Memory prices climb 500% in 12 months
tomshardware.com341 points by haunter a day ago
341 points by haunter a day ago
500% in a year is just insane. I knew RAM prices were going up, but $3k+ for 128GB of DDR5 makes me wonder how much of this is actually AI demand, and how much is this just manufacturers taking advantage of it. They have done this in the past after all
I don't understand the distinction you are making. If you have a massive excess of demand ready to pay any price, and a limited supply, of course the sellers will take advantage, that's how any market works. They can do that because of the lack of supply.
Over the long term demand will rationalise and supply will adjust. But in between there is a squeeze, and the right price is the maximum price buyers are willing to bid for the limited supply. Sucks for other buyers, on the other hand it ensures demand destruction, i.e. that the limited supply goes to the buyer who need it the most, other buyers will delay their purchase and do with what they have.
> If you have a massive excess of demand ready to pay any price, and a limited supply, of course the sellers will take advantage, that's how any market work
The question is how quickly the supply adjusts. In a free market, the suppliers would respond to the price signal by quickly expanding their production to meet the elevated demand.
But a market captured by a cartel will be much slower to expand the supply.
So, the test isn't "how much is price going up" it's "how aggressively are the RAM producers expanding supply production"
As has already been pointed out further down, OPEC is the perfect example of this. Things don't really work that way when the time scales are so extended. What we need is fracking, but silicon.
This system is too complex, the few individual players too big, with too many artificial distortions for the adjustment to equalize out in a way that's anything but years-long (it may have shock-waves that extend past the decade), and highly destructive to everyone who isn't OPEC, or their largest customers, in this analogy.
The brunt of it will be paid by the people further down the food chain.
Memory fab build out times are years not months. The existing ones already run 24/7. If these companies could pull more supply out of thin air they would, but they cannot.
Would they?
Cartels aren't known for massively increasing production to satisfy all demand. Far from it I'd say, they're more likely to expand supply to such a level that they can still reap massive profits. Very few countries/companies have the knowhow and willingness to be able to build more.
OPEC is a perfect example of this behaviour. They set hearly production goals to keep prices high. Or the Quebec Maple Syrup Producers organization that limits the amount of syrup a farmer can produce and sell in a year to keep prices high.
> OPEC is a perfect example of this behaviour.
It really is. First thing I searched for in the thread.
> Cartels aren't known for massively increasing production to satisfy all demand.
Don't worry they will leave money on the table and lobby for protectionism when china comes and eats their lunch.
But are the memory chip producers acting like a cartel? In the past they have not. When there was a shortage, they increased production as rapidly as they could build the new fabs, crashing the price of memory.
>In the past they have not.
Well guess what :) They've done it before, they will do it again.
"To date, five manufacturers have pleaded guilty to their involvement in an international price-fixing conspiracy between July 1, 1998, and June 15, 2002, including Hynix, Infineon, Micron Technology, Samsung, and Elpida.[1]"
Wasn't that bad for business last time? I could see them erring on slower build up because of how it went before, if they're not sure how long this demand will last especially
Memory fabs take years to build, they cost a lot and there is no guarantee that the demand will stay as high years in the future. It's all very complex.
Large barriers to entry are anathema to competitive markets, so the conclusion here is still that firms are benefitting from the lack of a competitive market.
I didn't say the build out time was months.
I said:
> the test isn't "how much is price going up" it's "how aggressively are the RAM producers expanding supply production"
I'm curious what the limiting factor is for "years not months" when building these fabs. DRAM is a commodity, there are only threeish major manufacturers, all have huge amounts of capital, multiple nations bend over backwards for new semiconductor production projects, and there seems to be unlimited money going into purchasing these things.
Even when it comes to manufacturing the tooling/testing infrastructure, it's just a question of money aiui.
> But a market captured by a cartel will be much slower to expand the supply.
Oh yea, governments can fix by putting 100 billion in memory fabs right now, and when demand crater in decade or so, let tax payer eat the cost of those fabs. At least it will benefit poor computer users like me.
> In a free market, the suppliers would respond to the price signal by quickly expanding their production to meet the elevated demand.
Why would they?
And you claim to have historic examples where they did?
Generally speaking, if demand stays high, and existing suppliers don't increase supply, the high prices create an incentive and opportunity for new market entrants to increase the supply.
Even if the memory market was completely competitive the time it takes to expand supply is measured in years. There was no way for them to serve the AI demand without reducing supply given to everyone else in the short run
> There was no way for them to serve the AI demand without reducing supply given to everyone else in the short run
I didn't say that there was a way to do it in the short run. I laid out what the test is to determine if there's cartel-like behavior or competitive-market-like behavior.
I will say, in a market with only 3 players and very high cap-ex cost, my prior is that you're likely to see more cartel-like behavior than competitive-market-like behavior, but that's still to be determined.
"that the limited supply goes to the buyer who need it the most" - I would say that the limited supply goes to the buyer who can afford to pay higher than others. Someone may need the memory more, but may not have the deeper pockets to pay for it like NVidia and Apple might.
I would have framed it as "buyer who can get the most leverage from it", which equates to being able to spend more. It's an economic argument, not a values argument.
You suppose what you'll do with the ram has an incidence on your capacity to buy it which is only true if you are part of those able to get financing.
Gamers may need the memory more, but AI labs can use the memory more productively
> I don't understand the distinction you are making.
20 years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRAM_industry_price_fixing
> According to the one-count charge filed in San Francisco's federal court on Thursday, Park conspired with unnamed employees from other memory makers to fix the price of DRAM sold to computer makers from April 1, 2001, to June 15, 2002. The government says the move directly affected sales to U.S. computer makers Dell, Hewlett-Packard, Compaq, IBM, Apple Computer, and Gateway.
etc
I'm sure there will be no large scale leverage campaign against a country who is enabling profiteering at this level. No defense agreements removed, troops removed from the country, or large tariff increases around failed investments.
I'm sure it will only suck for the buyers. This has no effect on inflation and probably will be overlooked by the current admin.
"limited supply goes to the buyer who need it the most"
No? It goes to the buyer with the deepest pockets.
it is probable that you don't get the deepest pockets by wasting money. anyone that pays so much for memory means they expect to get even bigger value from that.
> I don't understand the distinction you are making.
It's pretty simple. In a correctly regulated market the sellers are in competition with each other so there is a limit to how much they can increase prices, since they'll just lose business to their competitor.
In a poorly regulated market that allows competitors to collude with each other to raise prices by the same amount, they'll inflate prices much further.
The distinction is that on the latter case you have a cartel that decided to fix prices and fuck everyone in the ass.
In an absolutely free market? sure. But we don't live in an absolutely free market, the memory manufacturers have refused to budge on creating new fabs until recently out of caution and to be able to create a demand excess.
They have slow rolled rollouts and everything, if there wasn't CXMT they would probably still wouldn't have budged on building new fabs for a while longer.
