Super User is a question and answer site for computer enthusiasts and power users. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Why would Intel processors have extremely high memory bandwidths but relatively low memory capacity?

share|improve this question

closed as not constructive by Breakthrough, random Sep 15 '11 at 2:43

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

Umm, the 8GB limit has nothing to do with the processor. . . – surfasb Sep 15 '11 at 2:14
up vote 2 down vote accepted

Because you want to read the memory as fast as possible. With that configuration, it will take 380ms to read the entire 8GB of memory. That may seem fast, but 380ms is a long time as far as the processor is concerned.

Considering a modern processor can do billions of floating point operations in a second, that last thing you want is to have it held up waiting for memory access.

share|improve this answer
+1 for great answer. So no matter how fast your memory is, the connection needs to handle it? – wizlog Sep 15 '11 at 1:12

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.