[HN Gopher] CXMT has been offering DDR4 chips at about half the ...
___________________________________________________________________
CXMT has been offering DDR4 chips at about half the prevailing
market rate
Author : phront
Score : 122 points
Date : 2026-02-21 14:32 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.koreaherald.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.koreaherald.com)
| tonetegeatinst wrote:
| More competition is always good
| mrweasel wrote:
| This feels like a classic business blunder. Focus hard on a
| single business segment, leaving an opening in the market for
| your competitors. Not because it wasn't profitable, but because
| it wasn't profitable enough for you, right now. Only downside is
| that now you've created an opening for a new player in the
| market.
|
| This feels like a short coming of western business/stock market
| thinking. Focusing on profit within the next few quarters, and
| not caring about the longer term consequences. For all it's flaws
| and shady business practises at least China can think beyond a
| single fiscal year.
| tjwebbnorfolk wrote:
| Ok but this is how the market is supposed to work. If the
| incumbents aren't doing what their customers want, then
| competitors can rise and fill the gap and compete.
|
| This isn't a shortcoming, it's a competitive market working as
| intended.
| delecti wrote:
| The market doing what it's supposed to do does not negate
| that the market segment has only been left open because of
| overly myopic businesses.
| estimator7292 wrote:
| That's what modern capitalism _is_ and it 's bad for
| everyone
| qup wrote:
| Why would we think businesses will always make the right
| move?
|
| They'll blunder. They'll do it even harder in the absence
| of competition.
| delecti wrote:
| Who said I thought businesses would always make the right
| move?
|
| Businesses blunder. "The market" is just a set of
| observations, including that competitors will tend to
| take advantage of those blunders. It is not a failure of
| the market that businesses have blundered, nor surprising
| that it will happen occasionally, and neither I nor
| mrweasel implied otherwise.
| tjwebbnorfolk wrote:
| The market is actively trying to solve it right now. Micron
| is investing $200B in new fabs. Everyone is trying to ramp
| up production.
|
| Yes, identifying a problem is easy. But solving shortages
| in all cases requires perfect knowledge of future demand.
| So, good luck.
| PearlRiver wrote:
| Everyone gets mad when Chinese do capitalism...
| bigyabai wrote:
| "Why is nobody berating China?" is my favorite oft-repeated
| refrain on HN.
| joe_mamba wrote:
| NO you see, we have to hate Chinese companies because they
| are unfair competitors since they get state funding from
| the Chinese government, unlike Intel, Micron, TSMC, ASML,
| Samsung who don't get state funding from the US, EU,
| Taiwan, ROK ... oh wait.
|
| Scratch that, we have to hate Chinese companies because
| they do business with the Chinese military, unlike Intel,
| Nvidia, Samsung who don't do business with the US and ROK
| military ... oh wait.
| dev1ycan wrote:
| I know you are being sarcastic but the reason why we have
| to hate Chinese is simply because the standard of living
| of Americans depends on China not succeeding, simple as
| that.
| joe_mamba wrote:
| Well then hey can just say THAT, instead of coming up
| with hypocritical BS that doesn't pass the smell test.
| People internationally have enough IQ to see through the
| double standards BS, especially since youtube is a thing.
|
| And the standard of living of working class Americans has
| been on a steady decline since Reagan by the hand of US
| administrations, not by the hand of CHina.
|
| This isn't defending anyone's standard of living, it's
| defending profits of domestic monopolies like Micron, who
| indulge in state subsidies from US taxpayers and then
| fuck then over on prices.
| yellowapple wrote:
| Does it, though? If anything it seems like the opposite:
| China's success had directly enabled my standard of
| living as an American to be as high as it is.
|
| I suppose it'd be true that the standard of living of
| _some_ Americans depends on China not succeeding --
| specifically, those Americans who own corporations
| competing with Chinese firms -- but I think they 'll
| survive just fine with only 10 yachts instead of 15.
| assaddayinh wrote:
| Lets not forget there is no competitors. There is one
| competitor- the chinese state, one huge company willing to
| subsidize any endeavor that will help it fmgain more
| marketshare with already captured markets.
| 127 wrote:
| Only if you don't want or need any geopolitical gradient at
| all.
| xadhominemx wrote:
| CXMT sells the vast majority of their bits at the prevailing
| market rate, just like everyone else. They are adding capacity
| as quickly as they can, with a 5-10 year planning horizon, just
| like everyone else. It's really not that deep!
