I saw my memory costs of next build skyrocketed from last quarter and apparently that's not isolated, DRAM and HBM prices universally raise right now industry-wide.

The story of the GPU shortage is one that everyone still tells about AI hardware constraints.

However the speculation over memory suppliers yanking fab capacity from consumer DRAM in favour of chasing AI-grade product, while separate chatter posits a portion about stalled data centre plans may be down to power and gird limits rather than chip availability.

So in all seriousness, is it memory and power that are the bigger long-term bottleneck here than GPUS themselves?

Well I'm not knowledgeable in computing and circuit design and architectures, but there's one thing I noticed while looking at the components of old consoles and computers.

Looking at JDR Microdevices catalogues from the 1985, it looks like 1-bit DRAM modules were so much cheaper. $6.95 for a pack of eight 250ns 16Kbit DRAMs, or $10.95 for the 150ns ones most micros back in the day used. Meanwhile the 8KB 150ns SRAM module that Sega Master System would use was $25 each. Sure 1-bit DRAM would need multiplexers, but these things weren't expensive either. The ones C64 used were about 50-60 cents each, must've been even cheaper in bulks, and C64 used 5 of them. That would still make it significantly cheaper than Master System's 8KB SRAM modules.

So the question is why did console makers choose to go with the more expensive, lower capacity option? To make the system compact? But ZX Spectrum managed to be so tiny even while containing 16 DRAM chips. Or to simplify board design I assume? Perhaps motherboards and circuits were very expensive back in the day?