Linus Torvalds Switches To AMD Ryzen Threadripper After 15 Years Of Intel Systems

[duby229]

That it isn't enough in many cases is irrelevant to if there should exist single-channel systems.

You own a car? In many more cases it isn't needed.
You own a house? In many more cases it isn't needed.
You own a ...

See a pattern there? It doesn't matter how many examples you can list where dual channel is good or needed - that doesn't change the fact that there are other situations where single-channel is good enough. So in the end, best is still to have available both single-channel and dual-channel systems but make sure that single-channel systems aren't falsely advertised or sold for situations where they aren't good enough.

But an APU is so very much more than a laptop. And a laptop for 12-year-old school students in one part of the world needs to fulfill way different requirements than a laptop for someone who plans to use an external 4k monitor.

That thinking is so prejudiced. Are you insinuating that 12 year old students in some parts of the world don't deserve access to external 4k screens? And who do you think you are that you can be their judge? If those 12 year old students want to use an external 4k screen then they should definitely have that right. Limiting access to capable hardware for them is wrong. Just plain wrong.

[zyxxel]

That thinking is so prejudiced. Are you insinuating that 12 year old students in some parts of the world don't deserve access to external 4k screens? And who do you think you are that you can be their judge? If those 12 year old students want to use an external 4k screen then they should definitely have that right. Limiting access to capable hardware for them is wrong. Just plain wrong.

No, I'm insinuating that they might not be able to afford an external 4k screen and that a single or dual bank of RAM makes a difference in price.

Just a tip.

A => B means A implies B.
A <=> B means A is equivalent with B.
A => B is not necessarily the same as B => A.

So "not needing" isn't the same as "must not be allowed to have".

Ever wondered why cars are sold in different sizes and different price ranges?

Your want/need isn't necessarily the same as others wants/needs.

Don't be so prejudiced when you see someone drive a small - or old - car. Because by your logic, you are.

[duby229]

No, I'm insinuating that they might not be able to afford an external 4k screen and that a single or dual bank of RAM makes a difference in price.

Just a tip.

A => B means A implies B.
A <=> B means A is equivalent with B.
A => B is not necessarily the same as B => A.

So "not needing" isn't the same as "must not be allowed to have".

Ever wondered why cars are sold in different sizes and different price ranges?

Your want/need isn't necessarily the same as others wants/needs.

Don't be so prejudiced when you see someone drive a small - or old - car. Because by your logic, you are.

Hold up.... You brought up 12 year old students in some parts of the world. That was the point that -you- made. As far as I'm concerned kids in -any- part of the world should have access to the very best technology this world has to offer, they are the future of our world. I know something about product tiering and I think it's time for some massive tieraside, but that is totally beside the point that you made about 12 year old students from some parts of the world.

[zyxxel]

Hold up.... You brought up 12 year old students in some parts of the world. That was the point that -you- made. As far as I'm concerned kids in -any- part of the world should have access to the very best technology this world has to offer, they are the future of our world. I know something about product tiering and I think it's time for some massive tieraside, but that is totally beside the point that you made about 12 year old students from some parts of the world.

You need to slow down.

If all you have is $100 and there is one computer for $100 and one computer for $110, you have two choices. Buy the computer you can afford. Or stand there with no computer at all.

It's cheaper to produce a computer with one 8 GB memory module than with two 4 GB modules.

Have you still failed to understand what I said about cars made in different sizes and prices? You still think it's a question of prejudice that people want to pay different amounts? Or have different ability on how much they can afford?

You are prejudiced here, because you think rich people all over the world doesn't have the ability to buy whatever they want. While at the same time you fail to realize that not all people are rich so there is a need for products for all wallet sizes. You prejudice is that no one who can't afford a high-end computer should be able to buy one, because you think it's prejudice if the computer shop have cheaper computers available.

"Should have access to" is a totally irrelevant strawman argument to this discussion about use of single-channel or dual-channel memory. And your personal view on your experiences with external 4k screens are irrelevant too, since the majority of the human population doesn't have any plans to get any external 4k monitors - those 4k monitors would not make their day better in any way.

[coder]

That thinking is so prejudiced. Are you insinuating that 12 year old students in some parts of the world don't deserve access to external 4k screens? And who do you think you are that you can be their judge?

Whoah. Somebody didn't get their outrage fix for the day!

I think the point was that there are markets for which price is just a hard constraint, or maybe the overriding priority. If you only sold it in the more expensive configuration, some people and institutions who are on the edge of affording it would have to step down to something potentially much worse.

Yeah, in a perfect world, everyone would have the best, most cutting-edge hardware and all the rest, but that's not the economic reality. So, the next best thing is to support a wide range of configurations and price points, to at least offer the most opportunities.

I know something about product tiering and I think it's time for some massive tieraside, but that is totally beside the point that you made about 12 year old students from some parts of the world.

Now you've veered off into sheer idiocy.

It's one thing, when a manufacturer artificially limits core count or clock speed, just for the sake of market segmentation. However, you're talking about more physical RAM components, which means larger boards with more traces/layers and more physical chips (if not also more DIMM sockets and DIMMs). That costs actual money, and impacts on power, size, and weight.


Also, it's not just about poor kids. There are kiosk and industrial applications that might run fine with a single-channel. If AMD didn't allow such configurations, they would lose at least some of that business.

[zyxxel]

Whoah. Somebody didn't get their outrage fix for the day!

I think the point was that there are markets for which price is just a hard constraint, or maybe the overriding priority. If you only sold it in the more expensive configuration, some people and institutions who are on the edge of affording it would have to step down to something potentially much worse.

Yeah, in a perfect world, everyone would have the best, most cutting-edge hardware and all the rest, but that's not the economic reality. So, the next best thing is to support a wide range of configurations and price points, to at least offer the most opportunities.


Now you've veered off into sheer idiocy.

It's one thing, when a manufacturer artificially limits core count or clock speed, just for the sake of market segmentation. However, you're talking about more physical RAM, which means larger boards with more traces/layers and more physical chips (if not also more DIMM sockets and DIMMs). That costs actual money, and impacts on power, size, and weight.


Also, it's not just about poor kids. There are kiosk and industrial applications that might run fine with a single-channel. If AMD didn't allow such configurations, they would lose at least some of that business.

There is another aspect for RAM. A RAM stick has a fixed size, so there is a limit to the number of chips that fits on the stick.

When going for a high-end machine with really large RAM sticks, only the best fabs can make really large RAM chips. And these fabs have a limited capacity. So there is a premium price for the chips besides just the extra because they are larger.

This means that if I buy a server motherboard with 8 RAM slots, it costs more if I go for 4 silly large RAM sticks or if I go for 8 sticks that are half the size each. So I can either decide to pay premium, and later add 4 more modules. Or go the cheaper route and later have to throw away 8 sticks to replace with 8 larger sticks. So for high-end hardware, it isn't an extra cost to make us of all memory channels.

But when moving down to smaller RAM modules, the mechanical cost starts to matter. It takes more time in the factory to make two 4 GB sticks than one 8 GB stick. So at the smaller end of memories, there is a very real reason why a single, twice-as-large, stick is cheaper than two smaller sticks.

So it isn't an arbitrary choice to be evil, that we see single-channel deliveries in lower range products. It really does affect the price of the product. And the price is a very important factor for the lower range products - either because the customer can't afford more, or the product is intended for a huge mass-market. 1 million kiosk installations means $5 difference per installation is a $5 million saving.

[duby229]

Whoah. Somebody didn't get their outrage fix for the day!

I think the point was that there are markets for which price is just a hard constraint, or maybe the overriding priority. If you only sold it in the more expensive configuration, some people and institutions who are on the edge of affording it would have to step down to something potentially much worse.

Yeah, in a perfect world, everyone would have the best, most cutting-edge hardware and all the rest, but that's not the economic reality. So, the next best thing is to support a wide range of configurations and price points, to at least offer the most opportunities.


Now you've veered off into sheer idiocy.

It's one thing, when a manufacturer artificially limits core count or clock speed, just for the sake of market segmentation. However, you're talking about more physical RAM components, which means larger boards with more traces/layers and more physical chips (if not also more DIMM sockets and DIMMs). That costs actual money, and impacts on power, size, and weight.


Also, it's not just about poor kids. There are kiosk and industrial applications that might run fine with a single-channel. If AMD didn't allow such configurations, they would lose at least some of that business.

You're so wrong. That bullshit is the same exact reason why Intel releases CPU's without features like virtualization hardware... And it's wrong... Who do you think you are that you think you can decide how poor people -have- to be?

Tieraside, it's what must happen.

[duby229]

There is another aspect for RAM. A RAM stick has a fixed size, so there is a limit to the number of chips that fits on the stick.

When going for a high-end machine with really large RAM sticks, only the best fabs can make really large RAM chips. And these fabs have a limited capacity. So there is a premium price for the chips besides just the extra because they are larger.

This means that if I buy a server motherboard with 8 RAM slots, it costs more if I go for 4 silly large RAM sticks or if I go for 8 sticks that are half the size each. So I can either decide to pay premium, and later add 4 more modules. Or go the cheaper route and later have to throw away 8 sticks to replace with 8 larger sticks. So for high-end hardware, it isn't an extra cost to make us of all memory channels.

But when moving down to smaller RAM modules, the mechanical cost starts to matter. It takes more time in the factory to make two 4 GB sticks than one 8 GB stick. So at the smaller end of memories, there is a very real reason why a single, twice-as-large, stick is cheaper than two smaller sticks.

So it isn't an arbitrary choice to be evil, that we see single-channel deliveries in lower range products. It really does affect the price of the product. And the price is a very important factor for the lower range products - either because the customer can't afford more, or the product is intended for a huge mass-market. 1 million kiosk installations means $5 difference per installation is a $5 million saving.

See my last post. What you're saying is so fucking wrong. It's immoral to the very highest degree.

[zyxxel]

See my last post. What you're saying is so fucking wrong. It's immoral to the very highest degree.

Nothing can help you. Condolences to your poor family for having to put up with someone not too smart. I have to assume you get help logging on.

Two or one memory channel isn't the difference between a 1 or a 2 in a text. It isn't a transistor that is on or off on the silicon.

It isn't the same manufacturing cost. You have had this explained to you, but it's outside your ability to grasp. Just as you can't grasp why some people have a cheaper car than others. Or a cheaper apartment. Or a cheaper bike. Or cheaper clothes. Money matter - and in a fair world, someone have to help out and supply items even for people who can't afford the expensive alternatives. In your world, the car manufacturers are to blame that they can't sell Rolls Royce cars at Fiat Uno prices.

If you were smart, you would look into the requirements to CAD a PCB for a single-channel board or a dual-channel board. If you were smart, you would consider the issue when every trace needs to be exactly the same length because the speed of light is slow compared to the frequencies used by modern memories. You would consider the PCB space needed for more memory modules. You would consider the manufacturing costs of twice as many modules. You would consider the actual gain from having them.

But are you? Or did you decide one day that for the rest of your life you wanted to be ignorant?

[coder]

You're so wrong. That bullshit is the same exact reason why Intel releases CPU's without features like virtualization hardware... And it's wrong... Who do you think you are that you think you can decide how poor people -have- to be?

Further proof that you're just lashing out to get that dopamine hit, or else you might've actually read the part of my post where I specifically distinguished external memory bus width from on-chip feature disablement.