bunch of the 45nm production process, or [3] doing the same for (early) DRAM.

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bln-v9LmZ3E

[1]: https://i1.wp.com/semiengineering.com/wp-content/uploads/201...

[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUgy29h0alM

[3]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPualBNf1nM

wolfi1 7 hours ago||||
from my basic understanding, memory is much easier to produce then logic chips like GPUs and CPUs, they don't need that many photolithographic layers. while it could be possible to produce memory in fabs for CPUs (though not really desirable in regard to costs) the other way round is more difficult
cduzz 6 hours ago||||
[flagged]
malfist 7 hours ago|||
> but I have never been able to find a clear answer for /why/ those processes are incompatible.

You can't find an explanation why they're different for the same reason you can't find an explanation why writing poetry and riding a unicycle isn't the same process.

kjs3 6 hours ago||
Or, you could look at your peer answers where people very much do provide a non hand-wave answers. Chip fabrication isn't undergrad philosophy; there are well understood reasons for why things are done if you care to find and understand them. And there are stakes in the millions or billions of US$ for getting them wrong.
NooneAtAll3 6 hours ago|||
RAM is literally copy-paste of the same circuit over and over, you're trying to compare cost to produce million AK-47 with 1 carrier

and cost per transistor stopped decreasing at ~20-30nm, now small nodes are targetting energy efficiency (and thus performance, since heat is the main limiter)

WmWsjA6B29B4nfk 7 hours ago|||
On top of everything said, 5090 die size is 10x than typical DDR5 die size. One RAM module is 8-16 dies, so you do get more silicon in the end, but larger dies are extremely expensive to produce due to sharply decreasing yields.
rmu09 8 hours ago|||
The thing that defines performance of DRAM is AFAIK the capacitor of the bit cells and not the transistor driving it. And also AFAIK the process to create those capacitors is quite unique to DRAM, so you can't just go and use a "logic" process unchanged and produce DRAMs.
ismaVQ 8 hours ago|||
newer process node are smaller but very expensive compared to mature ones, each wafer from TSMC latest process is costly and with lower yield due to GPU large die size (+700mm2 compared to around 60mm2 per DRAM die)
adastra22 8 hours ago|||
Why would you expect smaller transistors to be cheaper?
torginus 3 hours ago|||
Because you are paying for silicon, and processes, not transistors. Wafers have a certain cost, and litographic processes can illuminate a certain X mm2 of dies in an hour. If a transistor gets smaller, more of them fit in a certain area.

Granted the machines that make them become more expensive, but that's capital expenditure, which gets amortized as time goes on.

So there are two forces here working against each other.

adastra22 42 minutes ago||
You are not paying for silicon, lol. The cost of a chip is many, many orders of magnitude more than the raw material cost.
jeffbee 6 hours ago|||
That is what Moore's Law said.
xandrius 6 hours ago||
Not really a law though.
jeffbee 6 hours ago||
Nobody voted for it, that's true. But since reality held closely to it for decades right up to the present, it's reasonable to believe that transistors get smaller and cheaper as time passes.
tliltocatl 5 hours ago||
"Moore's law" is a marketing gimmick. The real physical law that held for decades is Dennard scaling, which stopped to apply already in 2006 once transistors got too small so short channel effects and gate leakage kicked in.
jeffbee 5 hours ago||
Dennard scaling hit a wall but Moore's Law did not. Worth considering why. One of these is physical and the other is economic.
gloryjulio 7 hours ago|||
RAM is a commodity. It has much less moat to prevent competitions. When the rams flood the market that's when the bubble ends, until the next cycle arrives. Processors are much harder to design and commoditize.
mschuster91 8 hours ago|||
> So while RAM is a commodity product, this insane price difference didn't make any sense.

Supply and demand coupled with the fact that a RAM fab can't (trivially) output compute chips, and vice versa, a compute fab can't output RAM. It's two completely different supply chains.

Lomlioto 8 hours ago||
A GPU Transistor is a lot more complicated than a RAM transistor and the size of these are quite different too. Bleeding edge vs. a known process with know machines and written off machines.

Also you calculate in the machine cost and R&D.

RAM hiked because the demand spiked and these companies are now in power. Before apple and other companies told them the prices and had hardly any money for investment.

mondainx 4 hours ago||
It'd be interested to see how one could leverage all the DDR3 ECC that they may have laying about; maybe an overseas shopping site has these boards available? Would DDR3 be as fast or faster than an SSD?
oh_no 3 hours ago|
top of the line SSDs now eclipse DDR3 throughput, but DDR3 should retain a large edge in latency of orders of magnitude

absolutely no idea how useful any of that would be and what kind of latency degradation going through whatever adapter would cause

bushbaba 2 hours ago||
Wonder if Intel optain will would have made a huge comeback.
asdefghyk 3 hours ago||
WE need to learn to use computing resources more efficently. Use RAM more efficently.Todays software just squanders computing resources.- like RAM
amelius 6 hours ago|
In the future, hardware is only for big companies to own. At least it seems we're heading that way.
TacticalCoder 5 hours ago||
> In the future, hardware is only for big companies to own. At least it seems we're heading that way.

China is desperate to sell anything to... everyone. If there's a market, they'll eventually be there to fill it.

It took them decades for cars, but now they did it.

For RAM, CXMT went from 20 000 wafers per month to... 240 000 wafers per month in something like two years. And they're extending capacity massively now. It's a company only 10 years old.

The market is there and China shall flood it: that's how they operate with everything.

At some point they'll probably even come with GPUs that shall do 80% of the job for 20% of the price.

Just like you can buy chinese server motherboards at 1/5th the price of a SuperMicro one today.

So I'm not sure hardware is going to be only for big companies: China is going to put pressure on the OpenAI and Anthropic of this world locking all the RAM / SSDs / chips of this world.

Zancarius 3 hours ago|||
I think there's a great deal of underestimation of China's manufacturing. Granted, wafers are a totally different thing than any of the other industries they've dominated for cheap, but I certainly wouldn't count them out.

I've recently gotten into fountain pens. Sure, a $7 Jinhao or $15 Hongdian pen isn't going to write quite as nice as a $200+ pen, but they're about 80% of the way there, and you can buy tons of them for the cost of a single more expensive pen. Plus, some models will accept Western nibs just fine which means you're buying a cheap barrel and assembling a much higher quality product for almost pennies on the dollar.

One would do well not to underestimate their ability to fill markets. It may take years, but it will happen.

amelius 4 hours ago|||
Can you buy Chinese cars without the Multimedia/GPS computer and "phone home" system?
alex43578 4 hours ago||
Maybe? But there's honestly not much market for this, as I'd guess less than 1% of the population cares about this. Particularly since they're already carrying a phone anyway.
amelius 3 hours ago|||
For export, other countries could require a "dumb" car, to which domestic companies could add the intelligence.

Anyway, the point is that in the future you cannot own things. Whether that is because of the small market or because of other reasons, that does not matter.

serf 4 hours ago|||
there isn't a market for barebones for the sake of privacy, but there is a market apparently for 'barebones for the sake of value', which is what the whole Slate truck thing is attacking.

I'm sure a chinese EV group could key in on the same pure-value market if there isn't a group already doing that. 'Golf carts for the street.'

jgalt212 5 hours ago||
Have you seen the talk: The Coming War on General Computation?
amelius 4 hours ago||
No, but I'm sure I'll agree with a lot of things in it.
More comments...