Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

They have to use DDR4-3200 to be able to put the RAM on a stick. Integrated systems can use LPDDR4x-4267. You can't put that on a stick. It's a trade-off. It turns out it takes extra power to drive high-speed signals across long traces with connectors.


I thought the power advantage mostly came from the total bus being half as wide (32-bit LPDDR4X versus 64-bit DDR4).

Do you have a reference for why it can’t be put on a removable module?


I'm fairly sure the power advantage comes from VDDQ being much lower: .6V for LPDDR4x and 1.2V for DDR4. LPDDR4x is or at least can be 64 bits wide, just like DDR4.


That's fair enough. I guess I just hope that we figure out a way to overcome this I suppose.


What performance/cost impact are we talking about?


Judging by reviews, the Framework loses 10% of CPU+GPU performance versus reference designs. That could be due to their memory subsystem or thermal design, or both. Ars Technica said the battery life was "mediocre" but I would have gone with "terrible". Compared to the Dell XPS 13 the Framework has only 60% the life.


As arstechnica noted, the XPS 13 is not a great comparison point because the display is darker and has a lower resolution.




Consider applying for YC's Winter 2026 batch! Applications are open till Nov 10

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: