• Lojcs@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 days ago

    I don’t get it, isn’t this trivial to figure out by just plugging it in and seeing that it doesn’t run even at the slowest ddr5 speed?

    • theparadox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      The notch is literally in a different place. It’s subtle but it is different. It physically wouldn’t fit. Doesn’t mean someone wouldn’t try to force it, seeing as it would be labeled as DDR5, then maybe the damage would make it nonrefundable?

      I’m an idiot who can’t read. Chip != Stick

      • Lojcs@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        The article isn’t about a ddr4 stick being sold as ddr5, it’s about a ddr5 stick with re engraved ddr4 modules on it. There’s no point in going through the trouble of re engraving the modules as ddr5 just to put them on a ddr4 stick.

        • theparadox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          Thanks for the correction. To much doom scrolling for me - I apparently didn’t even read the title.

    • 3bygone3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      2 days ago

      I’d expect it to not run at all, no? Otherwise why are we not seeing ddr5 only mobo/CPU compatible ddr4 sticks?

      • Lojcs@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        Idk, I assumed as they’re on a ddr5 stick their interface must be compatible or get translated somehow to make the computer boot up. Otherwise they could avoid all the trouble and ship an empty stick.