> do they plan to increase production? No.

Micron has 3 brand new fabs currently under construction, 2 Boise, 1 in New York as the first of 4 planned for a campus.

Plus expanding other existing facilities.

These things take ~3-5 years from breaking ground to full production. You'd have had to anticipate the current demand years before it happened in order to be bringing production on-line before 2030 or so.

Samsung and HK Hynix also have fabs under construction and planned.

CXMT started 11 years ago and only now is reaching any real volume. If they decided a year ago to react to the current demand cycle they'd be 6-7 years out.

Not much you can really do to wish for more fabrication to exist on any timeline not measured in fractional decades.

Could they do more and react quicker? Probably, but everything I've read on the subject seems to point to 3 years is absolute bare minimum if you happen to have a shovel ready project with the land bought, local permitting completed, infrastructure extended to the site, and a skilled workforce already in place. They could suspend buy-backs/dividends today and dump it all into building production and there would be no material impact until around 2030.

> The Micron CEO just recently said this is the exact plan

CEO simply stated the demand pressure will not go away through 2027, and supply will not increase until around 2028 when currently under construction fabs start shipping volume. The article does not support your statement.

▲

ttul 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Stanford tracks RAM prices in this nice little site: https://dam.stanford.edu/memory-prices.html

Costs did go nuts, but there are signs of easing in the market of late. CXMT is starting to have an impact and priced will probably fall in 2027.

	▲	kristopolous 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		https://pcpartpicker.com/trends/price/memory/ is better. pcpartpicker has the data.

▲

GeekyBear 26 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> CXMT started 11 years ago and only now is reaching any real volume. If they decided a year ago to react to the current demand cycle they'd be 6-7 years out.

It's taken them this long to catch up to the DDR5 standard. They've only recently been through qualifications to be a DDR5 supplier for the big boys.

> Every Major Motherboard Maker Now Validates CXMT DDR5

https://www.techtimes.com/articles/321572/20260725/every-maj...

After their recent IPO, they have more than enough cash to ramp up in a major way.

It's just a matter of time.

▲

cogman10 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The second Micron boise fab hasn't even broken ground yet, they are still working on the first one. So don't expect these things to be completed in parallel.

Some of my family is pretty happy, though, with the job security as they are pretty convinced these projects are all going to take much longer than what's being stated publicly. Micron is saying the first chip from the new fab will be in 2027... though they also predicted it'd be 2026. The date seems pretty slippy.

	▲	dboreham 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Anyone who has been around the semiconductor industry since the last century will remember various huge fabs e.g. in Arizona that were partially built but never finished due to oversupply by the time the walls and roof were done.

▲

BizarroLand 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah, but why would they make consumer memory when HBM for GPUs is much more profitable?

▲

kristopolous 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Capitalism eats itself this way. Second and third order effects will collapse the demand.

You need to keep the market healthy, not some insane Bitcoin style HODL pump - that's how you get wrecked.

I mean I'm not a neoclassicalist but I've read all of them. I'm in consensus with them here. There's a bunch of theories on what a healthy market is but what we're currently seeing matches none of them.

It's short term profitable but long term disastrous, especially in a world where new mathematics and techniques could literally collapse the demand overnight.

Imagine if some paper hits arxiv and the 256 GB requirement for some model now becomes 64. Woops!

Some clever trick about how attention heads and context Windows work could potentially slash a bunch of requirements by giant margins and all they're doing is firing the starting gun at that global race with every obscenely priced unit they sell.

But if prices were reasonable, this wouldn't be an apocalypse. It'd be fine. Consumers wouldn't rush to 64GB, they'd say " Cool I can multitask now at 256" or " great I can do horizontal scalability' or something else.

But no they created the market conditions so now what would happen is the consumer will immediately flip the 192GB they don't need on eBay, hoping to snatch a profit before the prices tank and the second hand market will be flooded the rug will be pulled out from the luxury pricing and everyone will get screwed.

This has happened in electronics markets before. Many times.

When Engels talked about the grave diggers of capitalism they were looking at it through a 19th century labor/manufacturing lens but arguably this same dynamic is at play here.

▲

usefulcat an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> Imagine if some paper hits arxiv and the 256 GB requirement for some model now becomes 64. Woops!

If you were a DRAM manufacturer, isn't this exactly the kind of thing that would make you think twice about investing years and $billions in new fab construction?

▲

Analemma_ 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

What "second- and third-order effects" do you suppose will collapse the demand for RAM? The people complaining most loudly about RAM costs are the people who want to run local models; if that becomes popular it will supercharge RAM demand, because locally-hosted models can't parallelize runs from many users the way cloud-hosted ones can. I don't see any slackening in RAM demand at any point in the foreseeable future, even if the big AI companies all go bust.

▲

kristopolous 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This is all hypothetical and debating hypotheticals isn't productive so let's roll back to markets.

Let's say ram used to cost $100 and now that same unit costs $1000. You paid say $500x1,000 for that unit during the price increase or some price where you can currently flip for profit.

You have a very expensive data center and you're in debt financed on the premise that you have these special computers.

Now a new technique comes out and it turns out you only need 1 memory unit for something that used to require 8 or 4 or some meaningful multiplier.

This stuff happens all the time. It's why we don't use BMP files on websites or serve giant MOV files on YouTube. It's why postgres queries are faster now than they were 10 and 20 years ago.

You rent out your machines. You need to service your debt.. Demand may 8x overnight to accommodate but you have a monthly bill to pay and that's unlikely. It's likely going to drop.

Think about it. Your customers are paying maybe $10,000 a month and serving their customers. Now they can drop that to $1,250.

On market if you were to sell some of that ram you have 100% profit right now but not for long.

Jevons paradox assumes unlimited capitalization, zero debt servicing, infinite time horizons...

We live in the real world so what do you do?

Historically the answer has been "sell that shit"

There's an aphorism for this "stairs on the way up elevator on the way down"

If we had a healthy market with sane prices where you can't flip the thing you bought for 100% profit the answer would be "create more value."

	▲	charcircuit an hour ago \| parent [-]
		>Your customers are paying maybe $10,000 a month and serving their customers. Now they can drop that to $1,250. Or they could stay at $10,000 per month since they are willing to pay that much already.m, so they just use AI more and in more places.

▲

lxgr an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

> locally-hosted models can't parallelize runs from many users the way cloud-hosted ones can

Why not? Unlike many other workloads, LLM inference actually seems pretty suitable for decentralization (effectively stateless means no availability concerns; bandwidth and latency are relatively forgiving too).

	▲	Analemma_ an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I think locally-hosted models at the org level will definitely be somewhat popular, but you seem to be talking about decentralizing for people's personal, non-business use, and I just don't think that's going to happen to any real degree. People who say they want local runs really mean it: they want local runs on hardware in their room, not on some decentralized system which, if it existed, would almost certainly just be a worse, less-reliable version of cloud hosting. I'm not saying nobody would use it, but it sounds a lot like things like IPFS, which have also completely failed to displace either cloud storage or buying a bunch of disks for your own private use.