You can absolutely price fix/manufacture a shortage. Ever heard of merchants setting fire to crops after hoarding to sell at a higher price?
The issue is the distributer and producer are the very same people this essentially means producers have no incentive to rationalize supply, they can make much more money of the long drawn out shortage.
I think everyone is aware now that you don't build a fab by snapping your fingers, and you need to amortise it over many years. The said manufacturers are just out of a massive slump in demand during covid, when they were selling at a loss, and these cycles happened many times in this industry. It is understandable that they don't jump all-in on the AI bandwagon, which, god knows where it is going and for how long.
If you want evidence that no one predicted this, look at WD. They disinvested from sandisk up to early this year. Now sandisk is worth more than WD. Doesn't seem consistent with a concerted strategy to gauge prices.
> You can absolutely price fix/manufacture a shortage. Ever heard of merchants setting fire to crops after hoarding to sell at a higher price?
Fine. Show me which manufacturer is cutting production to corner the market. I don't see that.
Yes when there are large fixed costs to expanding production, that will happen more slowly, after determining that the high demand isn't just a short term spike.
It's not like wheat, where you just can just plant more at marginal cost (I'm sure someone in farming will now explain why that isn't exactly true either).
I'm not super familiar with farming, but I'm pretty sure there is an upper bound on how much wheat you can plant dictated by the amount of land you own.
I feel like I and HN live in different worlds,
https://www.blocksandfiles.com/ai-ml/2026/01/20/samsung-sk-h...
Big manufactures have absolutely cut production of lower margin products and it's not like they can re-purpose all of the equipment used for it for HBM yet. edit They can definitely focus more resource because of it on HBM though.
Things have improved a bit since govts are starting to get angry.
Tldr; no one is cutting the production of high margin stuff, but low margin stuff can go and die, because it's not a free market it's a stock market these companies want to show off better margins in every unit there is no reason to keep inefficient things running when not doing it pays more.
They just don't want 30-40% margins anymore. That is not free market that is quite literally serving their own interests because they know there is a monopoly.
All big memory manufacturers are heavily supported by the govt, that's what has made them the monopolies they are Micron supported by USA (they crushed Japan's memory industry for it), and Korean giants are more tangled up with the govt than well most people in US would realize.
Somehow people think free market means anything goes, which honestly is where we stand today so I don't blame anyone.
But using govts to crush competitions and build yourself up on subsidies and similar isn't really free markets. China hasn't been able to grow a significant memory chip industry yet because of lack of EUV machines and similar technologies blocked by the US, which is also not "free market".
As for WD, and Sandisk separating I feel like this was more mutual and they new HDDs or SSDs being together was a distraction for both. Which feels more strategic, think of it like this, the shareholders who had the shares how hold shares in both and together they might have likely been worth less so shareholders made money.
Aka good for free market. I don't see how that relates to the actual memory crunch issue more broadly.
Margins pre-AI were more like 5-15%. Even if the margin was 5%, if prices increased 5 times but product cost didn't move, then margins are now 80%. That's not a 30-40% product, your argument doesn't make any sense.
Feel free to spin up a fab and undercut the current prices, I'd certainly appreciate it!
I don't know if I would personally fund such a venture though, for roughly the same reason existing manufacturers aren't expanding production.
How about I threaten you with mandatory 10 Electron applications / AI agent harness on your computer? Now you must be ready to fund my venture :)
> the memory manufacturers have refused to budge on creating new fabs
That's EXACTLY how a free market is supposed to work. The existing memory manufacturers are FREE to not build new factories, and anyone else is FREE to build those factories in their place.
Then perhaps we’re seeing one of the downsides of that. When 0->1 is prohibitively expensive, existing players can continue to raise prices *very* high because cost-of-entry is extreme, until it’s not sufficiently extreme.
And then we have bubble issues because the introduction of a new, cheaper player, causes the bottom to fall out and for the circumstances that allowed the new manufacturer to exist to completely go away.
In addition of being expensive, it's also a gamble. If it wasn't risky then I don't think financing it would be that big of an issue.
This is also caused by the FREE market - consolidation, all markets tend to consolidate around a few companies due to economy of scale.
The fix is regulation - we are going to have NOT-FREE-MARKET electricity, NOT-FREE-MARKET water supply, .... for vital services.
I'm not talking about you, it's funny to see anti-regulation HN complain about a FREE MARKET working as such. Suddenly it's not so fun where you are at the losing end of the free market when it turns out some are willing to pay way more for RAM than you are.
Everybody needs electricity and water, but nobody needs more RAM except for companies. And they can pay for it.
You can travel to the ends of the earth, to a village down miles and miles of dirt roads and still see someone bent over their phone. People buy RAM.
Hello!? Us consumers need it too.
Really depends how you're defining "need".
Will you die without it?
Will your life as you know it end if your next phone has 8GB instead of 12GB?
You need 8GB at the very most, which isn't out of reach for any consumer. If you need more, then you are a professional and can afford more. Or you are a hobbyist, and your hobby doesn't deserve any subsidies from the hard working tax payer.
> But we don't live in an absolutely free market, the memory manufacturers have refused to budge on creating new fabs until recently out of caution
...that's how the market works. This is called capital discipline and is standard across industries. If the increase in demand is temporary, they would be spending 5-10 years of profit on facilities which will only lose money. The same works in non-capitalist economies too, you don't want to waste resources on stranded assets and many still believe this RAM demand is temporary and the house of cards will collapse.
FWIW I have a friend who makes hardware and it's extremely difficult for him to secure memory at any price. Because AI people have locked up so much of the upcoming supply it's often not a question of how much it will cost but of finding someone who will sell you memory at all. If this were price gouging I would expect he'd have no trouble finding allocations at exorbitant prices but that doesn't seem to be the case.
same here, even when we went to larger hardware producers, they were basically we would sell you, but we cant actually get any RAM at all either.
There are never shortages in a free market, just higher prices.
You appear to not understand how markets work, free or otherwise. For the purposes of this conversation, consider starting your education here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barriers_to_entry
At a longer timescale than very temporary supply shocks, I believe what I said is correct. The basic point is that if supply contracts, demand must contract as well, which in a free market happens via price increases and in an unfree market happens via shortages (i.e., the inability of buyers to obtain a good at a market-clearing price). If high barriers to entry are relevant in this context (obviously they very much exist in the memory industry!), then please enlighten me how, if you are capable of doing so without unconstructive snark.
There are only 3 manufacturers (about to be 4 soon) total. This is a demand crunch the likes of which the market hasn't seen before, prices are doing the natural thing.
You make it sound like the crunch is caused by manufacturers, my understanding is that it is caused by the abnormal demand. I am not aware that RAM production is at a historically low level.
Demand crunch comes from the customer. All HBM and DDR5 wafer capacity is sold out through 2027 and all three vendors are booking 2028 capacity.
This was not created by the manufacturers.
