rmay635703 wrote on 2025-12-23, 20:24:

IBMFan wrote on 2025-12-23, 18:52:

People are complaining about a 32 GB DDR5 module for $350 yet own a 5070 GPU and a 5950X totaling to like $1400. It's funny when tin foil hat conspiracies appear about high prices and Big Tech buying up everything to take people's rights to own stuff, usually written by people who have enough disposable income to buy a 32 GB module every month. It's basically the same topic as "retro prices have gone up" written by people owning a warehouse full of retro stuff.
Always the same crap coming up at least once a month.

This would be similar to arguing people own a $100,000 truck and have no right to complain about ram tripling in price to a grand

Except it doesn't unless you want to buy top tier max OC+++. You can complain all you want but the cheaper options are still available.

At this moment the prices only continue to rise up. It got silly enough to affect DDR3 second-hand market too, although mildly so far, because there's too much DDR3 laying around.

Well, it started out as somewhat believable trolling, now it's just so obvious it is no longer worth thinking about.

Ozzuneoj wrote on 2025-12-23, 15:03:

This is just arguing semantics. Every product is developed for a purpose and then given a name and a price.

Nvidia saw the numbers during cryptomining boom and concluded that selling the same performance with frame generation smothered on top will suffice. So the reason was very clear - sell cheaper card for more money, because customers won't have much choice anyway.

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2025-12-23, 20:44:

Ozzuneoj wrote on 2025-12-23, 15:03:

This is just arguing semantics. Every product is developed for a purpose and then given a name and a price.

Nvidia saw the numbers during cryptomining boom and concluded that selling the same performance with frame generation smothered on top will suffice. So the reason was very clear - sell cheaper card for more money, because customers won't have much choice anyway.

Yep, that was pretty clear. And doing so worsened the stagnation in the GPU market.

It used to be a golden age of gaming GPUs and now it's a golden age of other things. In terms of hardware you can't ignore the fact that you were lifted to this level to begin with, can't argue you were owed this and more.

vvbee wrote on 2025-12-24, 08:53:

In terms of hardware you can't ignore the fact that you were lifted to this level to begin with, can't argue you were owed this and more.

This would be a good argument if the AI boom was not funded with so much taxpayer money

The upside of this is that I just can flat out refuse to buy my kid a new gaming desktop due to insane GPU&RAM prices and make him appreciate his terrible ancient 32GB ddr4 rig with the archeological find he calls a 2060 super. 😁

Lutsoad wrote on 2025-12-24, 09:46:

The upside of this is that I just can flat out refuse to buy my kid a new gaming desktop due to insane GPU&RAM prices and make him appreciate his terrible ancient 32GB ddr4 rig with the archeological find he calls a 2060 super. 😁

I wonder if my NUC6i7kyk counts as a archeological discovery too!

Time to revive old hardware with Linux CachyOS 😀

Munx wrote on 2025-12-24, 09:01:

This would be a good argument if the AI boom was not funded with so much taxpayer money

Which is effectively the same thing as venture capital money in this respect: that in order to get either one of them, all you have to do is convince a few self-important idiots that your invention is going to "change the world" (you don't even have to specify how, but it helps if it vaguely involves marketable products and services magically falling from the sky)

AncapDude wrote on 2025-12-22, 04:38:

AI is a disease

And we are the cure.

Munx wrote on 2025-12-24, 09:01:

vvbee wrote on 2025-12-24, 08:53:

In terms of hardware you can't ignore the fact that you were lifted to this level to begin with, can't argue you were owed this and more.

This would be a good argument if the AI boom was not funded with so much taxpayer money

I don't see what you're getting at, you benefit from much better hardware than you had before and your tax money (well not in Europe) is delivering AI value, so you're entitled to more, or what? Of course you pay tax to a higher power so that they can organize and fund beneficial projects you could never get going on your own, so you're not in a strong position to dictate the details anyway.

vvbee wrote on 2025-12-24, 22:57:

Munx wrote on 2025-12-24, 09:01:

vvbee wrote on 2025-12-24, 08:53:

In terms of hardware you can't ignore the fact that you were lifted to this level to begin with, can't argue you were owed this and more.

