Comment by 1saadcodes
20 hours ago
500% in a year is just insane. I knew RAM prices were going up, but $3k+ for 128GB of DDR5 makes me wonder how much of this is actually AI demand, and how much is this just manufacturers taking advantage of it. They have done this in the past after all
I don't understand the distinction you are making. If you have a massive excess of demand ready to pay any price, and a limited supply, of course the sellers will take advantage, that's how any market works. They can do that because of the lack of supply.
Over the long term demand will rationalise and supply will adjust. But in between there is a squeeze, and the right price is the maximum price buyers are willing to bid for the limited supply. Sucks for other buyers, on the other hand it ensures demand destruction, i.e. that the limited supply goes to the buyer who need it the most, other buyers will delay their purchase and do with what they have.
> If you have a massive excess of demand ready to pay any price, and a limited supply, of course the sellers will take advantage, that's how any market work
The question is how quickly the supply adjusts. In a free market, the suppliers would respond to the price signal by quickly expanding their production to meet the elevated demand.
But a market captured by a cartel will be much slower to expand the supply.
So, the test isn't "how much is price going up" it's "how aggressively are the RAM producers expanding supply production"
Memory fab build out times are years not months. The existing ones already run 24/7. If these companies could pull more supply out of thin air they would, but they cannot.
26 replies →
> But a market captured by a cartel will be much slower to expand the supply.
Oh yea, governments can fix by putting 100 billion in memory fabs right now, and when demand crater in decade or so, let tax payer eat the cost of those fabs. At least it will benefit poor computer users like me.
Free Market doesn’t mean new ram production can “just be stood up”
And given that these are independent actors in the free market, they’ve seen the history of boom/bust cycles in this market
Free market doesn’t mean “everything just magically happens”
As has already been pointed out further down, OPEC is the perfect example of this. Things don't really work that way when the time scales are so extended. What we need is fracking, but silicon.
This system is too complex, the few individual players too big, with too many artificial distortions for the adjustment to equalize out in a way that's anything but years-long (it may have shock-waves that extend past the decade), and highly destructive to everyone who isn't OPEC, or their largest customers, in this analogy.
The brunt of it will be paid by the people further down the food chain.
> In a free market, the suppliers would respond to the price signal by quickly expanding their production to meet the elevated demand.
That’s a good one!
> In a free market, the suppliers would respond to the price signal by quickly expanding their production to meet the elevated demand.
Why would they?
And you claim to have historic examples where they did?
4 replies →
Even if the memory market was completely competitive the time it takes to expand supply is measured in years. There was no way for them to serve the AI demand without reducing supply given to everyone else in the short run
1 reply →
[dead]
> I don't understand the distinction you are making.
20 years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRAM_industry_price_fixing
> According to the one-count charge filed in San Francisco's federal court on Thursday, Park conspired with unnamed employees from other memory makers to fix the price of DRAM sold to computer makers from April 1, 2001, to June 15, 2002. The government says the move directly affected sales to U.S. computer makers Dell, Hewlett-Packard, Compaq, IBM, Apple Computer, and Gateway.
etc
"that the limited supply goes to the buyer who need it the most" - I would say that the limited supply goes to the buyer who can afford to pay higher than others. Someone may need the memory more, but may not have the deeper pockets to pay for it like NVidia and Apple might.
I would have framed it as "buyer who can get the most leverage from it", which equates to being able to spend more. It's an economic argument, not a values argument.
1 reply →
Gamers may need the memory more, but AI labs can use the memory more productively
1 reply →
>that the limited supply goes to the buyer who need it the most
Everything else you said is accurate, but this is not. Supply will go to those most able to pay, not those who need it the most. It is not a moral allocation, which your language implies.
Nobody really "needs" RAM immediately though, like a heart or a lung or something.