The manufacturers are not doing a whole lot to fix the problem l and I don’t blame them. It’s expensive to build out and they know demand will slow down and don’t want to be stuck with excess capacity. Better to be sold out and high prices.
Samsung said they were “moderating demand” which doesn’t sound like they want this problem to be solved either.
who is the 4th?
Intel is also looking into returning to making RAM, but it's probably the Chinese that will enter the market faster
> There are only 3 manufacturers (about to be 4 soon) total.
...3 manufacturers with a long history of price fixing...
Uhm, your link states that they were price fixing over 20 years ago, and were in court for almost a decade. There was another accusation in 2018, but it was dismissed.
That's not a long history of pricing fixing, just accusations.
The difference between 2002 and now is that it is so much easier to follow each other's leads on pricing without explicitly communicating about it and leaving a paper trail. But they never stopped acting indistinguishable from a cartel.
Same thing happened with eggs in the USA with bird flu used as an excuse.
Which reversed in about 6 months and now eggs are are their lowest prices in nearly a decade.
The same thing will happen with RAM. A glut will come eventually. It might take a year, maybe two.
Micron for example discontinued their consumer business because of the demand from enterprise business.
It could be the economically rational thing to do if they think there is a bubble
Forming a cartel to rig prices is economically viable with or without a bubble.
What is also interesting is no one predicted this in 2022-2025 as LLMs were gaining widespread use. It just suddenly happened--"boom!" memory shortage in mid 2025 to early 2026,and it caught everyone by surprise. It was understood that the biggest bottleneck was "compute", not the memory. Even experts, such as popular AI bloggers, industry leaders, and top podcasters failed to anticipate this. No one on twitter either. I spend a lot of time online and I don't recall, afik, anyone before 2026 saying to buy memory stocks.
I think Leopold of "situational awareness" fame predicted this, tried to make it widely known on podcasts and x, and still started billions worth of hedge funding based on this.
Sam Altman laying claims on 40% of the world’s RAM wafer production is what took everyone by surprise. The supply shortage likely would have ramped up more slowly otherwise.
To take advantage they'd have to do some form of price fixing which in most places is a very big footgun.
I honestly don't think they need to fix their prices, and it's possible that selling to consumers is a secondary market for them compared to datacenters, like Nvidia selling GPUs to gamers. We know that's not where the money is.
Seeing some companies actually exit the consumer market is evidence for this.
> To take advantage they'd have to do some form of price fixing which in most places is a very big footgun.
When parent commenter says "They have done this in the past after all" that's exactly what they're talking about. Micron, Samsung, Hyinx (prior to SK Group acquisition), and others all participated in RAM price fixing in the early 2000's.
If it's a highly profitable footgun why not?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRAM_industry_price_fixing#202...
Just to be clear the big Memory giants are famous for their price fixing historically speaking.
Really happy I got a new PC last year with 128 GB of RAM, 4 TB SSD, and an RTX 5090. This would have been prohibitively expensive now.
Congrats. Happy for you. Nice.
Yeah, I built mine in 3090 times and told myself I'd upgrade every 2-3 GPU generations. I do have 128G ram and I'm thankful for that but I'm definitely not on the same upgrade schedule any more.
After RAM prices climbed 200% between August and November of last year, a store associate at Micro Center encouraged me to buy some RAM sticks if I needed them because "prices might continue to rise for a few years". I told him that was ridiculous and nobody would tolerate it if prices got higher. How wrong I was...
If it makes you feel better. The US government looks like it might start removing some of the 28k troops that are stationed in South Korea over this. No reason to keep them in a country that enables this sort of behavior.
Probably for the best. No hosting nation of imperialism has ever benefited and now we see what the US is willing to throw away because their corporations are upset.
If there is something Korea doesn’t lack, it’s manpower.
The US troops are more likely there as a political shield. Indiscriminate bombing would kill them too, hence drag the US into war so any enemies of S Korea have to act judiciously.
> No hosting nation of imperialism has ever benefited
That's why Japan, Germany, South Korea, etc are some of the worst places to live in the world. Oh wait, I had that quality of life chart upside down.
Is the end result of this is that anything that is useful to AI going to be permanently more expensive, as the value a human hobbyist can get out of a certain amount of RAM will always be far less than the value a frontier AI model can get out of it?
The situation is absolutely awful for anybody who needs significant memory or storage (or devices incorporating such).
Even people who think they have enough for the next few years already could end up with an unpleasant surprise if they e.g. have a stick or two of RAM go bad or a GPU fry. I have a few machines with aging sticks that I'm hoping will manage to hold out until when/if things improve.
I'm saving a ton of money by simply not upgrading. I used to do upgrades every 1-2 years just to keep up on things, pass the old box down to my son or otherwise donate it. Now I intend to keep my current setup for 7+ years. Its 2 years old next month. I may even stay with it longer. I just see no reason to upgrade with things how they are.
I considered a Mac Studio a couple months ago. Price was up but might have pulled the trigger if not for the delivery date that was almost 4 months out. Sale lost. I suspect a lot of people are like me right now and we'll start seeing significant drops in consumer spending on electronics the next 2-4 years minimum.
I think it's probably for the best, the hyperconsumerism around electronics was getting out of hand. Computers are fast and have been fast for a while now. An iPhone 12 is probably more than fine to do iPhone things, if Apple didn't sabotage their old phones with poorly-written poor-performance software.
Can you provide evidence for your claim? Most people take this statement at face value and I don’t understand why. I do some volunteer work supporting elderly people that have issues adapting to a digital only world and I am always pleasantly surprised by the performance of their old iPhones all the way down to the 8 (old phones they get from their kids)
Also the coming iOS 27 release supposedly has some big performance improvements for all supported models that people have verified in the beta releases even with the iPhone 11: https://www.macworld.com/article/3160623/apple-finally-figur...
Apple is still paying out the 500 million dollars they lost in a lawsuit about this exact practice.
Every time I upgrade iOS past a few major versions there is significant slow down. I don’t think it’s done on purpose, it’s just that software grows more demanding over time.
Apple is known to slow older devices intentionally. They have admitted it.
That’s the literal truth, but the subtlety behind it was that CPU spikes combined with low voltage batteries were causing phones to shut off. Apple’s slowing down the phone down was nominally because customers prefer slightly slower phones to phones that shut off unexpectedly. Should they have announced this as a feature and had a toggle switch to allow users that preferred the option to disable it? Of course. But I don’t necessarily think they did the wrong thing.
The devices were slowed because aging batteries creates unstable performance. It wasn't done to intentionally make them obsolete.
> Computers are fast and have been fast for a while now.
Absolutely. The only reason I want to upgrade to an iPhone 18 next year is because the 16 doesn't have MIE (Memory Integrity Enforcement) and it feels ridiculous to upgrade so quickly to the 17, which does have MIE. Same thing with a Neo 2. But mostly I buy surplus gear. I've saved a small fortune this way and 8% compounding returns (VT and chill) will help me retire early.
