I don't get people with 8GB of RAM
- Thread starter AWPerator
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2008
- Messages
- 46
to me imo anything above 3 gigs isn't worth it, I could understand maybe getting faster ram, but more ram isnt needed.
I'm sort of with you on this one. I have 2 gigs in my machines and it's really plenty for me. Faster RAM is definitely reasonable. However, years ago I used to think 16MB of RAM was plenty and within a year or two I was proven wrong. I expect that will continue to happen. But until I need 4 gigs or more I'll just stick with 2.
Your computer runs fine with 2GB of RAM or 3 GB of RAM, etc., because of your page file. When you have more than 2GB of applications or files open, ones in the background get pushed away into your hard drive. This slows your computer down significantly and provides a lot of wear and tear to your hard drive, which already has a short life expectancy.
Being able to run a graphically intensive game that has to load a lot of sounds, terrain, entities, and the like, while having all your normal programs stay fully open in the background without ever accessing your page file's a wonderful thing. Games load quicker, alt-tabbing to and from them is nearly instant, and you can run memory-intensive things like browsers (modern ones with caching use up to half a gig on their own with regular use) in the background without a problem. I built a computer for a friend recently with 8GB of RAM in it, and I don't think he minds it a bit.
Also, another friend of mine who does a lot of art and design informs me that 8GB of RAM is just barely enough when working on a large print-quality image (9600x13200 or greater) with more than a few layers if she expects to have ANYTHING else open in the background.
Being able to run a graphically intensive game that has to load a lot of sounds, terrain, entities, and the like, while having all your normal programs stay fully open in the background without ever accessing your page file's a wonderful thing. Games load quicker, alt-tabbing to and from them is nearly instant, and you can run memory-intensive things like browsers (modern ones with caching use up to half a gig on their own with regular use) in the background without a problem. I built a computer for a friend recently with 8GB of RAM in it, and I don't think he minds it a bit.
Also, another friend of mine who does a lot of art and design informs me that 8GB of RAM is just barely enough when working on a large print-quality image (9600x13200 or greater) with more than a few layers if she expects to have ANYTHING else open in the background.
- Joined
- May 13, 2008
- Messages
- 2,897
I have 4 gigs on mine. 4 gigs means i won't have to upgrade for a long time. I will use this system for 5 years and be able to play any game. Save a ton of money on upgrades and go buy lots of candy and books and films.
One of those Mac G5 with 16 gigs of ram should last a long time, especially if you are a school and you can pay 15,000 on a computer once in a blue moon. I quoted this in another thread, but 8 gigs for a 64 bit system is equal to almost zero. Part in red says 17.2 billion gigabytes, 16.8 million terabytes, or 16 exabytes of RAM.
[blockquote]
Most CPUs are designed so that the contents of a single integer register can store the address (location) of any datum in the computer's virtual memory. Therefore, the total number of addresses in the virtual memory – the total amount of data the computer can keep in its working area – is determined by the width of these registers. Beginning in the 1960s with the IBM System/360, then (amongst many others) the DEC VAX minicomputer in the 1970s, and then with the Intel 80386 in the mid-1980s, a de facto consensus developed that 32 bits was a convenient register size. A 32-bit register meant that 232 addresses, or 4 GBs of RAM, could be referenced. At the time these architectures were devised, 4 GB of memory was so far beyond the typical quantities (0.016 GB) available in installations that this was considered to be enough "headroom" for addressing. 4 GB addresses were considered an appropriate size to work with for another important reason: 4 billion integers are enough to assign unique references to most physically countable things in applications like databases.
However, by the early 1990s, the continual reductions in the cost of memory led to installations with quantities of RAM approaching 4 GB, and the use of virtual memory spaces exceeding the 4-gigabyte ceiling became desirable for handling certain types of problems. In response, a number of companies began releasing new families of chips with 64-bit architectures, initially for supercomputers and high-end workstation and server machines. 64-bit computing has gradually drifted down to the personal computer desktop, with some models in Apple's Macintosh lines switching to PowerPC 970 processors (termed "G5" by Apple) in 2002 and to 64-bit x86-64 processors in 2003 (with the launch of the AMD Athlon 64), and with x86-64 processors becoming common in high-end PCs. The emergence of the 64-bit architecture effectively increases the memory ceiling to 264 addresses, equivalent to approximately 17.2 billion gigabytes, 16.8 million terabytes, or 16 exabytes of RAM. To put this in perspective, in the days when 4 MB of main memory was commonplace, the maximum memory ceiling of 232 addresses was about 1,000 times larger than typical memory configurations. Today, when 2 GB of main memory is common, the ceiling of 264 addresses is about ten billion times larger, i.e. ten million times more headroom than the 232 case.[/blockquote]
One of those Mac G5 with 16 gigs of ram should last a long time, especially if you are a school and you can pay 15,000 on a computer once in a blue moon. I quoted this in another thread, but 8 gigs for a 64 bit system is equal to almost zero. Part in red says 17.2 billion gigabytes, 16.8 million terabytes, or 16 exabytes of RAM.
