Taking the dive into PC building

[DakAttack]

Re: Taking the dive into PC building

I've had 6gb of RAM for 5 years and haven't even come close to 80% usage. I agree, getting more RAM is pointless, especially since GPUs now come with better and faster memory and SSDs are mainstream.

Experiment: Can Adding RAM Improve Your SSD's Endurance? - Can You Get More Speed From Your SSD By Adding RAM?

lololololololol

Anyways, I attempted to move an old SSD over to a new motherboard and they're fighting like cats. I attempted a Windows 7 repair install, but for whatever reason my copy of Windows is too far gone, so I'll have to reformat and reinstall. I don't like it, but I can't waste all this pretty pretty hardware on a malfunctioning OS.

[Malacite]

Re: Taking the dive into PC building

I told you, RAM speed is more important than the total (both matter, but it all boils down to core speeds and cache size).

[Aeni]

Re: Taking the dive into PC building

Experiment: Can Adding RAM Improve Your SSD's Endurance? - Can You Get More Speed From Your SSD By Adding RAM?

lololololololol

The only one laughing is me at you for being conned into believing this shrill. Tom's selling their benchmark suite in that article. I didn't see anything worth getting excited over. If you want to believe adding 64GB of RAM in your PC will give you the performance boost that would make God smile, go right ahead, but in my own personal experience, the difference is so negligible, you'd have to be high on meth to actually see something...

- - - Updated - - -

I told you, RAM speed is more important than the total (both matter, but it all boils down to core speeds and cache size).

Truer words have never been spoken.

... sans total. Like everything in a modern PC, diminishing returns still reign supreme over spending decisions and right now, only a fool would try to pursue top-end performance.

[Armando]

Re: Taking the dive into PC building

The only one laughing is me at you for being conned into believing this shrill.

I believe the lol-train was there to tip you off that he doesn't buy it.

[ItazuraNhomango]

Re: Taking the dive into PC building

I told you, RAM speed is more important than the total (both matter, but it all boils down to core speeds and cache size).

That's no necessarily true; what's most important is whatever is the bottleneck.

If you have too little RAM for what you're doing, it wouldn't really matter what speed the RAM at, because your computer will be constantly swapping data in and out of hard drive / SSD to RAM ("virtual memory system").

Also, the bottleneck changes depends on what you want to do with the computer, as well as the (current) configuration of the computer. Just looking at the hardware isn't likely to tell you if you will get good value from upgrading a particular component (if you start off with a sensible baseline).

My own example

My work laptop came with 4 GB of RAM, which should be sufficient for most people under most circumstances. BUT, IT installed a whole bunch stuff which I'm pretty sure I wasn't allowed to uninstall, and my particular work requires a virtual machine that take up a fair amount of memory.

Thus, my Core i7 computer became far slower than my coworker's much older Core i5 computers (they got theirs before we had an IT department to slow computers down). Once I upgraded to 8 GB of RAM, though, the thing flew--and I didn't even bother to check the memory speed beyond 'compatible'. (Only needed 6 GB, but RAM's not that expensive--especially when one isn't too picky; I didn't want to battle IT and requisition system, so bought the upgrade myself.)

For my particular workload, I really don't receive all that much benefit after two cores. And, downgrading to Core i5 wouldn't have made a gigantic difference, either. The most stressful thing my computer does is compiling, and that's actually more limited by the 4800 RPM hard drive IT picked out for me than anything else. A faster HD would help, but the stupid Lenovo computer will probably melt due to the poor ventilation. (I'm at at an uncomfortable spot where I need just a big enough HD to make SSD too expensive to slip by IT or buy it myself.)

If you don't understand what you are doing with the computer or unable to gauge the impact the various computer components (individually and together) have on your workload, you are not in a good position to figure out what to upgrade--unless you make lots of money, which lets you just upgrade everything and not worry about the value of the hardware--your time is more expensive, after all.

[Malacite]

Re: Taking the dive into PC building

Nope, speed.

Obviously your CPU matters - everything working together as a whole really - but you can have 16+ GB RAM at 1033, and my 4 GB of 1666 Mhz will beat the pants off it. Having a lot of RAM is only good if your system can make proper use out of it.

[Aeni]

Re: Taking the dive into PC building

To be clear...