And Apple will continue to because they have to sell more devices to keep customers interested.
Apple could release a new on-device LLM model every year and keep the hyperconsumerism going...
I have a MacBook M1 and I recently had to downgrade from Tahoe to Sequoia. Why? First of all they force you to download 7 GB of AI training when you’re not even using their AI. And secondly on Tahoe just watching a video with nothing else running off-line my MacBook was asking for 7 W of power. On Sequoia that drops down to 2 W maybe three.
It’s sad to think they think of themselves as an environmental company, I don’t know if they do, but this update to Sequoia literally doubled the amount of M1 max that are running on the planet in terms of power use.
There also seems to have been a major shift in strategy from AMD / Intel / Apple / NVidia due to this, as I was used to CPU / GPU / chipset upgrades coming out more regularly with double-digit percentage improvements each year, but that seems to be basically over for the consumer space now that everyone is just trying to build as much AI hardware as fast as possible for enterprise markets.
I also used to rebuild my desktop every 1-2 years and upgrade laptops every 2-3 years, but I'm currently a bit past that and have no plans to refresh anything in the near future. I'll probably wait another CPU and GPU generation or two to even consider it, especially with prices being this ridiculous.
I'm fully anticipating AI hardware demand to dry up once Anthropic and OpenAI start tanking financially in a few years after missing earnings and investors and banks wanting their loans paid back combined with more folks realizing that LLMs cannot achieve AGI. After that, I would hope that the demand that's driving this pricing spike will fall along with it, but I also fully expect hardware companies to be as greedy as possible, so maybe a 32TB HDD will just cost $1000 going forward and the era of "a decent gaming PC made up of the tier of components one step below TOTL costs ~$2000" we've been in since the 1990s is fully over, and it's just going to be more like $5k going forward.
> There also seems to have been a major shift in strategy from AMD / Intel / Apple / NVidia due to this, as I was used to CPU / GPU / chipset upgrades coming out more regularly with double-digit percentage improvements each year, but that seems to be basically over for the consumer space now that everyone is just trying to build as much AI hardware as fast as possible for enterprise markets.
I believe all of them realized nobody really needs more than 16c32t on a desktop, and architectural changes nowadays can only go so far to bump performance. The biggest changes across generations in the last ~5 years were the introduction of specialized instructions for wider vectors (AVX512/AVX2, and even then you need specialized workloads to use them), bigger L3 caches and/or efficiency cores to lower power draw. The double-digits gains recently were in memory bandwidth, frequency and locality, because you can make a 5GHz CPU and make it go 10% faster than the previous generation, but you also need to supply the extra data for the CPU to make useful work so that it's not data-starved.
> I also used to rebuild my desktop every 1-2 years and upgrade laptops every 2-3 years, but I'm currently a bit past that and have no plans to refresh anything in the near future. I'll probably wait another CPU and GPU generation or two to even consider it, especially with prices being this ridiculous.
I built my desktop in 2019 (right before the COVID madness, luckily) and I was also used to 1-3 year cycles. I upgraded the CPU and GPU since then, but the performance is still that of a workstation, even though perhaps a little bit behind in pure single-core benchmarks. I plan to keep this until either CPU, RAM or MB fall out (hopefully another 5y at least), and then I'll make a huge leap, instead of making 4x smaller ones which deliver little uplift anyway.
The biggest changes across generations in the last ~5 years were the introduction of specialized instructions for wider vectors (AVX512/AVX2, and even then you need specialized workloads to use them), [...]
AVX2 is actually 13 years (!) old already (first appearing in Intel's Haswell architecture).
AVX512 is also nearly 10 years old right now, but not many CPUs actually support it (none of the devices I own support it)
Are you willing to short anthropic and openai on your beliefs? Would love to be on the other side of this trade.
People think that shorting is an easy way of getting rich when you think a stock will go down, but even if you know it will, getting the timing wrong on it is catastrophic as you'll get unbounded loses while the market fails to correct the issues you are betting against
"I may have been early, but I am not wrong!"
"It's the same thing, Michael! It's the same thing!"
As the saying goes...the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.
People who talk shit about stocks are talking shit about stocks at a particular time.
"Oh no, when you apply scrutiny to my bullshit I get punished! That means the game is wrong!"
I wouldn't even short Bitcoin, and that's been on the way out since the AI rise.
It's wild seeing so many comments about updating every 1-2 years.
When I build a PC, I pay a little extra because I want it to last a long time. I aim for 5 years, and in reality it usually ends up 7 years (life happens, need the money, etc).
I am now in year 8 of my current PC. I only had money to replace it this year, and am now stuck with it due to the RAM prices. It's going to really suck for me if my RAM fails in the next few years.
I'm running a 12 year old i5 3.2ghz CPU with 16 GB of memory, an SSD and an AMD RX 480 (8 GB) GPU. Currently using a 100% scaled 4k monitor and a 2nd 1440p monitor. I keep the machine on 24 / 7. It's great for software development along with video + image editing and casual gaming. Everything feels fast and snappy.
I will use this until the hardware stops. There's a 0% chance I'd buy hardware at the current prices.
It really depends on what the task at hand is.
I have a baseline iMac Pro and custom built tower with similar specs (3.2Ghz Xeon W-2140B, 32GB RAM, Vega Pro 56 and i7-6700K, 32GB, 5700XT respectively) and they're both perfectly responsive. For many day to day things the difference between them and newer machines is negligible. For other things, my 5950X tower and M5 Max MBP run circles around them.
Both the 5950X tower and M5 Max MBP are deep into diminishing returns territory regardless, however. Aside from some extreme niche workloads like LLMs I can't imagine needing anything more powerful. They both have a ridiculous amount of headroom for the overwhelming majority of anything most people might want a computer for.
Yep, I have an M4 MBP company issued laptop for work and in my day to day there's not a enough of a performance win to feel like I'm missing out for most tasks.
Sure, the Slack web app might initially load half a second faster since there's a lot of CPU bound JS executing but generally speaking I never feel like "wow this sucks" on my main machine. It's kind of the opposite, for a number of things my desktop machine feels faster than the MBP for overall "using the computer", with development heavy tasks (running Docker based web apps, browser tabs, various tools open, streaming music, etc.). It was like that when I ran Windows 10 Pro with WSL 2 and now native Linux with Arch + niri.
Even CPU bound tasks on my 12 year old box that I do a lot, such as editing a blog post on a static site with Hugo takes ~100ms to get live reloading with over 1,000 posts and drafts. I'm sure if I were constantly doing huge CPU bound tasks I'd have issues but I don't have that use case.
After recording 500+ videos, encoding isn't a problem too. If I record a 30 min video, it takes ~20 minutes to render but it's so easy to fit that into other areas of my life, like I'll record + edit a video and then render it while I walk.