[blockquote]
Most CPUs are designed so that the contents of a single integer register can store the address (location) of any datum in the computer's virtual memory. Therefore, the total number of addresses in the virtual memory – the total amount of data the computer can keep in its working area – is determined by the width of these registers. Beginning in the 1960s with the IBM System/360, then (amongst many others) the DEC VAX minicomputer in the 1970s, and then with the Intel 80386 in the mid-1980s, a de facto consensus developed that 32 bits was a convenient register size. A 32-bit register meant that 232 addresses, or 4 GBs of RAM, could be referenced. At the time these architectures were devised, 4 GB of memory was so far beyond the typical quantities (0.016 GB) available in installations that this was considered to be enough "headroom" for addressing. 4 GB addresses were considered an appropriate size to work with for another important reason: 4 billion integers are enough to assign unique references to most physically countable things in applications like databases.
However, by the early 1990s, the continual reductions in the cost of memory led to installations with quantities of RAM approaching 4 GB, and the use of virtual memory spaces exceeding the 4-gigabyte ceiling became desirable for handling certain types of problems. In response, a number of companies began releasing new families of chips with 64-bit architectures, initially for supercomputers and high-end workstation and server machines. 64-bit computing has gradually drifted down to the personal computer desktop, with some models in Apple's Macintosh lines switching to PowerPC 970 processors (termed "G5" by Apple) in 2002 and to 64-bit x86-64 processors in 2003 (with the launch of the AMD Athlon 64), and with x86-64 processors becoming common in high-end PCs. The emergence of the 64-bit architecture effectively increases the memory ceiling to 264 addresses, equivalent to approximately 17.2 billion gigabytes, 16.8 million terabytes, or 16 exabytes of RAM. To put this in perspective, in the days when 4 MB of main memory was commonplace, the maximum memory ceiling of 232 addresses was about 1,000 times larger than typical memory configurations. Today, when 2 GB of main memory is common, the ceiling of 264 addresses is about ten billion times larger, i.e. ten million times more headroom than the 232 case.[/blockquote]
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 1,798
Nice system Arclight, too bad you run it on such a small resolution. 
Here is mine:
That resolution is what I use on any game that will allow it, with top end settings. Also the monitor is a 24" screen
Here is mine:
That resolution is what I use on any game that will allow it, with top end settings. Also the monitor is a 24" screen
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2008
- Messages
- 67
Damn Duck, that's a nice computer you've got there.
My laptop has 2GB, it's alrght, I'd prefer 4 but hey, what can I do about it.
My laptop has 2GB, it's alrght, I'd prefer 4 but hey, what can I do about it.
Nice system Duck, too bad you run it on such a small resolution. (grin)
I'm going to have to do something about my CPU for work stuff. If I run more than three VMWare images concurrently, one of them gets a tad slow. Intended to go quad... but did a dual core to hold me over and waiting for the next cut. (Extremely jealous, duck, on your CPU) I'd go a different route on the video card if I were to do it over, but 8G of RAM. Pry it from my cold, dead fingers. While most processes are limited to 2G each, I'll have an app server, database, ide, office, 20 tabs in Mozilla, and a bunch of other stuff open when I'm gaming. Smooth as butter. With 2x4G of RAM going for $140 or so, it seems silly not to put that much in a x86-64 based rig. Just wish the 'typical' x86 mainboard had more RAM slots. Physical RAM crushes disk IO. Wish they would get around to releasing a 4-8 slot DDR2 iRAM.
I'm going to have to do something about my CPU for work stuff. If I run more than three VMWare images concurrently, one of them gets a tad slow. Intended to go quad... but did a dual core to hold me over and waiting for the next cut. (Extremely jealous, duck, on your CPU) I'd go a different route on the video card if I were to do it over, but 8G of RAM. Pry it from my cold, dead fingers. While most processes are limited to 2G each, I'll have an app server, database, ide, office, 20 tabs in Mozilla, and a bunch of other stuff open when I'm gaming. Smooth as butter. With 2x4G of RAM going for $140 or so, it seems silly not to put that much in a x86-64 based rig. Just wish the 'typical' x86 mainboard had more RAM slots. Physical RAM crushes disk IO. Wish they would get around to releasing a 4-8 slot DDR2 iRAM.
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 1,798
nice Dev, what size monitor are you running and do you run everything at that resolution? I know personally I dont think I would want much larger resolution right now. Somethings tend to get pretty small at this resolution on my 24" monitor. Plus the only things running at that resolution are Games and Movies when I put them full screen. Other than that I dont run anything fullscreen.
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2008
- Messages
- 4,266
ah you people and your money to purchase up-to-date items!! i'm still rocking an athlon 3800+, nvidia 6800, 2 gigs of ram on a 32bit OS and 2 19-inch monitors! Granted, it's more than enough for TF2, but I can't wait to save up enough for a new rig. Guess that's one of the joys of being married...have to make sure you can feed the family and pay the bills BEFORE buying toys ;-)
i'm still rocking an athlon 3800+, nvidia 6800, 2 gigs of ram on a 32bit OS and 2 19-inch monitors! Granted, it's more than enough for TF2, but I can't wait to save up enough for a new rig. Guess that's one of the joys of being married...have to make sure you can feed the family and pay the bills BEFORE buying toys ;-)- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 1,798
[quote1212586002=trykael]
Guess that's one of the joys of being married...have to make sure you can feed the family and pay the bills BEFORE buying toys ;-)
[/quote1212586002]
LoL, if only you knew. I am married, have 3 kids and a grandson living under the same roof. My wife and I both have fancy comps, 2 oldest both have laptops, and my youngest has a desktop computer as well and bills are paid or ahead
Guess that's one of the joys of being married...have to make sure you can feed the family and pay the bills BEFORE buying toys ;-)
[/quote1212586002]
LoL, if only you knew. I am married, have 3 kids and a grandson living under the same roof. My wife and I both have fancy comps, 2 oldest both have laptops, and my youngest has a desktop computer as well and bills are paid or ahead
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2008
- Messages
- 4,266
lol! then apparently I need a new job <grin> I'm married, but no kids yet. most of our money is siphoned into house payments and bills...and apparently my wife needs a new car or something, so we're saving for that ;-) oh, but I've started my new rig fund...i expect to build it at the end of the summer. then all will be happy - for about 6 months
Got a 30" Dell (2560x1600) as my primary monitor, a 21" Samsung (1600x1200) as a secondary monitor now. My bride ran off with my 24", and I don't thing she will give it back. (grr) When gaming, I'll go SLI mode and do a single monitor. Most games, that is on the 30". Some games (like COD4) need to be done at 1600x1200 on the 21".
The 30" monitor is really easy on the eyes. I'll spend all day pushing code, then be able to turn around and do gaming. None of the apps, other than games, run full screen. Love the vertical space. If you can, borrow one for a bit. You will never go back.
The 21" is also on a KVM switch to a couple other boxes. One of the down sides is the 30" needs a dual link DVI connection, which is sooo far away from what my KVM and most of my server's graphics cards can handle. Did not know that at the time.
Just upgraded the mainboard, CPU, and RAM - from an AMD3800+ last December on my gaming rig. Looks like Duck and I are also about 10 years older too, trykael. 10 years back things were pretty darn tight. Now, not so much. !lol
All that said - the DDR2 based mainboards take the dirt cheap 2G sticks. It is way to costly to do DDR1 with larger sticks. DDR-800 sticks pair up nicely with the 1333 FSB CPU's, for those of us who run stock speeds on the CPU. Going 8G was one of the best bang for the buck upgrades you can do for any general workhorse. Won't make games much faster, but will let you run all sorts of things without slowing. For working with VMWare, the physical RAM is a huge performance boost.
Keep in mind I'll take more RAM with slower timings over less super fast RAM and more disk IO. That may not apply in everyone's usage.
The 30" monitor is really easy on the eyes. I'll spend all day pushing code, then be able to turn around and do gaming. None of the apps, other than games, run full screen. Love the vertical space. If you can, borrow one for a bit. You will never go back.
The 21" is also on a KVM switch to a couple other boxes. One of the down sides is the 30" needs a dual link DVI connection, which is sooo far away from what my KVM and most of my server's graphics cards can handle. Did not know that at the time.
Just upgraded the mainboard, CPU, and RAM - from an AMD3800+ last December on my gaming rig. Looks like Duck and I are also about 10 years older too, trykael. 10 years back things were pretty darn tight. Now, not so much. !lol
All that said - the DDR2 based mainboards take the dirt cheap 2G sticks. It is way to costly to do DDR1 with larger sticks. DDR-800 sticks pair up nicely with the 1333 FSB CPU's, for those of us who run stock speeds on the CPU. Going 8G was one of the best bang for the buck upgrades you can do for any general workhorse. Won't make games much faster, but will let you run all sorts of things without slowing. For working with VMWare, the physical RAM is a huge performance boost.
Keep in mind I'll take more RAM with slower timings over less super fast RAM and more disk IO. That may not apply in everyone's usage.
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2008
- Messages
- 4,266
[quote1212595843=/dev/null]
Looks like Duck and I are also about 10 years older too, trykael. 10 years back things were pretty darn tight. Now, not so much. !lol
[/quote1212595843]
Yeah...I keep reminding myself that it won't ALWAYS be this way <grin> just bought a house a year ago, so I'm still in the process of excess $$ going toward fix-ups and bills like that. I figure 5 years or so and I'll be back in the swing of things ;-) Re-thinking the budget with two people is a real eye-opener...then again, I wouldn't change it for the world <insert cheesy awwwwwwww>
Looks like Duck and I are also about 10 years older too, trykael. 10 years back things were pretty darn tight. Now, not so much. !lol
[/quote1212595843]
Yeah...I keep reminding myself that it won't ALWAYS be this way <grin> just bought a house a year ago, so I'm still in the process of excess $$ going toward fix-ups and bills like that. I figure 5 years or so and I'll be back in the swing of things ;-) Re-thinking the budget with two people is a real eye-opener...then again, I wouldn't change it for the world <insert cheesy awwwwwwww>
