Those are not normal pricing. Before the pricing collapse in early 2020, 96GB DDR5 would have cost about $450 to $500. And I will need to restate again the cost of DRAM hasn't really changed much in the past 20 years. Its price just goes up and down in cycles.
So in reality it is more like going from $500 to $1300. But consumer felt it was more like going from $200 to $1300.
Crucial are already selling DRAM made by CXMT. And China are already throwing money at it. I doubt the memory bubble will burst in next 12-24 months. As in going back to money losing DRAM pricing. As they will all pivot to HBM or other money making products. But the bulk of lower end consumer DDR5 or LPDDR5 will goes to Chinese Foundry. Assuming they have figure out how to do them well. Which they have improved but are still so far away from industry leaders.
Normally memory maker will push the next DDR standard to market just to push out Chinese competitors, I am not sure it will work the same this time around. DDR5 have plenty of other usage / demands.
Historically the price has always trended downward. When I first got into computing $200 could buy you 128 MB (yes M) of ram. Really nice systems had 512 MB.
That's obviously changed over the decades as process shrinks have lead to higher memory density. We should generally expect that ram will cheaper up and until the point where process shrinks stop happening. They've definitely slowed, but they haven't stopped.
Crucial was disestablished this year.
I don't see it going away. I mean, it may not grow as fast as now, but I don't see it growing away either. I get why the memory makers do not want to bankrupt themselves, but it feels like there's got to be some way to push that risk off onto model providers and other people in the ecosystem to allow us to grow ram capacity more like 50% per year.
What if its in everyone's interest to buy computers at say 1/3rd the rate and switch everything over to HBM?
the discrepancy between compute and memory has been growing for ages, perhaps a painful switch to HBM is exactly what we need?
Would you rather have 3 intermediate computers with low memory bandwidth, or wait a little longer statistically so that we can all enjoy a new computer at 1/3rd the rate but much higher bandwidth than the area ratio?
As for 20-25% growth not being enough, I think it's not that far off, if we assume data center build out plans hit a wall and slow down significantly, and the AI heat starts to cool off.
I don't think 20-25% may be enough in the short term but if the AI build out stops within this year, we have a massive oversupply instead of a under supply.
But can massive gains still be made? Definitely.
The entire AI hype is based on the paper Attention is all you need, and Attention is basically loading a huge matrix of all the tokens in memory, how well you can optimize this attention layer is basically how most architectures are trying to solve for performance and memory usage.
Only one with significant gains in it is DeepSeek (or so I would like to believe because others don't make their work open for folks like me not in Big AI Labs to read). Their MLA architecture reduced KV-cache memory requirements by upto 90%, ofc that's purely architectural change.
With some quantization like Turboquant from google you could push it down to ~1/3 of that. So 96% memory savings when talking about kv-cache.
But the models are close to being saturated for quantization based memory optimizations. We will have to see some architectural changes for a significant shift now.
We just haven’t reached the diminishing return of gen AI capabilities yet.
Models will get more useful if you have higher context size or higher param size. Then people will just use the models even more, leading to even more memory demand.
The VRAM in the 5090 is only made by one country in the world.
The 50xx series is special, because its ram is so dependent on a single commodity. It’s not like a 4090 or a 3090; their VRAM chips have been around for years.
If there’s a shortage or interruption in DDR7 VRAM, it seems like every GPU that requires it would explode in value.
I hope I don’t regret posting this because I’d really like to buy one myself…
I really need to shut up, or bite the bullet and by one.
If you graph the tokens per second on the 5090, your jaw will hit the floor at how cheap it is
The RTX 5090 is faster than an H200. It just has less ram (32 vs 141), doesn't have NVLink, and technically isn't allowed to be used in a datacenter.
The datacenter GPUs sell at an 80% margin. They're incredibly overpriced. But the laws of supply and demand are undefeated and so here we all are.
H200 has HBM and much more 64-bit compute
RTX 5090 has more CUDA cores that run at a higher clock speed. H200 has more RAM and significantly more RAM bandwidth.
Which one is net faster depends on your use case. But you may be very surprised that many workflows are faster on an RTX 5090!
If hyperscalers are using more RAM, and that RAM is not available for consumers, it means all the heavy stuff will happen in the cloud. Why would we want both the hyperscalers and consumers to have RAM simultaneously? Consumers would want more RAM to run local models but then hyperscalers capacity will be unused.
Most users don't seem to care about storing everything they generate in cloud services and this could easily be sold as an alternative to owning "expensive" desktop or laptop hardware.
People used to get into gaming pcs as an affordable hobby, now it’s making general aviation look like plan B.
They've intentionally crafted an unsustainable business model in an effort to get users in the front door and raise their MAUs. We've seen this story before. We should know precisely where it's headed.
Also had to do an Intel build, and there was no way we were going cudimm at current prices. =3
However, that the hyperscalers and AI companies aren't doing this says a lot about their true beliefs about how much future demand AI will have.
AI companies claim they will need a ton of massive expansion, but are unwilling to take on the risk of the capital needed for that expansion.