I recently built a pc with 5950x and 7900xt. What do you mean by diminishing returns?
I have a 2021 M1 pro and see no reason to upgrade it... ever?
I do web & general java work on it and it's plenty fast even using a memory hog like IntelliJ (which is typically disk bound anyway). Claude tells me that a new macbook would feel about 1.8x faster in my CPU-bound cases, which is not common.
If memory prices returned to normal and if local inference gets over the hump, I could see upgrading for local AI agents, but I'm fine waiting for a good long while on that.
I say all this as someone who, five years ago, was a perpetual upgrader: immediately bought new product and got excited for next product. Wonder if the future will see the end of that culture in tech and, looking back, it was a little silly and wasteful anyway.
I'm also using an iPhone mini 12 and it's fine.
I too have an M1 Pro and it does everything I need to do. I bought it in 2023, so it's 'only' 3.5 years old now.
Maybe this is the tipping point where hardware companies can't rely on the upgrade cycle for sales any more. I've always upgraded at least every three years, but with the combination of high RAM prices and good enough performance from an older machine, there is no need to.
There isn't much to upgrade to if all you want is a desktop for gaming, a non-workstation work box or just a decent laptop. Much like smartphones, there just hasn't been much innovation of late. A midrange gaming desktop from mid 2023, something like rtx 4070 and ryzen 7800x3d, can still play pretty much any video game on max settings and high framerate at 1440p, and has sufficient performance for most workstation-esque tasks as long as you have enough ram. Similarly, the only thing my spare macbook m2 lacks compared to m5 is hardware av1 decoding - the performance is worse, but I don't really notice it in normal usage, and macOS 27 runs perfectly well on it.
Local AI will crush any machine, of course, and if you need a 512gb ram box you'll probably need to sell both kidneys, but you're well past the average consumer territory with those.
So, fingers crossed nothing breaks down and that some of the funny money goes into R&D which will eventually trickle down to consumer devices in a few years (16TB gum stick SSDs at sane prices pretty please) instead of endless datacenter GPUs and SSDs that will be tossed into a shredder in x years.
My desktop PC turns 20 next year. I've never seen any need to upgrade it, went out of my way to build it with silent parts and it rarely if ever goes outside a single-digit CPU load (before anyone asks, software development and a bit of CAD work). I'll upgrade it when something in it physically fails, which means I'll need to replace it with new hardware with 5-10x the specs just to get the same performance.
My laptop is currently about two years into a typically 5-year lifespan, limited by when the keys start to fail rather than any need to upgrade it just because. The RAM in it is now worth more than the rest of the laptop.
This is one of the rare situations where an out-of-control homelab & PC building hobby is actually useful. With over 250GB of RAM & 90TB of storage I will be fine for a while, especially as long as DDR4 era machines remain relevant.
Yeah, it really sucks I can't even afford a computer that can have two Chrome tabs open these days.
I've been using computers for more than 40 years now and the one component I have never seen fail is RAM.
All the other bits in a computer I've seen fail.
Anecdata: a coworker found a single bit flip corruption in a file he wrote in his computer. He ran memtest86 on his memory, and which found one of the two sticks was defective. The computer otherwise ran perfectly fine for years; and we would have never noticed if the file format didn't have built-in checksums.
I've had a RAM stick fail.
Granted, I've been building my own computer for 30 years and I've only seen it happen ONCE.
But I've seen plenty of other failures:
- Two hard drives -- One got dropped on the floor, so it was no surprise, the other was showing degraded performance and SMART showed some scary numbers and I was able to replace it before I lost data.
- One GPU, replaced under warranty.
- One AIO water cooler, replaced under warranty. Somehow, the water vanished from the loop. I'm guessing a microscopic leak that evaporated as fast as it leaked.
- Two power supplies -- One randomly exploded. Just started making popping noises and shooting sparks out the back. At autopsy, I determined that the fan failed (it was hard to spin manually) and it overheated. The other was just being overloaded. I had just gotten a new GPU and the PSU wasn't big enough for it.
- Several case fans.
Never seen a CPU or motherboard failure, even when my AIO water cooler was failing and my CPU was constantly at thermal limits. Never had an SSD/NVMe failure.
Anecdotally, RAM failures are more common than they used to be in previous decades, I assume due to increased capacities and smaller process nodes. Looser manufacturing standards may also play a part.
The component category I've never seen fail is CPU.
I've worked in and around datacenters for a few decades now and I've seen pretty much everything fail, but power supplies in particular do so at a higher rate than I expected. I've had one literally start smoking in my home office recently too. Luckily, it didn't damage any components, but it was pretty dramatic and abrupt -- just powered on my desktop and got nothing but a fog machine coming out of the rear fan until I yanked the power cord a few seconds later.
My evga 1000w has been going strong for 11 years now. Cheaper power supplies fail often but if you buy quality and oversized they’ll outlast all your other components as they don’t become outdated.
Had the EVGA 1000w fail on me. It did not fail dramatically though, rather it refused to output high power. Got a replacement under warranty
It’s the caps that fail. Electrolytic caps have the highest failure rate of any passive component. My team tries to avoid them in our designs as much as possible. But you’re right, caps in a good design can easily last 20 years, making a power supply the longest lasting component of most builds.
> The component category I've never seen fail is CPU.
The CPU can fail if the heatsink falls off! That is something that happens (I've had one come off in my hand that was being held on by nothing but hopes and dreams, fortunately not while the CPU was powered on). More likely in a desktop tower form factor.
I had a 2012 mac book pro that burned out 2 different crucial memory sticks. Would have bricked the machine if it was the soldered-on type, but it was the last model apple sold that have swappable memory. Crucial had a lifetime warranty so they replaced them for free.
I used to game on it and I think the design just couldn't handle the cpu and dgpu being active for long periods, it would get extremely hot in the area close to where the memory was.
I recently had part of a 32 gig DIMM go bad on a 128 gig system. One of the larger VMs was spontaneously rebooting for no apparent reason. I was able to find the addresses with MemTest86 and map out 512 megs of the affected DIMM with the Linux kernel memmap option.
So you can still use the hardware via software fix?
Correct! Basically, I excluded the bad range so Linux doesn't touch it. It's been stable for weeks now. I should send the DIMM back under warranty.
Don't send it back. Since they can't easily replace it with new hardware, they will probably refund you the price of purchase. Which is normally a very good deal, but obviously not in these circumstances. I've seen it happen with GPUs as well.
on older PC bios would perform a memory test - you may remember those - and that's where it would mark a bunch of pages dead/unusuable and it was not uncommon at all.
I've seen some fail. Might have had to do with the fact that the computers were literally flooded (river came up faster than the sandbaggers could keep up) while running.
Interesting, I've had two fail already in much shorter time. One was brand new, another quite old.
I've had a few RAM sticks fail, but the ECC usually caught it first. Also had one case that somehow the stick slightly unseated itself; dunno how but it was out of service for months until someone opened it up and reseated the stick.
