Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Lu, 15 mar 21, 17:21:39, Dan Ritter wrote:
> >
> > At last report: normal desktop Ryzens (nothing with a G suffix
> > unless it also has a PRO marking)
>
> Do you have a reliable source for the lack of ECC support in G suffix
> processors?
>
> And why would it work
On Lu, 15 mar 21, 17:21:39, Dan Ritter wrote:
>
> At last report: normal desktop Ryzens (nothing with a G suffix
> unless it also has a PRO marking)
Do you have a reliable source for the lack of ECC support in G suffix
processors?
And why would it work for PRO processors instead?
I think
Anssi Saari wrote:
> Dan Ritter writes:
>
> As for the ECC support in Ryzen CPUs, as I understand it it's a bit of a
> mess. Sure the CPUs support it but if it's not validated by motherboard
> manufacturers, how do you know it actually works reliably?
... by trying it out and reporting the
Dan Ritter writes:
> Intel knew that their argument was bull: they owned the market
> and needed ways of subdividing their CPUs to fit every price
> point. Turning off ECC support was one of those ways.
> That strategy started with the 80486, when they brought out a
> cheap version called the
Sven Hartge wrote:
> Stefan Monnier wrote:
>
> > From a purely technical perspective, it's hard to understand how Intel
> > managed to pour so much energy into such an obviously bad idea. The
> > only explanations seem all to be linked to market strategies.
>
> This history repeats for Intel
Stefan Monnier wrote:
> From a purely technical perspective, it's hard to understand how Intel
> managed to pour so much energy into such an obviously bad idea. The
> only explanations seem all to be linked to market strategies.
This history repeats for Intel on several fronts:
Look at the
6 matches
Mail list logo
