• slacktoid@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    20 hours ago

    I understand the memory constraints but it does feel weird for framework, is all I have to say. But that’s also the general trajectory of computing from what it seems. I really want lpcamm to catch on!

    • Scholars_Mate@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      19 hours ago

      Apparently Framework did try to get AMD to use LPCAMM, but it just didn’t work from a signal integrity standpoint at the kind of speeds they need to run the memory at.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        19 hours ago

        Sounds like it doesn’t bode well for the future of DIMMs at all, TBH.

        • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          18 hours ago

          My AM5 system doesn’t post with 128GB of 5600 DDR5 at higher than 4400 at JEDEC timings and voltage. 2 DIMMs are fine. 4 DIMMs… rip. So I’d say the present of DIMMs is already a bit shaky. DIMMs are great for lots of cheap RAM. I paid a lot less than what I’d have to pay for the equivalent size of RAM in a Framework desktop.

    • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      edit-2
      19 hours ago

      Eventually most system RAM will have to be packaged anyway. Physics dictates that one pays a penalty going over pins and mobo traces, and it gets more severe with every advancement.

      It’s possible that external RAM will eventually evolve into a “2nd tier” of system memory, for background processes, spillover, inactive programs/data, things like that.