3 replies →
Someone please put RAM into Maslow's hierarchy of needs
"limited supply goes to the buyer who need it the most"
No? It goes to the buyer with the deepest pockets.
it is probable that you don't get the deepest pockets by wasting money. anyone that pays so much for memory means they expect to get even bigger value from that.
2 replies →
> I don't understand the distinction you are making.
It's pretty simple. In a correctly regulated market the sellers are in competition with each other so there is a limit to how much they can increase prices, since they'll just lose business to their competitor.
In a poorly regulated market that allows competitors to collude with each other to raise prices by the same amount, they'll inflate prices much further.
Real history here on this subject is the LCD panel price fixing scheme: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TFT-LCD_(Flat_Panel)_Antitrust...
[dead]
>I don't understand the distinction you are making. If you have a massive excess of demand ready to pay any price, and a limited supply, of course the sellers will take advantage, that's how any market works. They can do that because of the lack of supply.
The question is how much of this demand is actually based on AI, or just an excuse to fleece regular buyers (and AI is not really the actual demand driving such prices).
Memory manufacturers have driven up prices via collusion many times in the past (and paid fines for it), without AI or some similar high demand vertical market existing.
But I don't think it's the case now, see my answer elsewhere here for why.
> or just an excuse to fleece regular buyers
In a market with healthy competition (no collusion), this generally can't happen. Every single vendor is incentivized to lower their prices slightly at all times, with a floor at cost plus margin.
3 replies →
They fixed prices in the past and now they have an easy cover, like egg producers had with eggs after the cull a few years ago
I'm sure there will be no large scale leverage campaign against a country who is enabling profiteering at this level. No defense agreements removed, troops removed from the country, or large tariff increases around failed investments.
I'm sure it will only suck for the buyers. This has no effect on inflation and probably will be overlooked by the current admin.
Byron the bulb checking in.
The distinction is that on the latter case you have a cartel that decided to fix prices and fuck everyone in the ass.
Google: Cartel
What is cartelization for 500%, Alex.
I'm not sure how turning into crabs is going to help us download more RAM.
In an absolutely free market? sure. But we don't live in an absolutely free market, the memory manufacturers have refused to budge on creating new fabs until recently out of caution and to be able to create a demand excess.
They have slow rolled rollouts and everything, if there wasn't CXMT they would probably still wouldn't have budged on building new fabs for a while longer.
You can absolutely price fix/manufacture a shortage. Ever heard of merchants setting fire to crops after hoarding to sell at a higher price?
The issue is the distributer and producer are the very same people this essentially means producers have no incentive to rationalize supply, they can make much more money of the long drawn out shortage.
I think everyone is aware now that you don't build a fab by snapping your fingers, and you need to amortise it over many years. The said manufacturers are just out of a massive slump in demand during covid, when they were selling at a loss, and these cycles happened many times in this industry. It is understandable that they don't jump all-in on the AI bandwagon, which, god knows where it is going and for how long.
If you want evidence that no one predicted this, look at WD. They disinvested from sandisk up to early this year. Now sandisk is worth more than WD. Doesn't seem consistent with a concerted strategy to gauge prices.
> You can absolutely price fix/manufacture a shortage. Ever heard of merchants setting fire to crops after hoarding to sell at a higher price?
Fine. Show me which manufacturer is cutting production to corner the market. I don't see that.
4 replies →
Feel free to spin up a fab and undercut the current prices, I'd certainly appreciate it!
I don't know if I would personally fund such a venture though, for roughly the same reason existing manufacturers aren't expanding production.
3 replies →
> the memory manufacturers have refused to budge on creating new fabs
That's EXACTLY how a free market is supposed to work. The existing memory manufacturers are FREE to not build new factories, and anyone else is FREE to build those factories in their place.
17 replies →
> But we don't live in an absolutely free market, the memory manufacturers have refused to budge on creating new fabs until recently out of caution
...that's how the market works. This is called capital discipline and is standard across industries. If the increase in demand is temporary, they would be spending 5-10 years of profit on facilities which will only lose money. The same works in non-capitalist economies too, you don't want to waste resources on stranded assets and many still believe this RAM demand is temporary and the house of cards will collapse.
