Please register or login. There are 0 registered and 1857 anonymous users currently online. Current bandwidth usage: 326.30 kbit/s December 03 - 08:32pm EST 
Hardware Analysis
Forums Product Prices

  Latest Topics 

More >>


  You Are Here: 
/ Forums / Motherboards /

  Motherboards that support 8GB RAM?? 
 Date Written 
Continue Reading on Page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, Next >>
Faisal Rahman Jul 08, 2005, 11:01am EDT Report Abuse
Are there any motherboards for PCs that support 8GB RAM? I'm going to get a X2 4800+ soon and I want to know if there are any 8GB motherboards. Because it IS true that 64-bit CPUs break the 4GB barrier to 8GB right? How come I tried searchng everywhere, I could not find ONE motherboard that supports 8GB?

Want to enjoy fewer advertisements and more features? Click here to become a Hardware Analysis registered user.
Josh Jul 08, 2005, 11:12am EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Motherboards that support 8GB RAM??
64bit breaks the barrier of 4GB to a couple TBs, I think. I don't know it there's aby mobos that support that yet, though. There's really no reason to have that much.

Never be afraid to try something new. Remember, amateurs built the ark. Professionals built the Titanic.
AMD Phenom 9850 || DFI Lanparty 790FX-M2RS || 8GB OCZ Platinum || XFX 7900GS XT ||
Check eBay computerman_89
John Alabata Jul 08, 2005, 11:12am EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Motherboards that support 8GB RAM??
Highest ive seen a motherboard go is around 4-6GBs. In the end thats expensive

Faisal Rahman Jul 08, 2005, 11:26am EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Motherboards that support 8GB RAM??
doesn't matter how high the price is, I just want a maximum of 8GB RAM for now. If I can't find a 8GB mobo, then I'll just have to buy a 4GB mobo for now and stick with 4GB.

Lou Bot Jul 08, 2005, 12:06pm EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Motherboards that support 8GB RAM??
Dang dude what are you building, a time-machine?

AMD Opteron185 @2.86
2GB PC4000 2.5-3-3-8 2T
2xBFG 7800GTX 256MB (91.31)
Enermax EG651P-VE 24P & CS-718
"Thee BEST chip is a Dorrito Chip
Rory Witham Jul 08, 2005, 12:19pm EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Motherboards that support 8GB RAM??
Sorry I dont know of board that handle 6 GB of RAM MAX, But I know of a few 16GB MaX check out the thunder on my website :)

Custom Computers:
Computer maintenance:
Computer repairs:
Predator Jul 08, 2005, 01:04pm EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Motherboards that support 8GB RAM??
Faisal Rahman, Tyan has a couple that support up to 32GB's of RAM...

"Support for up to 32GB of RAM"

AMD Athlon 64 3000+ Venice
DFI LanParty UT nForce4 Ultra-D

New Forum:
Michael A. Jul 08, 2005, 02:42pm EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Motherboards that support 8GB RAM??
Dude, save your money. You do not need 8 GBs of RAM. You won't even notice a difference between 4 GBs and 8 GBs. And at the moment I doubt you'll notice much of a difference between 2 GBs and 4 GBs.

Michael A.
Adam Kolak Jul 08, 2005, 02:48pm EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Motherboards that support 8GB RAM??
8GB Of ram that would cost like $2000 just for the ram, 4GB of ram is still stupid, 2GB is the maxium maxium you would need for now. Buy 2GB for now and upgrade it to 4GB when the ram gets cheaper. Trust me 4GB of ram is just completely overkill and is kind of redundant.

Adam Kolak
Moderator, Hardware Analysis
DFI LP P35-T2RS | Xeon Quad @ 3.2Ghz | 4GB DDR2-1000 | 8800GT 512MB | See Profile
varun rao Jul 08, 2005, 02:55pm EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Motherboards that support 8GB RAM??
I guess he'a after functionality.. nothing wrong with that. The Athlon charts I had posted in another thread said that the X2's do support 8GB of ram. Not too sure about the speeds at which 8GB of ram will run though.

Faisal Rahman Jul 10, 2005, 03:58pm EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Motherboards that support 8GB RAM??
yea, I guess 8GB is crazy. nvm then guys, I'll just buy 4GB RAM. I'll then get 8GB a couple of years later :)

garrett m Jul 10, 2005, 06:38pm EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Motherboards that support 8GB RAM??
i mean unless you are compiling a lot of stuff or doing a ton of video editing i think anything over 1GB is overkill


EPoX 9NPA+ nForce4 Ultra
Venice Athlon 64 3000+ OC'ed to1980MHz
2x512 DDR500
Rosewill X800XL
Full Specs in Profile
Plug & Play Jul 10, 2005, 06:52pm EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Motherboards that support 8GB RAM??