...granted though I've also seen a backpane on a server fail. I didn't think that was even possible until that point.
I bought a prebuilt with a 5090 a little over than one month ago, whole system was on sales.
The cost of the prebuilt is now lower than today 5090 price.
Earlier this year I finally bit the bullet and grabbed myself a 5080 for my gaming PC. I wanted to push things a bit more than my 3060ti allowed, and I figured it probably won't get any cheaper any time soon.
The PS5/Xbox Series console generation is supposed to be wrapping up soon even though it barely feels like it got started. I don't sense there's appetite for more powerful consoles anytime soon (I don't believe the PS5 Pro made waves like the PS4 Pro did), and jumps in console performance are what determine when games start targeting higher system requirements. So I like to think I can get a good number of years of use out of this.
I built my machine in 2022 with 64GB of memory and upgraded to a 4090 at MSRP in 2023 so at this point I'm good but I fear the back end of the bathtub curve. I currently expect to have to hold on until 2029 and at that point the mobo and CPU will be 7 years old, and the GPU almost 6.
same-ish. In 2023 128 gigs of RAM and a 4090 and 4x 4TB ssds. I just looked up prices and 4090 alone is like 2/3 of what I paid for the whole system. Crazy times.
I’m running PCs with 13 and 15 year old motherboards/CPUs/RAM. I wouldn’t worry about seven years.
I would absolutely love if some startup came up right now to manufacture and sell RAM at normal prices to everyone else and put Crucial et al out of business for price-gouging everyone just because they can.
DRAM fabs are multi-billion dollar investments which take years to come online. That's the whole reason we're in this situation, there is no quick fix available.
China is making central decisions for its RAM makers (and who can complain now that the US isn't a legitimate free trade defender). I think their strategy could go in any direction to either get a small portion of still gouging or a large portion of a market with somewhat stale specs.
Surely the chinese are spinning up fabs as we speak?
DDR4, and from some comments I have seen around here of only marginally acceptable reliability. It may still take a few years if until they have all the production processes fully under control.
But what about Apple, with their memory-carrying SOC, one would think they are in a very cool position?
If you want even more bad news: display panel makers also want to raise prices
"Due to the continued rise in the prices of core components globally, the production cost of monitors has increased significantly, and we can no longer absorb this pressure on our own."
https://respawnfirst.com/we-can-no-longer-absorb-this-ktc-wa...
It would strange if just when a lot of articles mention computing / social networks are detrimental, governments start passing laws to forbid platforms and/or phones for kids, and now price gouging flares up everywhere, this would entice people to just stop using these devices and maybe enjoy natural taper-off.
I like this idea! Perhaps folks will game less on PCs and consoles. But would they shift to playing on their phones? Or play less video games overall?
Also, when OpenAI's new device comes out, would people shift to talking to these small devices?
Are we observing corresponding work to make things use less memory though?
I've switched a lot of things to WASM and use way less RAM.
My PC built February 2025, with a 5090 and 64GB of ram, is literally worth more than double than what I paid for it. I'm actually concerned what my home insurance would do if it was stolen, since the cost of replacement is so much higher than my invoices say.
I still hope all this will come crashing down, there will be an oversupply of components and RAM will be cheaper than paper.
While I share your optimism, I still don't fully understand why a crash will necessarily lead to an oversupply and lower prices for regular consumers. The components / RAM you are referencing are for enterprise use / data centers which in my limited understanding is not a 1:1 swap for the kind of components that your smartphone / car / fridge / gaming rig use. I would love for someone more informed than me to spell out the rationale here.
It seems the chokehold started from the very beginning of the supply chain (wafers), so if a crash were to occur I don't see how we wouldn't be doubly screwed. Lots of worthless enterprise gear being shopped on eBay + a scarcity of consumer grade components leading to sustained high prices.
Sounds to me like we'll all be using enterprise servers as home computers! Hell yeah!
"I've seen gluts not followed by shortages, but I've never seen a shortage not followed by a glut." - NNTaleb
The way I understand it is, these fabs have massive overheads so not selling is not an option. It is also relatively easy to pivot production from enterprise to consumer. Now if they all start doing that at the same time to stay in business during the down cycle, an oversupply in consumer chips is possible.
My understanding is that it's fundamentally a fab capacity limit. At a given node size/technology (think 7nm, etc) they can only output so many wafers. If AI data centers are generating enormous demand for memory, then that's what those wafers are going to be used to for, unless they can be outcompeted, hence higher prices.
I'm not actually sure if enterprise designated memory is equivalent or not to consumer designated. Could be they are the same just packaged differently and/or with better binning. Either way, it's the same supply/demand dynamic at work.
Typically (not always!) server memory is 'registered' so won't work with consumer CPUs which run on un-registered.
Does 'registration' introduce anything physically different? Or could they be completely interoperable?
Yeah a RCD on the memory stick, it's PCB is designed around it. The actual DRAM chips themselves are not different though, which is why I mention it would be super easy to produce more consumer unregistered and less server registered at assembly time :)
Memory fabs make a mix of DDR/LPDDR/GDDR/HBM and they continuously adjust the mix to market demand. If demand for HBM drops they will start making more consumer RAM.
Datacentre NVMe disk is still usable in a standard desktop. Sever memory less so, but essentially if there were no 'new' server market whatsoever then you could redirect 100% of memory production to consumer chips without enormous upheaval.
By the way I personally think this scenario is very unlikely to happen.
> If there were no 'new' server market whatsoever then you could redirect 100% of memory production to consumer chips without enormous upheaval.
> By the way I personally think this scenario is very unlikely to happen.
Can you explain why? I imagine pivoting to a much less lucrative consumer market when the time comes would lead to financial ruin?
We are starting from a frankly completely unimaginable hypothetical that there's 0 new "datacentre demand".
In that scenario producing consumer chips is still profitable, much less profitable but still much better than giving up and going home.
You will also unlock latent demand by the mere fact that consumer prices are reasonable again. Those who may have postponed a new MacBook or gaming PC will likely buy as soon as lower prices return.
> you could redirect 100% of memory production to consumer chips without enormous upheaval
They would never do that. By then the market has changed and they would produce at the limit of expected demand, certainly not intentionally causing oversupply.
The net effect of a crash would be far worse than the benefit of getting a bit of a discount on RAM and storage.
This is why the companies should be aiming for a soft landing to this fad (if they know that they can't make the ROI that makes the industry worthwhile).
My Dell rep quoted me $736 for a single 16GB RDIMM for the newer Dell Pro 16 laptop, which retails at its baseline configuration with 16GB for ~$1000.
Dell wants $4,507 (web price) for each 32GB RDIMM in a PowerEdge 6625 (16GB is showing as unavailable)
What’s dumb is even older tech has gone up. Look at microsd and usb thumb drives. There’s a lot of price gouging just because they can. There’s a real shortage and then there’s just “it’s memory so price go up”
Tried to buy old DDR4 memory recently? I've been revitalizing some old laptops, and I foolishly paid nearly $200 for a Crucial 32GB Kit of DDR4 PC4-19200.
