Carol: obviously motherboards need to support this, but the technology is
targetted at server class hardware, not end-users (where the common limit right now seems to be 2GB per slot, four slots, and thus 8 gigs of memory max).Deozaan:
I honestly don't know where the bottlenecks are
- core2 CPUs have a FSB speed of 1066MHz or 1333MHz for the new 45nm CPUs - thus, theoretically, you'd want the RAM to be just as fast. Dual-channeling ram does give a performance boost (although probably not 100% linear scaling), but you might be able to feed a 1333MHz FSB with DDR2-800 in dual-channel mode? But then the large & aggressive core2 caches come into play as well, combined with application memory access patterns, so superfast ram might not even be necessary...
I honestly don't know how it all sums up, and I haven't been able to find benchmarks that say anything really conclusive. I ended up opting for DDR2-800, since it was still pretty cheap (though not dirt-cheap as DDR2-667), and much cheaper than DDR2-1066 (not to mention the current horrible DDR3 prices, ugh!). So far my system has been screamingly fast, and I don't really want to know if it has any bottlenecks
I also dunno if memory speed would be a bottleneck for those huge databases, they'd already run insanely much faster with a massive memory system like that, instead of constantly going through a disk subsystem. DDR2-667
can push a whopping theoretical 5.3GB/s already, which is much faster than any RAID system I've heard of
And I wouldn't say home users are capacity-capped, really... you might be able to utilize 4GB of memory under peak situations, and 8GB if you're doing extreme stuff, but as the current date (almpost-March 2008, should anybody not know
) I can't see where a relatively standard
workstation user could utilize more than 8GB of memory...