Hell, Why dont you get a dual core opteron or ATHLON X2 and start as a server!!!! 8GB of RAM indeed.

LMAO @ Time MAchine

i5 2500K @ 4.8Ghz- Corsiar H50 WaterCooler- Coolermaster Realpower 1000w- Asus P8P67 Deluxe - Asus 6990 4GB - 8GB Corsair DDR3 2000Mhz - X-Fi Sound - 7.1 Surround Speakers - BenQ 24" TFT - G9x Mouse- G19 Keyboard
Faisal Rahman Jul 11, 2005, 09:56am EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Motherboards that support 8GB RAM??
I AM getting a X2. In Fact the X2 4800+ :)

Paul Martinez Jul 20, 2005, 06:42pm EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Motherboards that support 8GB RAM??
You guys are KILLING me. I stumbled on this quite by accident (googling for "Athlon 64 X2 8gb"), and just have to pipe in on the incredible ignorance, narrow-mindedness, and shortsightedness being displayed here. "8GB is overkill". "4gb is kind of redundant". (First of all, how can RAM--which is measured linearly--be "redundant"?) You guys jumped all over the original poster's case without having ANY idea whatsoever what he needed it for. Incredibly ignorant assumptions were made left and right. You guys must be REALLY young too--these posters have obviously not been through many iterations of Moore's law in action.

Back in only 1990 or so, I ran a computer store. Computers back then typically had 640k or 1 MEGA-byte (not GIGA-byte) at most. (That's right--1024 TIMES less than typical today.) DOS could already support alot more than that--16mb I think--with extended memory. This guy came in from the university and ordered a 486-33 (JUST released and uber-expensive), with 16 MEGABYTES of RAM!!! And a 120 MEGABYTE hard drive! We were all dumfounded. We didn't even know if that was physically possible. It was unbelieveably expensive, he could have bought a car instead. But while extremely impressed, I had been around long enough to NOT assume he just wanted to waste money, and that it wouldn't be long before those specs seemed paltry (I specifically made a mental not to check that 10 years later). Turns out, he really did need it. Something that the university was doing where they had extended a DOS program so much that even 16mb was going to be too little.

If moore's law continues as it has unabated since the 60's or so, then in 7.5 years, bargain-basement computers sold at Wall-Mart will have 16 gigabytes of RAM. And you chumps will reflect back on your posts and think "I was so stupid back then!". (Yes I know that Moore's Law was for transistor count, and wasn't a law but an observation. But it has become a Law unto it's own, by virtue of having held true for just about every kind of computer-related device imagineable.)

Too bad the original poster backed off and said he'd settle for 4gb. He'll feel like an idiot in 18 months. But maybe he didn't really need it. *I* on the other hand desperately need 8GB. 4gb is not even remotely enough--my swapfile (on a dedicated 10k rpm drive) is constantly thrashing and grinding away. I work on extremely high-resolution, hundreds-of-megapixel panoramas, for starters. (Not to mention music and HD video production which ironically are not as resource-demanding.) I spend the vast majority of my time WAITING. I run a stripped-down version of XP Pro SP2, with only about 12 processes running, to eek out every last resource and free up CPU cycles. I am best friends with highly tweaked performance monitors, to find every last bottleneck and eliminate it. I run over a terabyte of disk space, spanning 7 drives total--6 SATA, one PATA, all with 8 or 16mb cache. I have a dedicated drive for OS, one for apps, one for swapfile, one for final data, and the rest for temporary scratch disk space. (I have tried every form of hardware striping since back when it was thousand-dollar solutions--to today where it's built in to every moetherboard--and have found critical drawbacks for my purposes with every one, although usually not with performance. I ran a 4-way striped set for quite a while years ago, then found that single or dual-striped 10k rpm SCSIs were usually faster.) So don't EVEN tell me I don't need 8gb.

So lay off the assumptions and predudgement trip. And for god's sake, have some vision people. Try to see beyond your own nose. 2007 is just around the corner, people are holding on to PCs longer, and you'll all feel like idiots for what you wrote today.