It is all temporary and cyclical - https://s-1.vercel.app/posts/the-capital-cycle-theory/
I almost upgraded my computer a year or two ago, but decided to hold off for a bit longer.
I've always been fine with being "behind" on the latest and greatest. I don't mind watching a movie, playing a game, buying a cell phone, etc, that was released a few years prior. If it was really all that great when it came out it should still be good later on.
Buying slow usually saves a.good bit of money when prices go down over time... but this time they went way up and now I'm kicking myself on it. Not upgrading the computer for now, but it is a bit overdue since I had already put it off for many years.
I upgraded a year ago and I bought a bunch of extra RAM because it was "so cheap", why not. Man did I get lucky, I got it right before the price hikes started.
100% what I do. I buy a few years behind the leading edge, and keep the device until it either dies or will no longer do what I need it to do.
My main desktop computer is Haswell era. Still does fine, for what I do.
Except staying on the edge costs exactly the same as not, when you take the resell value of the components on the second hand market into account. The problem is that some can afford to lock their capital in the hardware (via one-time investment) and some do not.
R9700 will lose less than 30% of value in the upcoming 3 years. Give or take. Yet people buy ancient cards for way more than 30% of R9700's cost.
> ...when you take the resell value of the components on the second hand market into account.
When taking the resale value of used kit on the second-hand market into account, one must also take into account the hassle of selling on the second-hand market.
For me? Personally? That hassle absolutely eliminates any money I would get from any plausible sale price. If I'm getting rid of used kit, it's going to be as donations to people I personally know who will come and pick it up at the agreed upon time.
I ordered a new CPU on sale a while back, right when the memory prices started spiking. I didn't even know RAM was going up in price. Realized the CPU needed a new motherboard and ram so I ordered the motherboard, started looking at ram and realized it would cost almost as much as the Mobo and CPU put together. Cancelled the orders because I wasn't intending a big expensive upgrade.
What I have is still fine, though I do regret cancelling now.
It's crazy if you think that some years ago were the cheaper part of a personal computer compared to motherboard, cpu, gpu and so on.
last year i mis-bought a ssd on amazon (wrong size or model i can't recall) so I asked for a return, surprisingly amazon wanted to save on transport that they offered to pay me to keep it (i don't want to spread stupid claim but maybe the full item price), i was confused and worried it would create issues down the road so i sent it back thinking i'd buy the proper item the month after.. and now i'm running duplicate search programs to save space on drives.
I have written a llm compression quantization library called glq because of the high ram prices. Glq uses qtip Trellis quantization which are efficient at low bpw 2-4 bits. As a gamer and ai developer I want to squeeze more out of the same hardware. Glq runs with vLLM.
Open source https://github.com/cnygaard/glq
Pypi glq https://pypi.org/project/glq/
Well this seems sustainable.
Any new fabs on the horizon or do the powers that be expect the music to stop sooner than that?
They are building fabs on track to get online towards the end of 2027, full capacity production expected for 2028. These are serious pieces of very complex technology that take years, not months, to build.
CXMT is a memory fab that just opened in China. They achieved a 90% yield on DDR5. Hopefully that could ease up the supply squeeze.
Ram, hdd, ssd, even blu-ray writers are expensive. I purchased mdisc blu-ray writer for $70 in 2021, I see people are trying to sell the same device for $500+ wtf
I'm really happy that I bought 32G of RAM and a 2T M.2 SSD for my desktop two years ago. In retrospect, of course, I should've bought 64G and 4T.
It turns out supply and demand is a thing, and can go both ways. Remember that in 2001, memory prices dropped like a rock, from $300 to $80. A ton of memory capacity came online at the same time, the market was flooded, so prices sank. The loss of revenue then hurt the memory industry.
With such profit margins, any new players entering the market will want those. This means prices are unlikely going to go down unless demand for memory vanishes, even if new suppliers come to the table.
I bought an RX 6600 for $450 during the GPU shortage a few years ago. I know the AI boom is different than the crypto/COVID boom, but still. Don't be me.
No hope in US but I hope EU regulators are taking note of this working on fix as we talk.
I’m even more confused by the economics of the frontier model businesses. Even if they got preferential prices, they are still paying an inordinate amount for their infrastructure.
If it wasn’t economically feasible without VC/Nvidia money 3 years ago, how is it possibly economically feasible now at 10x prices for things like memory?
OpenAI (Stargate) kicked off the price increases a year ago by locking up 40% of the global supply of RAM output.
https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/dram/openais-star...
And watch … $5 says they have nothing to do with the ram because even if there was enough power there’s no use case for this much spend
If I had to guess they’re just buying up ram to keep others from having it same way meta, Google, etc hired up engineers to keep others from having them
>even if there was enough power there’s no use case for this much spend
According to them, demand for tokens already exceeds supply. Coding agents are very popular but burn through millions of tokens per hour.
The reasoning models that have powered breakthroughs in AI for math, coding, etc require substantially more compute than base LLMs.
Also imagine people having their own cheap 2TB rigs at home for their own usage/inference, or a multitude of small providers serving/sharing capacity thanks to cheap available hardware.
But we cant have that, as the big guys are hoarding everything for themselves, so that you have to pay them instead.
I’ve been wondering this if you buy up all the memory you can ensure the competition cannot compete with huge investment raising the bar for competition. Of course this all sounds all conspiracy theory. Though without a place to power this or put it makes me wonder this.
It also would be a huge win for the memory companies to agree to this, considering they will make more money with less supply. Seems interesting to me.
It's possible to be economically feasible. It requires the ability to pay off the capex. Not only do they have to pay off their loans in record time (prob 2-3 years), they also have to keep spending every 3 years because the failure rate of GPUs is something like 20%. In addition they need to complete building out the stuff they've started, which means not failing to acquire land, energy, and water (the most dangerously rare and absolutely necessary resource for AI), not dealing with collective bargaining, nor any increased shortages or price hikes in materials. So there is a lot of risk.
Ballpark that they need to make around 110 billion a year, each, to break even on these investments. Let's estimate 550 billion a year in necessary profit required for the major frontier companies. That means there needs to be 550 billion of money, available to customers today, that isn't being spent on anything else, that they will now spend on AI. Maybe some of that comes from increased value, efficiency, or layoffs. But 550 billion is not a small amount of money.
Spread over the whole globe, the cash is there. But it is a hunt for cash, combined with a battle to successfully complete their buildouts, keep them running, and make bank, before the bookie comes knocking.
The railroad panics of the 19th century (and subsequent depressions) happened because they over-leveraged private capital without the ability to profit from it quick enough. So it really is a question of 1) can they really build it all, and 2) will people really pay for it all. If either answer is No, we are looking at economic catastrophe.