The current minimum that you absolutely must need to run Windows 7 is 2GB (Double that for Windows 8) Bare minimum. The rule of thumb, back with Win 7/Vista was that 6GB was good enough, 8GB was insurance. With Win 8, that hasn't changed all that much, and maybe the insurance threshold has risen to 12GB or even 16GB ... beyond this, you are just throwing away money after bad. Unless you are running some weird, inefficient program or are running some kind of performance benchmark (which I'm not sure what fits in here), 16GB is ridiculous plenty. The past 5 years now, programs and Windows have become so efficient, that we're taking a step backwards now, so that the whole "double the RAM every x years" don't hold true anymore. What has become important is the following:

-Speed, Speed, Speed ... Intel's new bridges are fatter and faster and unless your RAM can keep up, it's throughput is the limiting factor on performance ... but overheating is still an issue.
-SSD ... more Speed, more efficiency at the cost of capacity. This takes load off RAM. Programs and OSs that can take advantage of this further reduces the need for more RAM.
-GPUs got faster and bigger, which means that board that holds it also got freaking larger, has it's own on-board memory controller and bridges, and has become as powerful, if not more powerful, than CPUs. This means a dedicated FAST FAST video RAM which means even less dependency on system RAM.

I've always been skeptical about claims from people that said that you should go 32GB or even 64GB of RAM. Shit, Apple does it, so that probably means it's a tewwible idea. But less facetiously, the memory industry is desperate to sell more RAM to you and me, so that means they're going to try every trick in the book to make you want it, need it.

A friend of mine once told me that if I'm not running 90% full on my system memory, it means that I'm wasting money. And I can't remember when was the last time I even got anywhere close with my rig that's pushing 5 years old. I think it was beta testing WoW Cataclysm in 2010, that one beta build was wonky, and actually crashed with an OOM (out of memory) exception. It was hot patched right away and I've never encountered anything as bad. If my system crashed, it's because nVidia put out shitty drivers (I'm avoiding the recent 320s), not because I ran out of system memory.

- - - Updated - - -

I believe the lol-train was there to tip you off that he doesn't buy it.

If that's the case, then Dak can just ignore my previous remark, but I took it to mean a direct lol @ me, since I wasn't sure why he linked *that* article (Cause the article sounded like it was "for" more RAM, not that it was being neutral at all) Plus it was obviously a Tom's shrill to get you to buy their benchmark program. I don't like that website anymore. It's changed to a full-tilt marketing frenzy site. They must've changed hands or something because it just doesn't feel the same. Now I just get my news from Ars Technica and even that website is going to the dogs.

[Firewind]

Re: Taking the dive into PC building

I have to again point out the efficiency aspect. I can quite easily run FFXIV maxed out on my 3 and a half year old machine, contrast with GW2 and SWTOR where my machine screams and runs away if I go higher than medium because of how poorly coded and optimised both games are.

My laptop that I use for day to day use has "only" 3GB of RAM and still rarely peaks at over 75% memory usage and it only maxes out if I play "Late Game" Skyrim saves, SWTOR or a wonky version of WoW. My PC "only" has 4GB RAM and it has gone OOM once when Dragon Age Origins used to have horrible memory leaks.

Basically if your system is efficient and your programmes optimised you don't need silly high amounts of RAM and even if you do need to add more than it's going to be pretty cheap to do so.

[cidbahamut]

Re: Taking the dive into PC building

With how cheap RAM is these days I don't see why you wouldn't go for 8GB as a baseline. I mean unless there's something out there that shows having too much RAM is actively detrimental, you might as well toss some extra RAM in there and not have to worry about needing more until you're ready to replace the entire rig.

[Malacite]

Re: Taking the dive into PC building

Every expert I've spoken to says 12 GB is the absolute max anyone should need unless you're doing a lot of heavy multi-tasking.

[ItazuraNhomango]

Re: Taking the dive into PC building

Nope, speed.

Obviously your CPU matters - everything working together as a whole really - but you can have 16+ GB RAM at 1033, and my 4 GB of 1666 Mhz will beat the pants off it. Having a lot of RAM is only good if your system can make proper use out of it.

I'm repeating myself, but while RAM speed is nice, it's not always the bottleneck.

A semi-rigorous introductory class or two to computer system will cure the notion that any one aspect of one component is the 'it' thing. (Your example will break with a workload that fits entirely in 5 GB RAM, but not in 4 GB, if the workload has a certain type of RAM access pattern. Think databases can have RAM access like that, and probably Photoshop type of programs as well.)

The past 5 years now, programs and Windows have become so efficient, that we're taking a step backwards now, so that the whole "double the RAM every x years" don't hold true anymore.

I can give you Windows there with Win8 being about as efficient with resources as Win7, but that's a pretty big claim about other programs.

A friend of mine once told me that if I'm not running 90% full on my system memory, it means that I'm wasting money.

Well, that's both a good and a bad rule of thumb.

What percentage of the system RAM is being used is controlled by software--including the operating system. If the system is trying to reserve free RAM (and Windows does that), then it's basically keeping things that can be in RAM (program, data) on the hard drive. And, it's always slower to access the hard drive than RAM. In short, depending on the operating system's RAM/VM policies, you may never see a 90% RAM usage in daily usage, yet still affected by not having sufficient RAM. (Again, goes back to your workload... it's not possible to determine if there's a small upgrade which will really boost speed without that info.)

My own rule of thumb is a bit more lenient: if you're regularly using more than 75% of the RAM, might as well get more if it's not too expensive.

[Aeni]

Re: Taking the dive into PC building

Well, that's both a good and a bad rule of thumb.

What percentage of the system RAM is being used is controlled by software--including the operating system. If the system is trying to reserve free RAM (and Windows does that), then it's basically keeping things that can be in RAM (program, data) on the hard drive. And, it's always slower to access the hard drive than RAM. In short, depending on the operating system's RAM/VM policies, you may never see a 90% RAM usage in daily usage, yet still affected by not having sufficient RAM. (Again, goes back to your workload... it's not possible to determine if there's a small upgrade which will really boost speed without that info.)

My own rule of thumb is a bit more lenient: if you're regularly using more than 75% of the RAM, might as well get more if it's not too expensive.

Filling up the RAM (via OS) with often used programs so that you do not encounter any latency or "load times". That's what I'm getting at. RAM that's going unused is just wasted silicon, IMO, and unless you're saving it for some reason (e.g., your a network server and is a backup for the other servers in case traffic goes ape-shit on them) then I don't see what's the big deal.

Cid's right, 8GB is the baseline, for Win 8 machine. Since dual-channel memory requires a pair, it makes sense then to go with the "best bang for the buck" and that right now is a pair of 8GB sticks (8x2 = 16GB) Beyond that, I'm not sure what you're striving for, and if your programs are eating you out of house and home (memory-wise) then maybe it's about time to actually go and complain about it to the developers and ask for a refund. Even these so-called amateur graphic designers are kind of being unreasonable when they say they need 64GB of RAM to work in Photoshop. That's basically taking an HD image about the size of a 6 story building and trying to molest it. WTF?

Edit:

A good comparison about how OS is important in memory utilization is Android OS. Even if memory seems alarmingly full (as long as there are no aberrant or bad-actor apps running in background) Android typically will shut down unused or rarely used applications to free up memory. And, for majority of Android users out there, their phone typically does run at near full capacity on their memory.

Microsoft went with this route after Vista, and hasn't abandoned it, just that it's a lot more intelligent designed. And I have to tell you, if Microsoft can't use more than 1.5GB of memory in Windows 7, with a modicum of background applications and an email program, then I doubt you should EVER see anything short of a high budget PC game or a complex calculating program (vector-type graphic design programs and 3D programs) gobbling up that kind of storage. 1GB is freaking huge for ANY programmer. If a $0.99 software is eating up 10GB of your RAM, your solution isn't to buy more RAM, but dump that software into the Recycle Bin.

[ItazuraNhomango]

Re: Taking the dive into PC building

Ah, I give.

It's not like I was advocating filling up the machine with all the RAM that can fit; on the contrary, I was saying look at what the machine is supposed to do, and select the components accordingly. But, I seem unable to convey that concept properly. Oh well.

[Malacite]

Re: Taking the dive into PC building

Yeah that's kinda F'ed up to be eating up that kind of RAM...

I'm gonna be needing 12~16 for my new rig, but that's because I intend to do streaming and video editing for my gameplays so that's going to dig into system resources a fair bit. Anything beyond that is just excessive - I frequently run into retards who think they're getting some amazing benefit from having 32+ GB RAM, and I've tried to tell 'em they're just wasting their money, but you can't fix stupid.

[DakAttack]

Re: Taking the dive into PC building

Ok but tell a girl you've got 32gigs of ram... BOOM

Panties dropped