DeafGuy C. Jul 20, 2005, 07:30pm EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Motherboards that support 8GB RAM??
4GB is still overkill if he is just using it for a gaming system. 2GB of PC3200 is more than good enough. As for computer using 16 GB of Ram, well, LOL very funny. Heck we wouldn't even need 4 GB of ram in 8 years for a gaming rig. If he need it for something else, sure but it won't be a 16 GB of ram for many many years. Man you're funny.

Paul Martinez Jul 20, 2005, 09:15pm EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Motherboards that support 8GB RAM??
I believe you are the funny one. Don't think you'll need 4gb in 8 years? THAT is funny!

Let me ask you a question: how much RAM were you running in 1997? Seriously, give me an answer.

I think I was running 32 or 64 mb. Last time I checked, that's SIXTEEN times less than the typical system these days of 1gb, and mine was typical then. Wow, go figure: 8 years ago, it was 16 times less! Could that be a coincidence? Could it be just a random coincidence then that I predicted in another 8 (7.5) years, the typical system will have 16gb? Like I said: dude try to see past your own nose. Just because we couldn't FATHOM needing 1gb of RAM in 1997, doesn't mean we don't need it today.

Now, if you weren't into computers in 1997 and can't answer the question, then STFU, as that's proof you haven't even been around long enough to have a sense of time in relationship to technological advance. I've gone from 4 MHz to 4 GHz--a thousand-fold increase in just clock speed alone, and orders of magnitude more than that in overall processing performance. And before the IBM PC I used Apple IIe, Comodore 64, and before that my friend's TRS-80 with something like 8 kilobytes of memory. Do not even PRETEND to try to tell me you have a CLUE as to what you are talking about, when you say "we won't even need 4gb in 8 years". It only shows how very little you know.

Also if you check my post, you will see that I made no argument that the guy needs 8gb to play games. (In 8 years he will though.) Where did you get that? I said *I* need 8gb, as evidence that SOMEONE out there does, disproving the rediculously narrow-minded and short-sighted arguments.

Paul Martinez Jul 20, 2005, 09:17pm EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Motherboards that support 8GB RAM??
By "16 times less" I meant "devided by 16"--so as to talk in equivelant terms going forward and backward. Saying "X times less" is fraught with misunderstanding, esp. in advertising where they use that to their advantage.

DeafGuy C. Jul 20, 2005, 09:58pm EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Motherboards that support 8GB RAM??
Alright maybe we will need 4 GB of ram in 8 years but as for 16 GB of ram? I HIGHLY doubt it. We will not need that much, even for a gaming rig. 4 GB of DDR2 PC500000 (whatever) or XDR will do.

Surpher805 Jul 20, 2005, 10:30pm EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Motherboards that support 8GB RAM??

the curve that went 16times more in 8 years will not happen again.
you will notice that as performance gets more and more, the actual tasks completed per second gains have been becoming les and less.
for example: 512MB RAM to 1GB RAM you see a huge performance gain but if you go from 1GB to 1.5GB you will not see the same pecent gains.

(I'm sure you already know this, I'm just stating it)

Athlon T-bird 1.4Ghz @1.56Ghz with no additional cooling
MSI K7T Turbo LE W/ Raid
Nvidia Geforce4 Ti 4200 128MB
Sound Blaster Live! MP3+
TDK 32X10X40 CD Burner + DVDROM Drive
LIAN LI Aluminum Case
300W Power supply
WD 80GB,60GB,20GB,
Paul Martinez Jul 21, 2005, 04:20am EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Motherboards that support 8GB RAM??
Wow that's a pretty bold statement. Care to bet--oh, say, $10,000 on it? I am game. Seriously. Like taking candy from (literally) a baby!

You guys still just do not get it, and continue to talk out your a$$ in spite of a complete void of fact or experiental context. You have an utterly uninformed opinion. That's great. But you are also making the mistake of thinking it is in anyway a hallucination of reality.

I want you to copy the text of what you wrote, and save it to a file named "READ ME ON JAN 1 2013.doc". Just be prepared to feel like a complete idiot--or at least to muse at how foolish you USED to be.

The list of people who were once as absolutely dead-certain as you (or at least made as idiotically narrow-minded and short-visioned statements of absolute like you) is very, very long.

Microsoft is quoted on the record in 1980 as saying, "DOS addresses only one megabyte of RAM because we cannot imagine any application needing more." Microsoft--love 'em or hate 'em they do have some very talented, forward-thinking people--said that. ONE MEGABYTE! Can you imagine!? (Actually, I can. That itself used to be unthinkable, back in the days of 4 KILOBYTE computers.)