It's pulling the ladder up behind them. OpenAI bought up more co tracts for wafers than they could even use. But now that means everyone else has to fight over what's left. This makes it too expensive to compete with OpenAI. No upstart can really afford to build infrastructure.
I cross my fingers that my 10 years old laptop and desktop will hold until the crazyness ends
same. still rockin a 2016 era dell xps 13. I was about to pull the trigger on a few laptops but I always psych myself out because I assume prices will drop and I can pick them up secondhand. big mistake...
This is "the memory shortage that no one saw coming." To the best of my knowledge, no podcasters, bloggers, or experts in AI predicted this or were sounding the alarm of a memory shortage. No one was saying pre-2025 to buy memory/data storage stocks. This goes to show how hard it is to predict. Everyone was saying to buy NVDA, which had done well from 2022-2024, and then stalled out, only to be surpassed by memory stocks like SanDisk, Western Digital, and Micron, which took many by surprise.
Storage has more than doubled as well. The same SSD (4TB M.2) I bought in September 2025 for £229 is now £500.
I also had another order where I paid £30 for a 1TB SSD (sata though) and it is now more than £100...
Not just SSDs, HDDs are also way more expensive. End of 2024 I bought 4 14TB drives for ~$250 CAD each, $400+ for even a refurb drive now.
The possibility that these fail does concern me.
And that's the really fun part of all this, that weak substitutes will also become more expensive. But on the bright side, I've got dozens of sticks of DDR3 RAM that I'm hoarding like Pokémon cards. Any day now, we'll get desperate enough to start using them again!
Even with AI pressure I'm willing to bet there's no need for prices to be this high. There has to be some price gouging/fixing going on. Same thing for nand and GPUs. Or else they're doing it to try to pressure people not to use local compute instead of the "cloud"
Memory manufacturers have gone through several cycles of lawsuits for market collusion at this point. It's gone from an open secret to just outright flaunting in our face.
Until the penalties involve actual jail time or a fine 10x larger than the profit they made from doing it, they couldn't care less.
AI Datacenter proponents do not get to complain about this.
I noticed that resellers on ebay of used server equipment that I keep an eye on in Germany pulled all their DDR4 from surplus and used server racks and now list it separately for sale, at jacked up prices. Where you used to be able to see a used Gigabyte server listed with "128GB" "256GB" etc listed in the title, they now all say "0GB". They took extra effort, to pull used ram from older servers, and list it separate, just out of the greed of potentially capitalizing on this market.
The problem is... now for anyone looking to pickup a slightly older used/surplus server rack - you have the go and buy the (now marked up) RAM separate.
So... did they list the "0GB" racks with removed ram cheaper you ask? Nope. Many of them seem to be basically the same price as they were or even higher than they were, except now you're paying for RAM separate.
I bought a surplus Gigabyte server about 2 years ago off ebay for a home project, and I just went and the same seller still has some for sale, even older now than they were when I grabbed one, but they are 2x the price, and they don't come with any RAM, whereas I got one already populated as they were from the factory. Once you add that back in literally looking at 150-200% markup in the last 2 years on what was just surplus computer equipment that is 5+ years old.
Why would I voluntarily choose to sell the hardware I have for less than the going price? The odds of it getting picked up by a scalper and resold are extremely high. If I was sitting on a goldmine of old server hardware, I would absolutely be ripping out the RAM and selling it per stick in this market.
Greed? Resellers aren't charities, good for them if the value of their stock goes up. Besides, people buying server equipment aren't exactly starving, I bet most of them can either simply not buy the server, or cut some other expense.
I guess it's high time to stop using memory inefficient programming languages for any serious work.
I hate that I am no longer certain I don’t need to buy a new machine just in case.
The fake economics of the AI sector are damaging the real economy. This is madness.
Deep down it's all just people telling stories. If the AI sector's story is setting the price, and yours is not, then theirs is the real real one, not yours.
It's a totally broken way to practice economics, but alas, it's ours until we change it.
[dead]
Good. The more expensive memory is, the more everyone will be pushed into using cloud AI from hyperscalars.
They should each buy out a RAM manufacture, and make this the new normal.
It really is the best thing for AI adoption and the shareholders.
No, this is not good, in any way, except for AI shareholders (of which I assume you are one, else not rational to support this position).
Paperclipping here, greedily optimizing for shareholder value above all else. Please stop.
Some people really so need the /s huh
To be fair, the AI boosters are saying the exact same thing but mean it seriously. There is no way to distinguish without a tone indicator
> There is no way to distinguish without a tone indicator
And yet many of us aren't having any trouble distinguishing.
"sarcasm" is a cop-out.
The writer can simply say "it was a joke!", cuz we all know someone who uses this pattern regularly when they are trying to squeeze in a non-popular but highly lucrative (to the messenger) position to test the waters.
Either it lands (in which case, it was always meant to be taken literally), or it doesn't land (and can always be walked back as "it was meant sarcastically" or "can't you take a joke?"
The cost proposition to sending this message payload is low, since the messenger can always wiggle their way out (therefore, a "cop-out").
Therefore the need to be more explicit (i.e., /s) in a medium with little nuance affordances for tone and the significantly-increasing risk of such non-popular messages being taken literally (particularly by the also significantly-increasing audience of robots, who themselves may not have the capacity for nuance or irony detection).
Tl;Dr
It's a cop-out, and should be stopped.
Given the number of upvotes my comment got and the other comments where people missed the sarcasm, I wouldn’t be too sure that many people have no trouble distinguishing
If the shareholders are backing outcomes that make life worse for the rest of us, they deserve to lose money.
> and the shareholders.
Your comment is an illustration of exactly what is wrong with this website. Given his preceding statements, I sincerely do not believe it is sarcasm.
I'm quite sure he's being sarcastic.
"The best good ever is to maximise shareholder profits" is a tired and cliched caricature that some people unfortunately take seriously. But this is too on the nose.
I’ve been on HN long enough to know that a disturbing number of people do actually believe that line and act accordingly.
I've come to the same conclusion. Some believe that grownups shouldn't care about RAM prices going up.
I have the innate right to take what is said literally. Moreover, his preceding statements attempt to legitimize his concluding statement.
You also have the innate right to be off base, btw.
It's sarcasm, and the main tell is I'm not even bothering with pretense; just serving up the dystopia straight and acting like that's good.
But one of the "fun" things about HN is SV is so fucked up you can't even be sure someone doesn't actually sincerely believe that shit. And most of them are probably dumbasses with nothing to gain.
I appreciate sarcasm when it's clear. Marking it as "/s" prevents this whole line of discussion. As you noted in your last paragraph, it's hard to be sure without a marking.
There is no law that states memory must be a consumer product. I truly believe the era of personal computing was a beautiful blip that our masters are beginning to take away from the general public. It could be terminals and time sharing for the foreseeable future through "smart" phones.