Comments by "Winnetou17" (@Winnetou17) on "Framework Unveils $2,000 Non-Upgradable "AI" PC" video.

@electrolyteorb You are coping. Yeah, the memory bandwidth is significantly below. But you can have 96 GB of (V)RAM (110 if you use Linux) avaible. Your 5090 won't be as good and fast once it's bottlenecked by the normal dual-channel system RAM which even on high-end desktops (that aren't something like Threadripper) maxes out at about 120-140 GB/s
16
Well said!
8
@iamjacobnz Depends. The NVidia product might not age well, while the Framework desktop will still be a very good desktop chip for everyday use and work (that doesn't need very powerful graphics).
3
@shiks98 Technically the M chips that Apple has (same idea) are more powerful. The M Ultra chips go 16-channel to a max of 800 GB/s. And have both more CPU and GPU cores. Also technically you don't need "faster" RAM and to spend billion $$ to invent it. The RAM is fast enough, what Intel and AMD are skimping WAAY TOO MUCH is limiting the high-end CPUs to dual channel. Threadripper has 4 and 8 channels. And servers usually have 6 and 8 channels. I know there's 12 channels too. Don't know if there's with more. And guess what, with 4 channels you can go (almost) double the bandwidth of dual channel (and bandwidth is what you need). And I say almost because Threadripper and server chips usually keep the RAM at stock (like 4800-5600 MT/s) speeds/frequencies, while the high end desktops usually go higher on that.
3
@ Correct, except that I still call 128 bits as dual channel (and saw that most people do it too) even though DDR5 has its 64 bits split in dual channels per module.
3
Well, Threadripper and server chips do have 4 to at least 12 channels. Which is what this APU uses, 256 bit bus, meaning 4 channels. They certainly could've made it if they wanted, and at most if would've been slightly slower (lower frequency), but still quad channel, which is what matters. Won't deny it would've been expensive and that it would've took a lot of time.
1