Also: "640k ought to be enough for anybody"--Bill Gates, 1981.

Like they did (and learned their lesson), you are making the fundamental error of projecting TODAY'S software technology onto TOMORROW's hardware. Sorry, try again. It doesn't work that way. You've got to project TOMORROW'S software onto tomorrow's hardware. What will tomorrow's software look like? No one knows precisely. We can guess. Let me ask you this: 10 years ago, could you have imagined the sheer realism and vast expanse of today's games like Far Cry or HL2--compared to Doom 1 (which was jaw-dropping at the time)? At that time, nobody thought video game technology could possibly advance any further. So the evidence is right in front of your nose: you simply cannot imagine what tomorrow's software will look like, no better than anyone could at any time in the past. We can theorize--just as we can theorize and explain a 4-dimensional hypercube--but we can't really grasp it. We will be able to someday though, as the future slowly unfolds in front of us.

In 1976, the Cray-1 Supercomputer was released. It had a 16-bit bus, 8mb RAM, performed 80 megaflops, and cost $8 million. The average PC user at the time thought "what in god's name would anybody need something like that for?" In fact it was such an absurd question that nobody really asked it.

Let me spell it out for you in simple terms:

* Humans doing long division: MILLI-flops (1/1000th of one flop)

* Cray-1 supercomputer, 1976, $8m: 80 megaflops (up to 120 depending on who you ask)

* Pentium II, 400 mhz: 100 megaflops

* TYPICAL HIGH-END PC TODAY: about 1,000 megaflops

* Sony Playstation 3, 2006 (combined CPU+GPU and depending on who you ask): 25,000 to 2,000,000 megaflops

* IBM TRIPS, 2010 (one-chip solution, CPU only): 1,000,000 megaflops

* IBM Blue Gene, < 2010 (with 65,536 standard RISC microprocessors): 360,000,000 megaflops

News item: "Infineon is working on DDR2-400 memory modules with a capacity of 8 GByte! Paving the way for future specifications of 16, 32 and 64GB of RAM" (; of course it mentions this is only useful for high-end servers--which is precisely what they said about the 733 dual Xenon setup I bought several years ago for home use, at incredible cost, which now chokes as a simple "low-bandwidth" (by today's standards) web server.

I remember only about 5 years ago, a company I did some work for had an 8-way Citrix server running an OUTRAGEOUS 1gb or RAM. It cost about $30,000. (Of course it also had about 250 GB RAID 5 SCSI array and redundant NICs, power, etc.--but the RAM was a significant chunk.)

So please spare me the arguments that computing capacity will not continue to increase, or will not need to.

Isaac Asimov once wrote "any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic". I would add that in context he meant "advanced technology seen for the first time". Eventually of course you get used to it. Imagine glimpsing Mac OS-X Jaguar (or Longhorn) back when Hercules monochrome graphics was the hottest thing going. Try it for a moment. Really take yourself back. Well my friend, if the past is any indicating trend (and unfortunately it is), the very near future will see the same exponential gains (on the order of 2 raised to the power of X, where X is the number of 18-month periods). Longhorn and it's "3D" interface is just SCRATCHING the surface. That breakthrough--using 3d accelleration for the UI--mark my words, will be seen looking back from the future as one of the great liberators of the 2D windows paradigm. We've been stuck in 2D for too long, and in the very near future the limitations will be removed. Longhorn's flashy effects are kid's stuff, just eye-candy--nothing terribly useful. But that's just because no one has had time to explore what can be achieved, and how the human/machine interface can be evolved or even broken through using it.

And as for games--imagine how expansive the world of "Far Cry" is to "Doom". In 10 years we have gone from stuffy corridors, 320x240 2-D graphics, and 8-bit color and sound--to whole island chains at 1920x1080, 24-bit color, and 16-bit sound, . But Far Cry will seem so limited, compared to games 10 years from now--when we have photo-realistic characters that can "learn" (or simulate it), and enivironments that will blow your mind in detail and expanse, all without the painfull in-play loads after every 10th door. No longer will objects be composed of hollow polygons, rather they will be modeled like--and behave like--real materials. Sounds will be generated by physical models, not months of labor-intensive sampling and weeding through libraries. People say games are getting harder and harder to bring to market, as they get more elaborate. This is a temporary trend. As with any software development, future generations build on and leverage work done in the past. Physics libraries will be widely available. World simulators will exist that simulate geology over billions of years--no longer will you have to create worlds out freakin' polygons. Motion simulators will exist (all this for free or for license), so no more motion-capture for human or monster characters. The shape, size, mass, skelature, and musculature of the monster will dictate how it moves. All game developers will need to do is provide it with a motivation. Game developers will be more like movie directors rather than hard-core coders. (Whom will still have a place in game-development--but like all software trends, they will move towards library creation rather than the final product.)