This would be a good argument if the AI boom was not funded with so much taxpayer money

I don't see what you're getting at, you benefit from much better hardware than you had before and your tax money (well not in Europe) is delivering AI value, so you're entitled to more, or what? Of course you pay tax to a higher power so that they can organize and fund beneficial projects you could never get going on your own, so you're not in a strong position to dictate the details anyway.

US Government investments are being put into tech companies to piss away on AI and in turn make consumer goods more expensive thanks to those very same companies buying up all the silicon. There is no "better hardware" for me or you - there is just server boards that will go into a landfill as soon as the AI bubble pops and the main thing that will remain is surveillance software. This is not happening in the EU (hopefully, not that I know of in any major way), but if I was a US citizen I'd be pretty pissed.

Ozzuneoj wrote on 2025-12-23, 04:34:

Overall though, things have stagnated quite a bit, yes. I think we can blame that on the fact that nearly everything the average non-gamer needs to accomplish on a computer could be done plenty fast enough on a Windows XP computer with an SSD, a couple gigs of RAM and a Core 2 Duo... if not for outdated security updates and web browser support. That has taken a lot of the urgency out of advancing the speed of general computing.

Indeed. Though I personally think the smartphone "revolution" also fueled a big portion of this stagnation too.

Just think about how many people there are out there that don't even have a stand-alone computer at home anymore (I'm talking about laptops and desktops here.) To many, a phone, which is really the most commonly portable form of a computer there is these days, is often good enough for everything they need. The refocus of the tech industry into smartphones and tablets probably at least somewhat reduced the speed and/or need for development of PC hardware. Also, due to the small size and low power availability (battery) of phones and tablets, the hardware in them is also lot more limited in performance compared to a "regular" computer (be it desktop or laptop). As such, the need for more optimized / less bloated software re-emerged again for many software devs - not just for desktop "apps", but also in the sphere of web development too. (On the other hand, don't get me started on how everything on the 'net has become so vertical view -oriented - ugh!) So probably a good deal of why there was some stagnation / slowdown in software bloat in the late 2000's and onwards is directly linked to the popularity of smartphones... and probably why the PC hardware from that era (~ Core 2 Duo) can still be usable today. As you said, if it wasn't for outdated security and outdated/abandoned OS support, Win XP and 7 could still do like 90% of the office tasks today, if not more.

That said, I can understand why software tech companies can't keep supporting their old products forever - after all, they need to support themselves financially. Solely relying on doing that from tech support on an old product would likely mean the company would need to downsize aggressively after the product is released and goes into its "support/updates" phase. On the other hand, I think we can all also agree that it's very -wrong- when a software company forcefully makes their old software obsolete purely to remove competition from their current product so that they can rake in larger profits. Ideally, software companies should adjust their product's lifecycle expectations to what the market demand is. For Windows, I think we can easily say that's now around the 10-year mark, seeing how XP and 7 (and even W10!) turned out. It would also allow a longer lifecycle of PC hardware... which would probably cause a stagnation in the development of new hardware techs. But on the other hand, imagine if your current rig would now be "just fine" for the next 10+ years with no need for upgrading whatsoever (even for the latest AAA games). Wouldn't that be nice? Not only would this be better for the consumer (more budget-friendly), but it would also certainly be better for the environment too. And it even has the potential to be better for the tech companies, as it would mean a (very) slow, but stable growth. Of course, in saying this, it's probably quite obvious now why tech companies aren't doing so. After all, no one wants small profits over long periods of time. Large profits over a short period of time - yeah baby, hit me up!
And that pretty much concludes why we are where we are... with AI, RAM prices, and all that jazz.

luckybob wrote on 2025-12-22, 18:49:

it will collapse. The system will /eventually/ self-correct.

