blatant advertisement yes, high capacity? give me a break. 8GB sticks have been out 18 months barely barely more expensive per gigabyte for a triple channel kit.
What's even scarier is that dual 8GB laptop (so-dimm) kits are *cheaper* per stick than the 8GB desktop (dimm) with the triple channel kits.
...just because it's been out for a year and half it doesn't mean it isn't high capacity. I don't see why so-dimms being cheaper are surprising - you're not paying for things like the architecture anymore, but rather the more concrete aspects such as the materials, the factory, and stocking fees. The price ratio of RAM isn't that great when you compare a 2GB DDR3 stick to a 4GB stick. That being said, SO-DIMMs tend to involve less materials and less electronic components, so therefore they might be cheaper.
Personally, I think we're at a point where we can ditch DIMMs and only use SO-DIMMs. As far as I'm aware, the performance difference is the same and they can both fit the same capacities (though SO-DIMMs seem to be a little slower in adopting a new higher capacity).
claiming 4GB sticks as high capacity? You do realize 18 months is almost an eternity in the tech market?
I never said 4GB was high capacity, for today's standards (in a PC perspective) it's very moderate, though, for the average user it is more than necessary (not quite overkill though). Also, if you think 18 months for 8GB sticks is an eternity then what do you have to say about the fact that DDR3 itself was released in 2007?
And really, better get 4×2GB if you need fast RAM (and you're on S2011), the only use of triple channel is for S1366 (which is quite old now).
FFS you're a pack of moron's;
"If you are in the market for a high-capacity triple-channel memory kit" << == First line of the article.
What's the next step after 12GB in the triple channel arena? It's also the final step. Duuuhhhh, 3x8=24GB, maybe? 12GB of triple channel is considered 'high capacity' for the architecture and market it was targeting. Most people on a day to day basis get by on 1GB phones. Most games dont need half of 12GB to run, and any game, even in high res, doesn't need 12GB as the VGA is the workhorse these days. So 12GB is still relevant.
The only thing that was not mentioned was wtf this server was for, which quite possibly was a wise decision/oversight on Mikes part. It would have provoked more stupid technical argy bargy about who's got a bigger penis for 1 dorra less. And the server was built around commodity consumer hardware and not server grade, so capacaties of 64GB+ aren't relevant.
And I also checked out my local suppliers rates for triple channel; this RAM happens to have the best price point so, advert or not, the article has a gem of truth even on the other side of the world.