News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on EPYC SAP-SD 2-tier benchmark results. Parent comment

Re:EPYC SAP-SD 2-tier benchmark results by blattimwind on Saturday August 10, 2019 @10:06AM (#20662101)
> On the post, if Linus is referring to low-end Xeon and workstation non-Xeon lacking ECC, I think it's completely idiotic.

I have said it before, I'll say it again, it is completely moronic that literally all storage and every bus in your computer uses FEC or at least uses checksums, except main memory and the memory bus.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:EPYC SAP-SD 2-tier benchmark results by tempguy9999 on Saturday August 10, 2019 @11:35AM (#20662615)
OK, devil's advocate here. Intel wants to segment it to make money. Perfecty rational, right?

Also consumers want it that way as ECC needs extra bits and run a few percent slower. If gamers are willing to overclock their CPUs then they probably don't much care for slower memory. And $cost.

I agree with you, but others have different priorities.

(not an intel shill BTW)

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:EPYC SAP-SD 2-tier benchmark results by dooglius on Saturday August 10, 2019 @03:10PM (#20663929)
> If gamers are willing to overclock their CPUs then they probably don't much care for slower memory. And $cost.

Then they can continue to buy and use non-ECC memory

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:EPYC SAP-SD 2-tier benchmark results by tempguy9999 on Saturday August 10, 2019 @06:16PM (#20664800)
That was my point.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:EPYC SAP-SD 2-tier benchmark results by dooglius on Sunday August 11, 2019 @12:02PM (#20668709)
Intel supporting ECC RAM would not preclude them from doing so
[ Parent | on HN ]