That's what was said many times about cryptocurrency... and yet, here we are.
As such, I don't think this AI bubble will burst either. But *maybe* after a few years (or hopefully less) it might just level out. But who knows?!

If anyone wants to help do anything about it, then start by not "feeding the monkeys/trolls" anymore.
Or more directly said, avoid using AI or any products that heavily rely on AI. And I know that might seem almost impossible these days, given how integrated it's become. But it's not impossible - it just may take a lot of adjustments to one's everyday technology habits and use.

Hoping wrote on 2025-12-22, 12:42:

Nowadays, 64 GB is considered a lot, but in my opinion, that's ridiculous. 64 GB should be considered the minimum today, 128 GB should be acceptable, 256 GB should be standard, and 512 GB should be for enthusiasts.

Why?! So that we can have even more sloppy/lazy software taking 10's of gigabytes to run the same basic crap that the old version could?

In the same sense, should we keep adding more wheels to cars just because technology has made them cheaper compared to what they were in the early automobile era (e.g. equivalent to the 80's and 90's in computers)?

Perhaps, the more direct question is, at what point is the good enough really good enough finally?

Yes, if we do stop at good enough, that would lead to stagnation in development of new and/or better technologies.
... and imagine if we had stopped at 640kb of memory (which someone famously said "ought to be enough for everyone".) On the other hand, did we really need all of this excess that we have today? And is anyone even asking what's the price we had to pay for all of that?

Hoping wrote on 2025-12-22, 12:42:

It is normal for such a strong software advance as AI to suffer from this stagnation.

I wouldn't call LLMs (what everyone refers to as "AI") a software advance anymore.
It _had_ a lot of potential to be a great and very useful tool. Instead, it fell too quickly in the hands of the masses and greedy companies... and now, most of its use is a waste of energy and resources.

Munx wrote on 2025-12-25, 09:12:

vvbee wrote on 2025-12-24, 22:57:

Munx wrote on 2025-12-24, 09:01:

This would be a good argument if the AI boom was not funded with so much taxpayer money

I don't see what you're getting at, you benefit from much better hardware than you had before and your tax money (well not in Europe) is delivering AI value, so you're entitled to more, or what? Of course you pay tax to a higher power so that they can organize and fund beneficial projects you could never get going on your own, so you're not in a strong position to dictate the details anyway.

US Government investments are being put into tech companies to piss away on AI and in turn make consumer goods more expensive thanks to those very same companies buying up all the silicon. There is no "better hardware" for me or you - there is just server boards that will go into a landfill as soon as the AI bubble pops and the main thing that will remain is surveillance software. This is not happening in the EU (hopefully, not that I know of in any major way), but if I was a US citizen I'd be pretty pissed.

You have a bleak view but it follows my point. You're out of a golden age but don't want to accept it. By doing this you end up arguing you're entitled to it, which goes nowhere. Meanwhile AI is now a producer so first in line before the consumer, and you end up benefiting more from AI.

All the also rans who end up bankrupt will be flushing their hardware on the market at fractions of the dollar sooner or later. All these gold rushes end up with 1 or 2 winners, and the rest just burn through billions for nothing.

It's a bubble. And it *will* burst.

momaka wrote on 2025-12-25, 18:41:

Indeed. Though I personally think the smartphone "revolution" also fueled a big portion of this stagnation too. […]
Show full quote

Ozzuneoj wrote on 2025-12-23, 04:34:

Overall though, things have stagnated quite a bit, yes. I think we can blame that on the fact that nearly everything the average non-gamer needs to accomplish on a computer could be done plenty fast enough on a Windows XP computer with an SSD, a couple gigs of RAM and a Core 2 Duo... if not for outdated security updates and web browser support. That has taken a lot of the urgency out of advancing the speed of general computing.

Indeed. Though I personally think the smartphone "revolution" also fueled a big portion of this stagnation too.

