New cost-effective DDR5 memory 'HUDIMMs' show around 50% reduction in throughput with single subchannel — Two HUDIMMs are as fast as a single stick of regular DDR5 RAM

which again they made solution to soemthing that wasnt a problem.

spending more for 2 sticks of hudimm than a single stick of udimm was stupid and waste of time and resources.

"Do you expect me to buy HUDIMMs?"

"No, I expect you to die."

In today's news scientists discover water is wet.

I assume the reasoning here is that the higher density chips are cheaper to make even at twice the capacity, so 8GB with 4 chips is cheaper than 8GB with 8 chips? And the ones that would use these are those that are more price-sensitive than performance-hungry. A single 16GB 64-bit stick might also be slightly more than two 8GB 32-bit sticks, if the PCB and assembly cost isn't a huge percentage of the total, so you could get the same performance overall (roughly) for a lot less money, but sacrifice the option to just add another module to get double the capacity on a 2-slot board, again not being important at the low end. A 4-slot board would have options though, allowing you to go cheap at the start then upgrade when RAM is less expensive without having to throw out what you have. (I doubt you can mix 32- and 64-bit modules on the same channel, making the controller work with both at once on that channel.)

Mixing 8GB 32- and 16GB 64-bit modules to get 96-bit would be effective but only for 16GB of the RAM. Same as two sizes that are both 64-bit, though with less loss for data that goes into the single-channel address range (as long as the 64-bit is the larger one; if it's the smaller, the performance drop would be huge). You would ideally still want 8GB in both channels.

I hadn't even realized or thought about the controllers still working with bonded 32-bit sub-channels. Just subconsciously assumed it was a single 64-bit now, and it seems like that would have reduced complexity and allowed higher performance. I remember when dual-channel was still newish and some chipsets (nForce) had the option of bonding them as a single 128-bit bus or operating as two independent 64-bit busses so that latency from the IGP RAM usage wouldn't delay the CPU, which helped a lot with integrated graphics as the CPU and IGP weren't using the same channel. Even with half the channel-width it allowed the CPU to maintain performance in most cases because it wasn't waiting for IGP traffic, and the CPU didn't gain that much with more width. It also allowed higher overclocking.

I think this is a false economy though, and bad for consumers overall. "Average" buyers will see a lower price (which in normal times wouldn't be that large, but would be significant during times like now with RAM prices blown up; the lower price will only be in comparison to what it could be with today's RAM prices, not what it ought to be normally) but they won't realize they're getting half the performance that they could have, or limiting their upgrade options. Pre-built machines won't be advertised with even small print saying "uses 32-bit memory modules". The more ethical companies might indicate they use HUDIMMs, but normal people won't know what that means, and some more knowledgeable ones might know what a DIMM is but just think HUDIMM is a newer and better version. Machines that currently use a single 64-bit module to save money might move to two 32-bit modules, giving the same performance and probably costing the same as they did before the memory price explosion, but they'll be cheaper than any that use a single 64-bit at today's prices, and way cheaper than two 64-bit modules. (Of course when the RAMpocalypse prices come back down, the 32-bit versions will also go down, so those systems using 32-bit will still be cheaper. My complaints it just that it's really only NOW during this period that the difference in price might be worth the loss of performance even to a moderately heavy user/gamer, and when prices go down they would be willing to pay the premium for dual 64-bit, but those people won't be aware they're getting dual 32-bit and losing performance and that's why the price is lower. People just reading email and web surfing won't care about anything but price at any time.)

And the RAM makers and system builders will continue making and using 32-bit modules forever, muddying the waters of the market for buyers to save a bit of money on the build side which they'll only partially pass on to the customer, so it ultimately becomes another profit-maker more than concern about customers being able to afford them. And I guarantee there will be systems being sold with a single 32-bit module at a price that isn't as much less as it ought to be for the performance loss, with only some hidden or small-print indicator in unintelligible marketing-speak to inform the consumer of what they're getting.

This is worse than CAMM RAM, which I think is bad because with that you will always and forever be forced to replace ALL your RAM if even one chip goes bad or you want to upgrade. I think they could still improve performance without changing the form factor to that, and any cost savings aren't worth the consequences of forced dual-channel modules except for people who would never upgrade and are in the (admitted majority) group that never have a failure.