And such fine-grained physics simulators (forget Source) will not come cheap (except in the future)--they will chew up resources like nobody's business. I remember when Quake II ran about 15 fps. Now it runs something like 300+ fps. Try extrapolating that backwards from the future.

Still not convinced? Try reading these articles--if you haven't been using a computer for at least two decades continuously, this might be enlightening, and help expand your vision beyond it's current narrow bounds (sorry if these aren't showing up as links):

Required reading in order to be able to remotely intelligently debate this topic (if you haven't lived through it):

Other reading of interest that might help you get a clue - CPU performance charts from last 10 years:

Computer hardware FAQ from 1994 (quaint):


I make another challenge: Try actually researching and educating yourselves, instead of just giving another worthless opinion as if you actually knew something. Go to the google ex-deja vu archive. Search back as far as you can--I don't know how far back they go but I think it's at least 8 years. I do know that Google's goal is to catalog every usenet conversation ever made, which would go back what--15 years? Find discussions on how much RAM would be too much. You will hear EXACTLY the same kind of short-visioned arguments. Over. And Over. I can't tell you how many debates like this I've gotten in. And you know what? I always win, because I don't narrow-mindedly project today's needs onto tomorrow.

And you know what else? The rate of resource requirement usage is ACCELLERATING, not slowing down. This is not just an opinion, read any study published by the Gartner Group, various university publishings, etc. Search for publishing coming out of MIT. The simple reason? Leverage. Just as I've suggested with game evolution, the more our computer hardware and software technology evolves, the more it builds on itself, the larger chunks of functionality are moved into easy-to-use libraries, and the faster software evolves. Look at .NET for example (or J2EE if you prefer). Say what you want about how good or bad it is, but for discussion of leveraged technology it's a decent example. It does HUGE amounts of work with very little code (e.g. resource management, garbage collection, etc.), compared to what used to be required 7.5 years ago, and even more so than 20 years ago, when most serious stuff was programmed in assembler or at best C. So not only is hardware accellerating in capability in complexity according to Moore's law, so is software.

There also seems to be this pervasive assumption that we are at the limits of hardware technology. Microprocessors strictly based on today's technology ARE approaching the limits of thermal dissipation and even realizing quantum tunneling problems. However, there is alot of headroom left just in current technology. Clockless chips are good examples. They already exist and are in use in many products today. CPUs these days spend an ever higher % of their time just managing the clock. Get rid of the clock, and you suddenly have alot more headroom. And then of course there are quantum computers. Already we have workable, quantum encryption for sale right now (not exactly the same thing, but no less magical). Even molecular computers. Reasearchers can already solve incredibly complex problems with "DNA computing" that today's silicon would simply not be able to solve in any reasonable amount of time--say, before the universe winks out in about 100 billion years.

The only problem is we have no idea now, what technologies will pan out and be used in the future. In the days of vacuum tubes, there was speculation about the future, but no one (or very few) would have guessed it would wind up being microtransistors etched into semiconducting material by light. We can no further pin down what new technologies will emerge now, than we could then. We can guess and speculate though--maybe it will be something already posited as possible, maybe something not a single human has yet thought of.

Already there are holographic "DVDs" being marketed (with non-rotating readers) that can hold something like 100 gigabytes, with technical headroom for a terabyte. They are ultra-fast because the discs don't rotate and thus are not subject to the physical forces that have current speeds nearly maxed out due to the limits of affordable material strength (discs flying apart). Who would have guessed that? You were probably thinking DVDs had to rotate, and bam, along comes something that totally changes the rules right out from underneath you.

So my advice is: engage brain before putting mouth into gear. Otherwise your ignorance and short-sightedness shows (as does your tender young age).


Continue Reading on Page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, Next >>



  Topic Tools 
RSS UpdatesRSS Updates

  Related Articles 

A weekly newsletter featuring an editorial and a roundup of the latest articles, news and other interesting topics.

Please enter your email address below and click Subscribe.