• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Intel 9th Gen LGA1151 Processors Support Up to 128GB of Memory

btarunr

btarunr

Editor & Senior Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
47,890 (7.38/day)
Location
Dublin, Ireland
System Specs
System Name RBMK-1000
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5700G
Motherboard Gigabyte B550 AORUS Elite V2
Cooling DeepCool Gammax L240 V2
Memory 2x 16GB DDR4-3200
Video Card(s) Galax RTX 4070 Ti EX
Storage Samsung 990 1TB
Display(s) BenQ 1440p 60 Hz 27-inch
Case Corsair Carbide 100R
Audio Device(s) ASUS SupremeFX S1220A
Power Supply Cooler Master MWE Gold 650W
Mouse ASUS ROG Strix Impact
Keyboard Gamdias Hermes E2
Software Windows 11 Pro
Intel's 6-core "Coffee Lake" die was essentially a "Kaby Lake" die with two extra cores, and no physical changes to other components, such as iGPU or uncore. With its new 8-core "Coffee Lake" Refresh silicon, Intel has turned its attention to not just increasing the core-count, but also improving the processor's integrated memory controller, in addition to hardware fixes to certain security vulnerabilities. The 128-bit wide (dual-channel) integrated memory controller now supports up to 128 GB of memory. Intel's current DDR4-capable mainstream desktop processors only support up to 64 GB, as do rival AMD's Ryzen socket AM4 processors.

Support for up to 128 GB explains the emergence of off-spec memory standards such as ASUS' Double Capacity (DC) DIMMs. Samsung is ready with a JEDEC-compliant 32 GB dual-rank UDIMM memory module for client platforms. Introduction of 32 GB UDIMMs also comes amidst reports of DRAM pricing cool-off through 2019, which could make 32 GB dual-channel memory kits consisting of two 16 GB UDIMMs more affordable. The increase in maximum memory amount could also indicate Intel's seriousness to introduce 3D Xpoint-based Optane Persistent Memory modules as alternatives to DRAM-based main memory, with higher capacities compensating for worse latencies and data-rates compared to DRAM.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site
 
Thats a lot of memory for home PC's. I cant see AMD answering soon enough
 
(For the enthusiasts side) Ark still shows 64GB for the 9900k (same as 8700k):

ark.png



And even if so, where do you even get consumer based 2 x 64GB enthusiast kits? Doesn't seem too exciting, and something more to just fall on deaf ears.
 
A RAM drive is the only use that comes to mind that doesn't benefit from many-core CPUs, to justify buying such massive amounts of memory for a MSDT system.
 
windwhirl said:
A RAM drive is the only use that comes to mind that doesn't benefit from many-core CPUs, to justify buying such massive amounts of memory for a MSDT system.
Click to expand...

I haven't even utilized it on my HEDT. Heh. It's the price of another machine.

edit: A damn eyesore looking at all of my empty RAM slots though.
 
StrayKAT said:
edit: A damn eyesore looking at all of my empty RAM slots though.
Click to expand...
Same, I can only run 4 8gb modules at the moment since I've been on a 7740x @ 5ghz delidded for ages - I've been holding out for that skylake refresh and the funds to upgrade.
 
Xx Tek Tip xX said:
Same, I can only run 4 8gb modules at the moment since I've been on a 7740x @ 5ghz delidded for ages - I've been holding out for that skylake refresh and the funds to upgrade.
Click to expand...

Just have 2 8gb's here. I didn't know a refresh was coming though. I almost thought I wasted a lot of money on x299, when they announced the new 300 and x599 series.. but it looks like those are still a ways off.
 
Xx Tek Tip xX said:
*home use involves running 20 crysis 3's at once
Click to expand...

Apparently, he'd be running 256GB RAM if he could, if not more.

I don't know how many copies of Crysis 3 he has, though ... so there's that ...
 
xkm1948 said:
Editing 3 copies of human genome maybe. I don’t play Crysis, not anymore
Click to expand...

It was sarcastic, ofc ...

On a more serious note, if RAM prices weren't so obscene and your build could support it, would you get 512GB RAM?

As for the topic, i'm guessing very rarely will a user require such a huge amount of RAM: on a different platform (server like) it's an completely different story, though.
 
I assume the height of Asus' double height DIMMs is due to heat. registered DIMMs already have these amounts of chips on smaller DIMMs. I hope JEDEC compliant modules will be closer to standard height.
 
HTC said:
It was sarcastic, ofc ...

On a more serious note, if RAM prices weren't so obscene and your build could support it, would you get 512GB RAM?

As for the topic, i'm guessing very rarely will a user require such a huge amount of RAM: on a different platform (server like) it's an completely different story, though.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't. To me, the weak link is always and forever a GPU. And software. For gaming and light creative stuff I do, I already feel like 16GB is enough for RAM.. and CPU's in general are more than enough.
 
StrayKAT said:
I wouldn't. To me, the weak link is always and forever a GPU. And software. For gaming and light creative stuff I do, I already feel like 16GB is enough for RAM.. and CPU's in general are more than enough.
Click to expand...
Really? I guess it depends on what you're doing on the machine. 16 GB is probably fine for gaming, but now as even web browsers eat memory like crazy, 16 GB easily falls a little short.
 
efikkan said:
Really? I guess it depends on what you're doing on the machine. 16 GB is probably fine for gaming, but now as even web browsers eat memory like crazy, 16 GB easily falls a little short.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's mostly gaming I have in mind.

I've never been one to have a bunch of tabs on my browser. I think I'm stuck in the 90s, as far as that goes.
 
HTC said:
It was sarcastic, ofc ...

On a more serious note, if RAM prices weren't so obscene and your build could support it, would you get 512GB RAM?

As for the topic, i'm guessing very rarely will a user require such a huge amount of RAM: on a different platform (server like) it's an completely different story, though.
Click to expand...

Not for UDIMM.

Any ram over 128GB i must use ECC RDIMM. Data is more valuable.
 
So now Intel has a consumer CPU range (Coffee Lake) that supports more memory than its entry-level prosumer/workstation CPU range (Xeon E3 @ 64GB). Go go gadget product segmentation fail!
 
xkm1948 said:
Any ram over 128GB i must use ECC RDIMM. Data is more valuable.
Click to expand...
Capacity itself is no reason to use ECC, and I haven't seen data to show that higher capacity chips have higher risk of errors. But more DIMMs or multi-rank DIMMs certainly increase the risk of errors. Personally I would strongly consider ECC for a workstation though.

I do think the segmentation of Skylake-X and Xeon-W is unnecessary though; two workstation platforms with very similar features. AMD did at least make a smarter choice in this instance.
 
lexluthermiester said:
While this is an improvement to the platform, it likely will be useful only in workstation applications. Most consumer needs are served well by no more than 32GB.
Click to expand...

When the Rampage V Extreme motherboard was introduced, it didn't support 128GB. A BIOS arrived a few months later that enabled support for 128GB. I was thinking holy cr_p; didn't know my i7-5960X could see that much RAM! It was a nice surprise, but I only need 16GB. I know that there are some people on the Asus forum with 128GB installed. Perhaps all Extreme series CPUs support 128GB.
 
Last edited:
If you need more than 32GB of RAM (16 actually...) then you are on the wrong platform ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top