| orphea wrote:
| > They are adding capacity as quickly as they can [...], just
| like everyone else
|
| Are you sure? In the past they explicitly said they are not
| going to increase production.
|
| https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/dram/memory-
| maker...
| xadhominemx wrote:
| Yes of course their messaging to customers and the
| investment community is that they will be rational and
| measured in their investments. In reality, they are adding
| capacity as quickly as possible as margins are too high.
| However, capacity addition leading edge semiconductor
| manufacturing has a multi-year lead time.
| overfeed wrote:
| > In reality, they are adding capacity as quickly as
| possible [...]
|
| Even if we ignore the fact that you can't build out
| factories in secret, this would be securities fraud by
| publicly listed companies.
|
| > ...as margins are too high
|
| This is not the first RAM boom-bust cycle, and memory
| makers are an actual cartel convicted of coordinating in
| the past - none if them are going to break rank when they
| can invest the minimum and reap outsized benefits. Also,
| no one wants to invest in additional capacity when the
| bottom can fall out at anytime, and shareholders demand
| your head- not even the AI companies want to bear that
| risk, which is saying something.
| washadjeffmad wrote:
| PRC asked them to curtail DDR4 production so they didn't
| bottom out the market a year or two ago, and to focus on
| latest gen development, like HBM. They were the world
| leader in cost efficient DDR4 production at the time.
| zozbot234 wrote:
| It's not really a blunder though. Given that total capacity is
| tightly constrained, Samsung and SK Hynix are happy to focus on
| what they do at their best and with the highest margins. Why
| shouldn't they supply the HBM market?
| overfeed wrote:
| It's putting all eggs in one basket. If/when the higher-
| margin category collapses, they'll have no fallback. Imagine
| Chevrolet had discontinued Impalas and other low-margin cars,
| and switched to Corvettes during the pandemic
| sophrosyne42 wrote:
| There is really nothing about the stock market that means only
| thinking about the mext few quarters. See all the losses on the
| profit and loss statements of AI tech giants, or, say, game
| console companies? Why are their stocks still valued so highly
| during these periods? The answer: investors are thinking long
| term.
|
| It is really impossible to have quality long term thinking
| without capitalization accounting and similar instruments that
| come out of the "wester" system of business that chinese free
| enterprise gladly and speedily copied when it was made free.
| twosdai wrote:
| I think the sentiment here is about management's tie of
| bonuses to near-term stock performance. Maybe not about the
| market itself, I agree with your view on investors want long
| term gains over short term fluctuations mostly.
| someperson wrote:
| As a outside observer, NAND and DRAM prices have skyrocket ed
| with the AI infrastructure boom just as the China-based fabs are
| coming online.
|
| It is wise for these Chinese fabs to eventually use a very
| aggressive dumping strategy to price well below cost push out
| other players forever, especially in DRAM.
|
| But right now it seems they can max out their supply capacity
| without selling below cost.
|
| Appears to me like China's endless state led (often unproductive)
| investment in semiconductor manufacturing subsidies (for decades)
| is about to pay off with some industry dominance soon.
|
| Like the electric vehicle sector.
| nutjob2 wrote:
| It's funny that you call this an "very aggressive dumping
| strategy" while AI vendors are doing the same but with even
| greater losses and on a much larger scale.
|
| It's all simply a fight for market share.
|
| The original sin is the existing DRAM vendors selling their
| entire (spare) capacity to the likes of OpenAI.
| xadhominemx wrote:
| No one sold their capacity to OpenAI. The vast majority of
| DRAM is transacted in what is essentially a quarterly
| auction.
| nutjob2 wrote:
| "RAM is going to AI: OpenAI has secured up to 40% of the
| market."
|
| https://globalcio.com/news/16062/
|
| You're maybe talking about the spot market, but companies
| are free to make any sort of supply contract.
| PowerElectronix wrote:
| I personally fail to see the downside of any manufacturer
| selling forever at a loss, except for the manufacturer itself.
| xyzzy123 wrote:
| You become dependent on the supplier.
|
| The downside in general is that other countries lose
| production capacity in steel, heavy industry, semiconductors,
| machine tools etc - industries that took decades to build and
| can't be easily replaced.
|
| Also they gradually lose the ability to meaningfully innovate
| in those sectors because there's no grounding against
| production reality anymore.