I'm hearing a lot of sad whining from AI folks about how these chip makers are holding them back, but who actually has the money to finance the expansion easily? Chip makers have been through this game far longer, when Sam Altman went around claiming it was time for $7T of fabs the AI companies made it clear that they were willing to make ridiculous claims, eliminating credibility.
What's needed now is for them to funnel a tiny amount of their massive piles of cash into financing fabs directly.
Just look at how Intel has struggled to compete in recent years, and they have been in the business for decades.
They forgot Moore's main lesson: only the paranoid survive. They thought they could coast, and it nearly killed them.
"Only the Paranoid Survive" is rather a quote and book title by Andrew S. Grove.
As long as the discussion seems focused on memory, I'd suspect the latter, but if its really the semiconductor boules/wafers, then I'd expect the boule growers to profit, not the memory makers, who just pass on the cost.
So which is it?
Dram is just extremely specialised.
I asked for evidence different people keep feeding me opposite stories: one insists its not fab capacity but wafer competition, with a recent article claiming HBM3E takes 3 times as much wafer area per bit than LPDDR5X. Others tell me the complete opposite: its fab capacity, not wafer shortage.
Do we have citable references to ground either set of claims?
So which is the bottleneck: fabs or boule growing?
also consider how most solar panels are monocrystalline silicon, how credible is silicon wafer shortage ... really? there is so much disinformation in this market...
NVIDIA in their recent quarterly report stopped categorizing "Geforce" as a single category, and merged it into "Edge-Computing".
If you are a PC Gamer or PC Enthusiast as I am, then we have some dark times ahead.
Or, we could be fucked.
And by doing this, they ensure local LLMs never become feasible for the vast majority of people and AI companies solidify subscriptions forever.
The reason memory prices can stay high for years in this mega cycle is because the 3 players will be very cautious on overbuilding. They’d rather under build, make great profit (not maximum) and reduce the risk of going bust if this suddenly ends.
Same for TSMC in chips.
Great opportunity for Chinese companies though. This shortage is exactly what Chinese companies need to scale.
Then why do only 3 companies make it?
When Samsung had to sell memory at a loss after COVID, no one came to save them. They buffered their memory division using profits from their other businesses. That’s how Samsung survives memory downturns.
According to some stories, this is how Samsung convinced TSMC to not enter the memory business - that you need a nation or other lines of business to prevent bankruptcies.
The market has stabilized to 3 players.
Because it's an incredibly capital intensive process, involving billions of dollars of investment into manufacturing infrastructure.
That is to say, making memory is quite hard.
I didn’t say owning a memory business is easy.
Other examples from outside of tech of easy but capital intensive processes are power generation and railroads. Very easy to do, but easy to end up broken by overbuilding for demand that fails to materialize or stay stable for the duration of your financing.
Placing the bet isn't as hard as making an accurate prediction.
Exactly, so what’s the incentive for anyone to sink half a billy into building out more capacity.
The existing players get to rest on their laurels and succeed whether or not the AI bubble busts.
Samsung, SK Hynix, and Micron all have to balance between capex spending, making as much profit as possible, and risk of bankruptcy.
Heck, the US is now pressuring ASML to not sell even DUV machines to China, period.
Right now their opportunity cost is too high.
> risky it is to spin up a new fab
You don't need a new fab. You can build memory in 20 years old fab.
This boom is magnitudes higher than before. The attention will be endless.
I’m sure Nvidia, Elon, Tim Cook, OpenAI, Anthropic are already whispering in Trump’s ears to do something.
You can't expect me to believe that any of those would want any kind of antitrust action against anybody.
Memory prices and shortages directly impact all of their profit margins and revenue.
Why were tech savy investors unable to figure this out when the datacenter craze had already started?
How to explain this lag between quickly rising demand for all datacenter components besides memory?
The entire sector is now facing a critical RAM starvation crisis where memory manufacturers are actively slow-rolling supply just to keep prices high and avoid running out entirely.
This has created an unprecedented supply-and-demand distortion where desperate companies are getting rejected even at a 5x markup, and mission-critical SKUs are skyrocketing to 10x and 20x their baseline value.
It is a macroeconomic squeeze at a staggering scale, and the massive venture scale opportunity lies in capturing the value created by this memory gatekeeper.
From the perspective of an armchair economist, the winners will be the investors who invest in RAM wisely. The losers will likely be cash strapped SAAS companies. They’re almost completely dependent on a fleet of servers in the hyperscalers, and they’re leasing those servers and services. That leaves small SAAS companies exposed to incoming inflation in the cost of hosting.
Which they will pass on to their customers. If their product provides enough value the customers will pay.....
A lot of capex is supposed to go into the datacentres, didn't they know that datacentres need to be filled among other stuff with RAM? I wonder if at some point we will discover that there is a shortage of fibre optic cables of SFPs ...
PS: Obviously armchair economist here too ... but for it doesn't seem too difficult to foresee the increase of the demand.
https://davidoks.blog/p/ai-is-killing-the-cheap-smartphone
Maybe long-term purchase agreements from big buyers might have helped convince them it's okay to build, but apparently it didn't happen.
As you stated it, it would merely be a property of (nearly) all demand curves. Jevons paradox only happens sometimes. It isn't a law.
Generally when someone replaces their vehicle the new one is more fuel efficient than the old one even if I bought the same car.