FWIW I have a friend who makes hardware and it's extremely difficult for him to secure memory at any price. Because AI people have locked up so much of the upcoming supply it's often not a question of how much it will cost but of finding someone who will sell you memory at all. If this were price gouging I would expect he'd have no trouble finding allocations at exorbitant prices but that doesn't seem to be the case.
same here, even when we went to larger hardware producers, they were basically we would sell you, but we cant actually get any RAM at all either.
There are never shortages in a free market, just higher prices.
I have some bad news about how closely Econ 101 resembles the real world…
You appear to not understand how markets work, free or otherwise. For the purposes of this conversation, consider starting your education here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barriers_to_entry
4 replies →
There are only 3 manufacturers (about to be 4 soon) total. This is a demand crunch the likes of which the market hasn't seen before, prices are doing the natural thing.
You make it sound like the crunch is caused by manufacturers, my understanding is that it is caused by the abnormal demand. I am not aware that RAM production is at a historically low level.
It's actually both. DRAM manufactures operate on a boom bust cycle and by 2023 there was significant oversupply. This meant even leading up to that they had already decided not to invest in further capacity explicitly to recover profit on their existing lines.
So a lack of builds coupled with AI boom at the same time created a perfect storm with no new capacity coming online for years after demand rapidly escalated.
Demand crunch comes from the customer. All HBM and DDR5 wafer capacity is sold out through 2027 and all three vendors are booking 2028 capacity.
This was not created by the manufacturers.
1 reply →
If you are talking CXMT Apple recently learned the hard way that even with price fixed RAM from the big 3, CXMT is struggling to provide cheaper prices as they are using much older design/manufacturing systems.
https://www.msn.com/en-xl/money/general/apple-s-cxmt-memory-...
who is the 4th?
Intel is also looking into returning to making RAM, but it's probably the Chinese that will enter the market faster
Probaby CXMT
2 replies →
> There are only 3 manufacturers (about to be 4 soon) total.
...3 manufacturers with a long history of price fixing...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRAM_industry_price_fixing
Uhm, your link states that they were price fixing over 20 years ago, and were in court for almost a decade. There was another accusation in 2018, but it was dismissed.
That's not a long history of pricing fixing, just accusations.
1 reply →
I remember the cost of RAM in the 80s and 90s. If I remember correctly my mom paid ~$1000 for 32mb of RAM in 94/95. Something or other like that.
While they have spiked this year, the trend is towards more RAM for cheaper.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/historical-cost-of-comput...
Micron for example discontinued their consumer business because of the demand from enterprise business.
>and how much is this just manufacturers taking advantage of it
"Manufacturers taking advantage of it" wouldn't take it to 500% without AI, because it's way beyond the price elasticity points where they make up lost sales at higher prices.
Those prices lose most consumer sales, and are only viable if there's constant high demand that's relatively insensitive to price (so, not regular folks, but e.g. AI companies).
Same thing happened with eggs in the USA with bird flu used as an excuse.
Which reversed in about 6 months and now eggs are are their lowest prices in nearly a decade.
The average hatching egg costs a few dollars. Can go as high as nearly $20 if it's something remarkably rare and useful in terms of breed/quality.
An egg takes 21 days to hatch.
Then it's 18-24 weeks to start laying their own eggs. That's ~$5-15 in feed over the period, maybe 40-50 pounds. There's utilities, labor, land, etc., but your incremental cost to add a hen if you have the space is minimal. My numbers won't reflect a lot of operators, as scale matters.
Out of a typical 1.5-3 year lifespan that had a startup cost of a few dollars per, paying back its return by about month 6-7, that's not too bad. It's only worth doing financially in this economy at ludicrous, arguably inherently inhumane scales, but that's what it is on paper.