|
| This has geopolitical consequences further down the line.
| riku_iki wrote:
| > steel, heavy industry, semiconductors, machine tools
|
| the question is if single country can carry all these
| industries at loss for prolonged period of time.
|
| Another approach is to rely on international supply chain
| and speed of innovation, we can't produce steel
| domestically profitably today, fine, we may buy it from
| diversified international supplier network, and rebuild it
| fast tomorrow if needed using new tech, and focus on many
| other high margin verticals, instead of putting many
| billions of resources into infra which could be obsolete
| tomorrow.
| xyzzy123 wrote:
| This is fine as long as the supply chain is, in fact,
| diversified.
| riku_iki wrote:
| sure, looks like more analysis is needed to check which
| verticals are diversified and which are not, instead of
| throwing blanket list of everything.
| xyzzy123 wrote:
| Agree, worth analysing what is genuinely commodity.
|
| There are more elements to it though which can be sort of
| hard to explain.
|
| There are whole cultures and ways of thinking built
| around production. The children of engineers who worked
| on xyz v1.0 have a genuine advantage when its time to
| work on xyz v2.0. There is a lot of tacit knowledge in
| these engineering fields and you have a huge advantage in
| knowledge retention if you can maintain unbroken chains
| of succession.
|
| You can't achieve the top levels of ability (decades of
| experience, generational knowledge) if you are whip-
| sawing production to and fro across the globe every 10
| years.
|
| There are also cross pollination effects. Being _in the
| same community_ with as many related fields as possible
| (co-located) is what drives cross-pollination and
| mobility of ideas and people between industries.
|
| Think how many countries have tried to copy "silicon
| valley" and failed, and _why_ they failed.
|
| What I'm saying is that technology is built by _people_
| and there are human reasons why having local capacity is
| beneficial for all the related industries in the area.
| riku_iki wrote:
| > The children of engineers who worked on xyz v1.0 have a
| genuine advantage when its time to work on xyz v2.0.
|
| my point is that other children with no extremely heavy
| investments into perl v1.0, will have some skills in c++
| v1.0 and python v1.0, and will have advantage in adapting
| Tensorflow v1.0, which is more valuable than skills in
| perl v2.0. Heavily investing in one industry you
| sacrifice some flexibility.
|
| So, this is multifactor analysis, lets say wise American
| people will elect me as next president, I would create
| list of industries, assign metrics (national security
| importance, potential revenue in 5y from now, impact on
| other industries, potential margin, risks of failure,
| etc), then build some formula which aggregate those
| metrics into single, and base on final metric allocate
| weighted funds to support N top industries.
| esafak wrote:
| https://atlas.hks.harvard.edu/
| zozbot234 wrote:
| > The downside in general is that other countries lose
| production capacity in steel, heavy industry,
| semiconductors, machine tools etc - industries that took
| decades to build and can't be easily replaced.
|
| That's not really what happens though. You don't actually
| "lose" capacity, you just move to higher-valued special
| niches within the overall industry because (1) you can
| afford to, while low-cost competitors can't and (2) you can
| no longer expect to be the lowest-cost supplier for the
| bulk of the market. That's a win-win development and
| something to be encouraged.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > You don't actually "lose" capacity, you just move to
| higher-valued special niches within the overall industry
|
| That's not what people mean by "lose" capacity.
|
| Suppose DRAM companies expand capacity because prices are
| high, then demand levels off, the price crashes, and they
| all go out of business except for the one in China which
| gets a government bailout. That's fine, right? We're not
| interested in making DRAM, that's a fungible commodity,
| we want to make iPhones or something. (They make those
| too anymore, but never mind that.)
|
| What happens now if China restricts what you can buy to
| give an advantage to their own companies who are trying
| to displace you in the higher-valued special niches? Or
| just raises the price for you and not them? What if
| there's a trade war? Or a conventional war?
|
| When you still have a domestic industry, you go to them
| and have a source for the commodity. If only one country
| becomes the sole global supplier and that country isn't
| even particularly friendly, that's _bad_.
| zozbot234 wrote:
| The domestic industry is still there, only instead of
| mass-market DRAM it has started making higher-valued
| varieties of the same stuff. If there's a trade war, they
| _can_ easily reconvert to making the mass-market stuff,
| just at much higher cost. You can 't expect more than
| that, since they never really were as big or as low-cost
| as the lowest cost suppliers can be in normal times.
