News Intel's Alder Lake, Raptor Lake CPUs Get Support for 192GB of DDR5

[Admin]

MSI's Intel 600 and 700-series motherboards now support 24GB and 48GB memory modules.

Intel's Alder Lake, Raptor Lake CPUs Get Support for 192GB of DDR5 : Read more

 

[zecoeco]

Who on earth is going to max-out his mobo. with 192GB of expensive DRR5 memory?
Gamers? Creators? Enthusiastics? Its basically useless and unfeasible.

 

[bit_user]

Who on earth is going to max-out his mobo. with 192GB of expensive DRR5 memory?
Gamers? Creators? Enthusiastics? Its basically useless and unfeasible.

People who run lots of VMs, for one.

Anyway, if they can reach 192 GB, that suggests they also should be able to handle 256 GB. So, this is very interesting news.

 

[bit_user]

That's a rather confusing table. Why all "0", unless to show that none of them support it?

​

​

If their intent is to confirm support, couldn't they have used a check mark, "yes", or simply "Y"?

 

[PiranhaTech]

Who on earth is going to max-out his mobo. with 192GB of expensive DRR5 memory?
Gamers? Creators? Enthusiastics? Its basically useless and unfeasible.

For most users, I agree.

I can see the standard getting bumped up to 32GB for gaming, possibly 64GB, but that might be 1-2 console generations away. SSD speeds increasing might lower the need for more RAM.

Windows does pre-load often-used programs into free RAM. If the price becomes reasonable, I would be tempted to try using disk caching like PrimoCache. The only issue is that PrimoCache doesn't seem to use a lot of RAM, so it's hard to tell if a huge amount will actually have any effect

 

[bloodroses]

Who on earth is going to max-out his mobo. with 192GB of expensive DRR5 memory?
Gamers? Creators? Enthusiastics? Its basically useless and unfeasible.

I'm currently running 128GB DDR4 on my Alder Lake i9. For a list of uses: Unraid with multiple dockers and VMs, RAM scratch drives for processes that require tons of reading/writing, RAM cache to reduce wear and tear on SSDs, etc.

It's much easier to max out your memory at the time of building if you think you may use it than it is later on and hoping the chips match. It's also much cheaper in the long run compared to upgrading to keep up with higher demands (outside DDR5). Plus with the sales for DDR4 at the time when I built it, it was no more expensive than going with a DDR5 motherboard and 32GB of RAM.

 

[bloodroses]

For most users, I agree.

I can see the standard getting bumped up to 32GB for gaming, possibly 64GB, but that might be 1-2 console generations away. SSD speeds increasing might lower the need for more RAM.

Windows does pre-load often-used programs into free RAM. If the price becomes reasonable, I would be tempted to try using disk caching like PrimoCache. The only issue is that PrimoCache doesn't seem to use a lot of RAM, so it's hard to tell if a huge amount will actually have any effect

I'm using PrimoCache on my system. I only reserved 16GB out of 128GB since any more seemed unnecessary. It's caching 4 NVM/SSDs to reduce wear and tear and one large platter drive to help performance.

 

[-Fran-]

This is actually nice, for sure. If only Windows Home would support more than 128GB of RAM xD!

Win Pro can/will allocate 512GB, so that should be fine for a while.

Regards.

 

[osiris11235]

This is making the 128 GB of DDR 5 I just got feel puny (I do ML training)

 

[logainofhades]

Who on earth is going to max-out his mobo. with 192GB of expensive DRR5 memory?
Gamers? Creators? Enthusiastics? Its basically useless and unfeasible.

It is not useless or unfeasible. I work for a diecast company, and I work with Zeiss's Calypso software, which recommends 64gb. I know some of the modeling and simulation software we run can make use of even more than that.

 

[PlaneInTheSky]

48 and 192 feel icky. It's not a power of 2.

 

[bit_user]

48 and 192 feel icky. It's not a power of 2.

I guess that's what happens when you're limited more by die area than address bits.

I'm a little surprised it didn't happen sooner, TBH. Maybe it's because demand for RAM is growing faster than process node advancements can satisfy it through increased density?

 

[jtimouri]

Who on earth is going to max-out his mobo. with 192GB of expensive DRR5 memory?
Gamers? Creators? Enthusiastics? Its basically useless and unfeasible.

I am glad that there are suppliers out there who do not subscribe to the opinion that no one should need or want improvements in products. Ten years from now we are going to wonder how we got along with a mere 128 GB of memory, "back in the days".

 

[bit_user]

I am glad that there are suppliers out there who do not subscribe to the opinion that no one should need or want improvements in products.

Yes, although I think this is coming from strong market demand. Mostly in the server market, but there's real demand.

Ten years from now we are going to wonder how we got along with a mere 128 GB of memory, "back in the days".

Maybe? I built a machine 10 years ago and used 16 GB of RAM, which seemed a lot to me at the time. It still seems a lot to me, and the only thing really filling it up is web browsers. I know that's more a commentary about the web than the browsers, but still.

BTW, the reason I went with 16 GB is that ram was rather cheap at the specific time and it's a quad-channel machine. So, I had to pick either 2 GB or 4 GB dimms and the price difference was fairly linear. I went with 4 GB dimms and figured it'd be enough for the life of the machine, which it has.