Not quite the same path to course-correction as a silicon shortage.
The same thing will happen with RAM. A glut will come eventually. It might take a year, maybe two.
3 replies →
thank goodness the adults are in charge now
It could be the economically rational thing to do if they think there is a bubble
Forming a cartel to rig prices is economically viable with or without a bubble.
Taking advantage of Trump admin, AI hype, and setting themselves up as "too big to fail" for bailouts when demand eventually collapses
See the tariff thing where Bessent bought rights to refunds
It's all a really low tech con perpetuated by weak elders who need blue pills to simulate virility. Odd how they complain about the kids virtual reality.
Oh no it's not either; it's intentional petty bullying
Demand and manufacturers not increasing capacity.
Eventually someone will manufacture more to undercut
The problem is the scaling cycles for demand and supply are at different timescales. It takes a lot longer to build capacity than these bubbles take to form and pop and there is a SIGNIFICANT history of silicon manufactures scaling during a bubble then going bankrupt because their increased capacity never had the chance to make them any money.
To take advantage they'd have to do some form of price fixing which in most places is a very big footgun.
I honestly don't think they need to fix their prices, and it's possible that selling to consumers is a secondary market for them compared to datacenters, like Nvidia selling GPUs to gamers. We know that's not where the money is.
Seeing some companies actually exit the consumer market is evidence for this.
> To take advantage they'd have to do some form of price fixing which in most places is a very big footgun.
When parent commenter says "They have done this in the past after all" that's exactly what they're talking about. Micron, Samsung, Hyinx (prior to SK Group acquisition), and others all participated in RAM price fixing in the early 2000's.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRAM_industry_price_fixing
If it's a highly profitable footgun why not?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRAM_industry_price_fixing#202...
If something is illegal, and the punishment is a fine, it's not illegal it just has a cost.
Is it worth the cost? Yup.
Just to be clear the big Memory giants are famous for their price fixing historically speaking.
What is also interesting is no one predicted this in 2022-2025 as LLMs were gaining widespread use. It just suddenly happened--"boom!" memory shortage in mid 2025 to early 2026,and it caught everyone by surprise. It was understood that the biggest bottleneck was "compute", not the memory. Even experts, such as popular AI bloggers, industry leaders, and top podcasters failed to anticipate this. No one on twitter either. I spend a lot of time online and I don't recall, afik, anyone before 2026 saying to buy memory stocks.
Sam Altman laying claims on 40% of the world’s RAM wafer production is what took everyone by surprise. The supply shortage likely would have ramped up more slowly otherwise.
More importantly that did take subterfuge: there's no way a contract that large would've been agreed to by both manufacturers if they knew the other was signing it.
The actual deals were hours apart and secret for that reason.
It's hilarious watching the conspiracy theorists do their usual thing when there was an actual conspiracy, it was perpetuated by the inner circle of a US company and announced and publicized in full once it had achieved its goal.
I think Leopold of "situational awareness" fame predicted this, tried to make it widely known on podcasts and x, and still started billions worth of hedge funding based on this.
> I think Leopold of "situational awareness" fame predicted this, tried to make it widely known on podcasts and x, and still started billions worth of hedge funding based on this.
Ironically enough it's because of its bet on RAM companies that all of Situational Awareness' publicly trading stocks got bought by the highest bidder (Citadel) when the (leveraged) shit hit the proverbial fan and Situational Awareness created a hole of tens of billions.
Situational Awareness was not forced to sell its share in Anthropic for, by contract, investors in Situational Awareness have no right to force the sale (before this month of September I think) of shares in companies not publicly trading yet.
Citadel bought those RAM stocks right at the end of July, during the dip. Amazing timing for for example MU bounced back from $746 back to above $1000 (now around $950).
Now Situational Awareness may still do exceptionally well: they've got $5 billion or so left in Anthropic AIUI.
Everyone in cloud knew this was going to happen, the contracts for all parts of server stuff were measured in years.