| That's not "losing" capacity, it's just acknowledging
| that you can't create capacity out of thin air.
| kyralis wrote:
| > If there's a trade war, they can easily reconvert to
| making the mass-market stuff, just at much higher cost.
|
| "easily" is doing a lot of work in that sentence.
| Depending on the good and what they switch to making,
| this may neither be easy nor quick.
| Espressosaurus wrote:
| No, the domestic industry stagnates (at best) or
| disappears (at worst).
|
| You can't just spin up a 2nm wafer fab when the latest
| you've been running is a 300nm process.
|
| Compare: US shipbuilding industry to China or SK.
| youarentrightjr wrote:
| > If there's a trade war, they can easily reconvert to
| making the mass-market stuff
|
| Factories, tooling, supply chains, and engineering
| knowledge aren't fungible in the way they would need to
| be for your statement to be true.
| timschmidt wrote:
| Different types of DRAM can literally be made from the
| same already-etched wafer. The DRAM bits themselves don't
| change at all. What's different between DDR4, DDR5, and
| HBM is the IO interface to the chip. Changing this does
| not require significant retooling or relearning.
| pdhborges wrote:
| Does that mean CXMT is one inch away from also eating
| into the DDR5 market?
| zelphirkalt wrote:
| Higher valued varieties, or just higher priced varieties,
| that no one wants to buy?
| nandomrumber wrote:
| Blame China.
|
| As though moving production to China wasn't something the
| West did intentionally.
|
| And _now_ continues to push manufacturing out of Western
| countries by, for example in the UK and Germany, and
| Australia too, making electricity and gas so expensive it
| becomes cost prohibitive to manufacture much at all.
| numpad0 wrote:
| the currency eventually collapses
| extraduder_ire wrote:
| I don't know if it's still a thing, but China was getting a
| lot of heat about a decade ago for purposefully devaluing
| their currency to make their exports more attractive.
|
| They kind of had to do this, because their large amount of
| exports were pushing the value of it up compared to others.
| creato wrote:
| If you actually believe this, then what is your explanation
| for a manufacturer to do this?
|
| Do you think they are just stupid?
| fph wrote:
| Microsoft gave away Internet Explorer at a loss, and what
| happened to internet standards?
| skeeter2020 wrote:
| First, they're not selling at a loss; the huge price
| increases have allowed them to push aggrssively in the legacy
| markets. They're making "slightly smaller" profits than other
| manufacturers (of which there are now very few).
|
| Second, they can drive out all competition and then have a
| captive audience for whatever prices they want, as the
| barriers to entry in these markets are very high. This is
| essentially what's happened with all higher-end manufacturing
| in the west over the past 30+ years.
| PearlRiver wrote:
| Chinese investment has not been unproductive. It gave them
| independence so that the US could not cut them of- see Cuba.
| dygd wrote:
| > It is wise for these Chinese fabs to eventually use a very
| aggressive dumping strategy to price well below cost push out
| other players forever, especially in DRAM.
|
| Crucial's departure from the consumer market left such a gaping
| hole, that CXMT doesn't even need to push other players out to
| gain a footing.
| RobotToaster wrote:
| It's more like everyone else abandoned the market, and CXMT
| realised it was free real estate.
| maxglute wrote:
| How's it dumping below cost when hey can simply sell for 100%
| margins instead of western makers selling for 400%.
| shimman wrote:
| Because only western companies are allowed to make massive
| profits at the expense of entire nations, it's not greed when
| they do it apparently.
| RobotToaster wrote:
| It's amazing what can be achieved when you can plan 5 years in
| advance, instead of just making the line go up for the next
| quarter.
| swed420 wrote:
| Awesome. Hopefully storage is next.
| nutjob2 wrote:
| This is good news. The price you pay for jacking up your prices
| is losing market share.
|
| Once established, the Chinese vendors will retain most the market
| share if the quality is ok. The SK/JP vendors are making a big
| mistake.
| xadhominemx wrote:
| Everyone is completely sold out and adding capacity as quickly
| as possible.
| ErneX wrote:
| Are they really adding capacity?
| ReptileMan wrote:
| I am sure you can lock great prices for ram for 2035
| delivery.
| cmxch wrote:
| If only on principle alone, could one secure a contract
| to buy a few TB of DDR5 memory to be delivered in 2035?
|
| And if so, how?
| ReptileMan wrote:
| Few TB probably not, but few EB I think you will be able
| to make a contract.
| xadhominemx wrote:
| Yes of course. Looking at the share prices of their
| suppliers-- ASML, Lam Research, Applied Materials, etc.
| kvemkon wrote:
| But since when? There are public announcements about new
| energy deals since summer 2024. But I'm missing any
| information about similar RAM/NAND/HDD deals back then,
| so that corresponding shortages could be only for short
| time until, say, summer 2026.
| wrsh07 wrote:
| It's not clear that raising your prices to match the
| supply/demand curve is a mistake
|
| They will compete on price if they are forced to, but they
| aren't forced to right now
| yellowapple wrote:
| It ain't the price raise that's the mistake (even if that's
| what's currently painful for those of us looking to buy RAM).
| It's the willingness to _only_ raise prices, and not
| meaningfully expand production, that 's the mistake.
| ThrowawayTestr wrote:
| This decade is going to end with Chinese dominance in everything.
| Trump and AI handed them everything they need on a platter.
| hyperman1 wrote:
| Western European countries got dominant, then got arrogant,
| letting the USA eat their lunch.
|
| USA got dominant, got arrogant, letting China eat their lunch.
|
| China is indeed getting dominant. They will get arrogant one
| day. Meanwhile, Western Europe and the USA are still very good
| places to live.
| yellowapple wrote:
| The pertinent question, then, is who's gonna eat China's
| lunch?
|
| My guess would be south/southeast Asia (India and Vietnam
| seem especially promising), but if the US was smart it'd put
| its efforts fully toward as many infrastructure investments
| and trade agreements and immigration agreements as possible
| to create a pan-American economic union. We have the
| resources and technology to turn every country in North and
| South America into an industrial and technological
| powerhouse. We have the resources and technology to finally
| conquer the Darien Gap and connect North and South America
| with highways and high-speed rail. We have the resources and
| technology to go on the offense against drug cartels (while
| also eliminating the failed border controls and drug
| prohibitions that keep those cartels in business in the first
| place).
|
| If we're gonna be imperialists, then by golly let's at least
| be productive about it.
| Magnets wrote:
| This is just marketing. Why would you sell at 50% of market rate?
| Chinese production of NAND and DRAM is not significant, it's
| single digit %
| amluto wrote:
| It might be very effective marketing. The big non-Chinese OEMs
| trust and use Korean and Japanese DRAM, and they might have
| been unwilling to put DRAM from CXMT into their products. (CXMT
| is newish, does not have access to ASML gear, which ASML would
| like you to believe makes it harder to make high-quality DRAM,
| DRAM is historically not a very large fraction of the cost of
| most non-huge-memory machines, and a bad DIMM is an expensive
| mistake for a company like Dell or HPE that is on the hook for
| repairs.)
|
| But now CXMT seems to have gotten at least Dell, HP (I wonder
| if the article meant HPE), Acer and Asus to buy and attempt to
| qualify samples. If CXMT lands some serious purchasing
| agreements while still selling well above cost, that's a win
| for them.
| deepsquirrelnet wrote:
| Does the last part of your comment explain it? They need
| revenue to expand capacity and the market has opened up a
| window to become a bigger supplier while still being
| profitable.
| Tadpole9181 wrote:
| > Why would you sell at 50% of market rate?
|
| Because market rate is a 400%+ markup right now and not
| everyone is a greedy American kleptocrat with a diagnosable
| addiction to extracting every possible cent of wealth on the
| planet within a single fiscal quarter.
| 7777777phil wrote:
| DDR4 going from $1.35 to $11.50 in a year shows this market was
| already distorted before CXMT showed up.
|
| Legacy DRAM is still over half of Samsung and SK hynix's
| production capacity. That's where the volume pain actually lands
| while they're betting everything on HBM4.
| bigbadfeline wrote:
| A near 10 times price rise of legacy chips and surely a lot
| higher profit increase couldn't motivate SKamsunix to increase
| their capacity for that segment, even more, they proudly
| informed the market about their decision to stop making DDR4 at
| the end of this year... to focus on even higher margin
| products.
|
| But they aren't going to stop whining about China, no matter
| how much pain the market experiences.