Just think about how many people there are out there that don't even have a stand-alone computer at home anymore (I'm talking about laptops and desktops here.) To many, a phone, which is really the most commonly portable form of a computer there is these days, is often good enough for everything they need. The refocus of the tech industry into smartphones and tablets probably at least somewhat reduced the speed and/or need for development of PC hardware. Also, due to the small size and low power availability (battery) of phones and tablets, the hardware in them is also lot more limited in performance compared to a "regular" computer (be it desktop or laptop). As such, the need for more optimized / less bloated software re-emerged again for many software devs - not just for desktop "apps", but also in the sphere of web development too. (On the other hand, don't get me started on how everything on the 'net has become so vertical view -oriented - ugh!) So probably a good deal of why there was some stagnation / slowdown in software bloat in the late 2000's and onwards is directly linked to the popularity of smartphones... and probably why the PC hardware from that era (~ Core 2 Duo) can still be usable today. As you said, if it wasn't for outdated security and outdated/abandoned OS support, Win XP and 7 could still do like 90% of the office tasks today, if not more.

That said, I can understand why software tech companies can't keep supporting their old products forever - after all, they need to support themselves financially. Solely relying on doing that from tech support on an old product would likely mean the company would need to downsize aggressively after the product is released and goes into its "support/updates" phase. On the other hand, I think we can all also agree that it's very -wrong- when a software company forcefully makes their old software obsolete purely to remove competition from their current product so that they can rake in larger profits. Ideally, software companies should adjust their product's lifecycle expectations to what the market demand is. For Windows, I think we can easily say that's now around the 10-year mark, seeing how XP and 7 (and even W10!) turned out. It would also allow a longer lifecycle of PC hardware... which would probably cause a stagnation in the development of new hardware techs. But on the other hand, imagine if your current rig would now be "just fine" for the next 10+ years with no need for upgrading whatsoever (even for the latest AAA games). Wouldn't that be nice? Not only would this be better for the consumer (more budget-friendly), but it would also certainly be better for the environment too. And it even has the potential to be better for the tech companies, as it would mean a (very) slow, but stable growth. Of course, in saying this, it's probably quite obvious now why tech companies aren't doing so. After all, no one wants small profits over long periods of time. Large profits over a short period of time - yeah baby, hit me up!
And that pretty much concludes why we are where we are... with AI, RAM prices, and all that jazz.

luckybob wrote on 2025-12-22, 18:49:

it will collapse. The system will /eventually/ self-correct.

That's what was said many times about cryptocurrency... and yet, here we are.
As such, I don't think this AI bubble will burst either. But *maybe* after a few years (or hopefully less) it might just level out. But who knows?!

If anyone wants to help do anything about it, then start by not "feeding the monkeys/trolls" anymore.
Or more directly said, avoid using AI or any products that heavily rely on AI. And I know that might seem almost impossible these days, given how integrated it's become. But it's not impossible - it just may take a lot of adjustments to one's everyday technology habits and use.

Hoping wrote on 2025-12-22, 12:42:

Nowadays, 64 GB is considered a lot, but in my opinion, that's ridiculous. 64 GB should be considered the minimum today, 128 GB should be acceptable, 256 GB should be standard, and 512 GB should be for enthusiasts.

Why?! So that we can have even more sloppy/lazy software taking 10's of gigabytes to run the same basic crap that the old version could?

In the same sense, should we keep adding more wheels to cars just because technology has made them cheaper compared to what they were in the early automobile era (e.g. equivalent to the 80's and 90's in computers)?

Perhaps, the more direct question is, at what point is the good enough really good enough finally?

Yes, if we do stop at good enough, that would lead to stagnation in development of new and/or better technologies.
... and imagine if we had stopped at 640kb of memory (which someone famously said "ought to be enough for everyone".) On the other hand, did we really need all of this excess that we have today? And is anyone even asking what's the price we had to pay for all of that?

Hoping wrote on 2025-12-22, 12:42:

It is normal for such a strong software advance as AI to suffer from this stagnation.

I wouldn't call LLMs (what everyone refers to as "AI") a software advance anymore.
It _had_ a lot of potential to be a great and very useful tool. Instead, it fell too quickly in the hands of the masses and greedy companies... and now, most of its use is a waste of energy and resources.

Excellent points. I apologize for not posting a more thorough reply to everything you said, but I tend to be long winded so I'm just going to go with my thought and hope I express it accurately, 🤣.

As you said, there are perfectly logical reasons for everything to be the way it is right now. And, sadly, we are reaching a point in society where we're seeing how this kind of "progress" ends up. I do not want to get into philosophical discussions, but simply put, self centered materialistic goals and desires are what is preventing things from working in the best interest of everyone. Nearly everyone wants to get rich and expects to be able to do so in whatever way they choose, because that is how they were told things were supposed to work out, and most people around them are living the same way.

So, whether it's the person who expects to make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year programing for a big company until they retire, the person that was a programmer but is now managing projects wanting the same thing with a bit more hundreds of thousands, the CEOs and board members who want the same thing with extra zeros added so they take companies public and are now legally obligated to do what is in the best interest of investors and shareholders (who also expect all the money\value they can possibly gain from this relationship), the person who makes the hardware that is used to run that company's software, the person who installs that hardware, the person who maintains that hardware... everyone along the way has been told most of their life that they need to gain as much materially as they possibly can, and in some cases it is impossible (debts, obligations, etc.) or even illegal (publicly traded companies) for them to do otherwise.

Nowhere along the way is "making the last\best ____ that anyone will ever need, so that human efforts can be spent elsewhere." a decision that is going to work long term, because society does not support this kind of thinking. For example, Microsoft could have refined some past version of Windows into the most bullet proof, secure, stable and efficient OS ever over time, building it from the ground up to expand as software needs change with the times. But you can't support tens of thousands of salaries, pensions, stocks, etc. forever by making a product that, after 20 years of refining only needs minor maintenance and updates. You can't tell your shareholders "Our plan is to make it so the product does everything that people need it do by 2030, and then massively scale back operations and switch to just a small maintenance and feature adding role for the foreseeable future. We will barely be making any money after that because no one needs to buy from us anymore." ... you just can't do that.

So, instead we get... what we have. It's the same in most industries these days... cars, appliances, etc. This is why so many things are going this way... reducing ownership, increasing subscriptions, reducing repairability. It is the last way for money generators (corporations) to generate money once they have made everything as fast, efficient, reliable and feature-filled as most people need. At some point, the billions\trillions of dollars that have allowed these companies\people the flexibility they needed to "advance" civilization in some positive way will result in companies\people that are so big that it is no longer in their best interest to continue "advancing" civilization.

If we aren't past that point already, it sure feels like it.

Anyway... I'm not saying there's a solution right now. Most people love life being this way and will continue to support such a system. And that's fine. It is the way things are now. Personally, I'm not a fan, but I'll try to make due, try to make a decent impact on those around me and take care of my family. I'm not going to dig any further into the subject than that.

megatron-uk wrote on 2025-12-25, 20:00:

It's a bubble. And it *will* burst.

US has been sustaining multiple massive bubbles since 2018 or so, only one crashed
do to bailouts,
worse of all the 2020 shadow bank bailout , government interference and various programs to prop up the upper 5% we have a bifurcated k-shaped economy that doesn’t need any employees it just needs spending from the wealthy to do great.

Only spending into business now is .gov/military and ai, 6 companies make up our entire economy.

By all accounts our economy likely is completely crashed but do to the reasons I mentioned the metrics never will show one.

Not sure if it’s different anywhere else in the world but we are already cooked here but so long as the government spends and the wealthy 5% buy that’s all we need to have a “good” economy.
Money printing has restarted despite inflation not down to goal, might be similar to Japan’s lost generation, if you are middle class any savings you have might be inflated away. The claims are to buy housing/vehicles now because prices will double next year.