"According to Intel, this move will make the RAM use up to 40 percent less power."
On top of the performance gains integrated RAM uses less power.
On top of these two things, Intel has better margins if they sell the RAM.
And while it's not as fast as GPU memory, you can easily have more memory for AI in an unified memory model (64gb e.g.) - or rumored 128gb for Strix Halo.
See how Mx is faster, uses less power, is better for AI, and Apple makes more money?
Don't see how Apple makes more money is a good thing - it means millions of their clients have less money left.
I don't think $200 is justified nor do I want to defend Apple... but where do you get 8GB with 100 GB/s bandwidth for $10?
With DDR5 I'd say more like 2.4x. And it should be made clear that that's mostly by virtue of fitting the equivalent of four memory channels on the Pro models. The non-Pro models don't see a very big boost.
In that context, CAMM stays exciting, because if you design a CPU to support two LPCAMM2 modules you can get 200+GB/s on upgradable memory. Though in a laptop form factor it would be hard to double that again to compete with a Max chip.
For me the most important aspect of ECC is not making the memory reliable. It's telling me the RAM is becoming unreliable, which you know because the number of errors detected and corrected is rising. DDR5 ECC does not provide that information.
Once you start seeing ECC RAM errors you know it might be the cause of system failures you see. Knowing a specific piece of hardware might be failing is far better than a random crash that might be caused by memory, or the CPU, or a software bug, or PCI bus failure and a zillion other things.
HDD SMART is the same thing. Once you see errors from a drive rising you know it won't be long before it fails. One of the negatives of SSD's is you don't get the information, so they fail without warning.
That aside, DDR5 ECC is not end to end. It might not be the RAM calls that are failing. It might be getting the bit to the pins on the chip, or the connector, or the memory bus, or the CPU RAM interface. CPU ECC covers all of that.
They are just being desperate. Desperate because they can't crack the code on improving the fundamental architecture. So they are pushing everything else to their limit and bulldozing over consumer choice and repairability in the process.
There's no other explanation. AMD does none of this and still eats Intel for lunch.
I see upgradable RAM as on of the big advantages of x64 laptops over Apple and Qualcomm. Not sure Intel's current strategy to emulate their competitors, rather than play to it's own strong points is a good one.
"In fact, Intel’s future hardware will offer upgradeable RAM. Jim Johnson, Senior Vice President at Intel, explicitly said about user-upgradeable RAM: “We will offer those options in the future.” He also said that the “next turn of the roadmaps will offer more traditional options.”"
This is not a full lineup of chips. This is a very narrow set of parts.
In my experience DDR3/4 on laptops is a common component to fail and will often fail before even discs or a CPU. DDR5 is not old enough yet but I would wager this pattern will continue.
One can hope their integrated RAM is more durable. It would be a shame to see soldered CPUs being unusable because of RAM failures. This would make repair for old devices even more financially unviable.
The ones I have here count how much data they have written. This is a reasonable baseline for telling me when to get a replacement.
Regardless, I'd want Apple to have two additional LPDDR5 slots. The system could swap there or have a tiered memory.
And again as a reminder, we agree that Apple's RAM pricing is ridiculous.
I showed that a company can buy those chips, put them on boards, package them, ship them in tiny quantities, market them, and support them for a total cost of $20.
How much do you think those things cost? They all need to be subtracted from the $20, and also Apple can probably get a better wholesale deal than the brand I was looking at.
I'm not saying $10 is definitely right, but I think it's a pretty good guess.
So there's something they're doing pretty differently.
That said 8->16 GB should be more like $50, not $200.
They do use LPDDR5, which was harder for me to find a price on, but so do lots of other laptops, and I don't know if it's more or less expensive than DDR5.