| Havoc wrote:
| Great moment to break into the market if you're willing to
| forfeit profits
| fulafel wrote:
| Has DDR5 caught up to DDR4 latency yet? I remember it was worse
| at least in the beginning. There's more bandwidth per channel but
| a hw design can always add more channels for the desired BW. Not
| so for latency.
| kvemkon wrote:
| > add more channels
|
| and unfortunately increase latency even more with registered
| DIMMs. Comparing bandwidth increase (50 GB/s) to the stagnated
| latency (~80..120 ns total, less than ~0.1 GB/s) over last
| decades, I'm wondering, whether one still can call today's RAM
| _random_ memory (though sure it can be accessed randomly).
| Similar to hard disk drives. Up to 300 MB /s sequentially but
| only up to less than 1 MB/s 4KB random (read).
| fhars wrote:
| People have been wondering that for a while:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19304281
| maxglute wrote:
| Still no confirmation if CXMT or YMTC actually removed from
| entity list, until then this is jus cheap domestic inputs.
| wcoenen wrote:
| As far as I understand, the "entity list" you are referring to
| is part of the "Export Administration Regulations", so it
| restricts sales from the US to restricted entities, not the
| other way around.
| alecco wrote:
| Good news. Now we need Chinese manufacturers of DDR4 chipsets and
| motherboards.
| wmf wrote:
| Chipsets don't determine the RAM type and all motherboards have
| been made in China for a while.
| alecco wrote:
| Taiwan dominates the global motherboard industry. (ASUS,
| Gigabyte, MSI, ASRock, etc. and MediaTek etc)
|
| The big Taiwanese manufacturers are chasing the AI dragon.
|
| https://www.digitimes.com/news/a20251021PD219/ai-server-
| asro... (Oct 2025)
|
| OTOH, now I read small Taiwanese manufacturers who are left
| out of the Nvidia supply chain are reverting to DDR4
| motherboards because of the DDR5 shortage. Strange times.
| lelanthran wrote:
| > Good news. Now we need Chinese manufacturers of DDR4 chipsets
| and motherboards.
|
| Search aliexpress for X99 dual socket motherboards.
| DoctorOetker wrote:
| Is there a reason GPU's don't use insane "blocks" of sdcard slots
| (for massively parallel io) so the model weights don't need to
| pass through a limited PCI bus?
| Neywiny wrote:
| Yes. Let's do the math. The fastest sd cards can read at around
| 300 MB/s (https://havecamerawilltravel.com/fastest-sd-cards/).
| Modern GPUs use 16 lanes of PCIe gen 5, which is 16x32Gb/s =
| 512Gb/s = 64 GB/s. Meaning you'd need over 200 of the fastest
| SD cards. So what you're asking is: is there a reason GPUs
| don't use 200 SD cards? And I can't think of any way that would
| work
| hedgehog wrote:
| SD is obviously the wrong interface for this but "High
| Bandwidth Flash" (stacked flash akin to HBM) is in
| development for exactly this kind of problem. AMD actually
| made a GPU with onboard flash maybe a decade ago but I think
| it was a bit early. Today I would love to have a pool of
| 50GB/s storage attached to the GPU.
| numpad0 wrote:
| Maybe latency. IIRC flash is a lot laggier than DRAMs and
| SRAMs.
| decryption wrote:
| That explains the cheap DDR4 DIMMs on AliExpress. Can get 2x 16GB
| DDR4-3200 DIMMs for A$252 delivered to Australia. A local PC
| store has same spec "name brand" RAM for around $380-$400.
|
| https://a.aliexpress.com/_mssanU1
| Forgeties79 wrote:
| These prices are insane. I can't believe that's what
| constitutes a good deal right now.
| guerrilla wrote:
| I was wondering when people would find out about CXMT. I wish
| them luck and hope the US doesn't sabotage them. We need
| diversity and competition right now.
| 127 wrote:
| The cure for high prices is high prices.
| kristianp wrote:
| Also moving into HBM:
|
| > CXMT is in the process of converting wafer capacity equivalent
| to about 20 percent of its total DRAM output -- some 60,000
| wafers per month -- at its Shanghai plant to the fourth-
| generation HBM3 chip production
| yellowapple wrote:
| > the average fixed contract price of PC DRAM DDR4 8Gb stood at
| $11.50
|
| If that's the case, then why are the cheapest options I can find
| online multiple times that much?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-02-21 23:00 UTC)