All these silly boys 'futureproofing' their computers with 32GB of RAM

>all these silly boys 'futureproofing' their computers with 32GB of RAM
enjoy your high RAM being too slow in 5 years

Other urls found in this thread:

pcworld.com/article/2982965/components/quad-channel-ram-vs-dual-channel-ram-the-shocking-truth-about-their-performance.html?page=2
pcpartpicker.com/trends/price/memory/#ram.288dimm.ddr4_2133.4x4096
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>these retards getting 8 cores/16 threads CPUs when the memory bus is going to bottleneck them with shit bandwidth anyways.

Why would they need to "future proof" when upgrading ram is like a one minute process?

having 16 gig is a must now.
games and programs are getting more and more hungry for ram. and nope ram is not gonna bottleneck cpu.

processing power itself of current desktop processors will probably be only mid-ish "meh" in next 5 years.

but still not having enough memory is worst.

>ram is not gonna bottleneck cpu
Literally what has, is and will be happening for the decades to come. It's the reason we have caches.

It matters only if you don't have a job.

pcworld.com/article/2982965/components/quad-channel-ram-vs-dual-channel-ram-the-shocking-truth-about-their-performance.html?page=2

I'm doing fine on 4GiB still...

muh bottlenecking.

on gaming machine ?
oh wow....

>gaming

>nu-Sup Forums
You should educate yourself on computer architecture instead of discussing topics you don't understand.

um 6gb is fine if you only have 2 cores

you can dig into theories as deep as you want.
but the real games and most programs are not getting much from switching from 3 to 4 of from 2 to 4.

only ram speed benches shows huge difference.

Maybe I want to load 20GB of data?

last year i could have gotten 2 8gb ram sticks for 50 dollars but my debit card expired. i am waiting for this years black friday to get them

my 32GB got rekt. this is my 16GB computer doing nothing.

ram price is ridiculous now to be honest.
but it doesn't change the fact that ram is needed.
it reminds me of old times when people was saying "why you bought 512 mb of ram"? "its so much... with what will you fill it?"

that was in 2000-xp times....before 512 got very very low ram amount to vista :D

>ram will be faster in the future
>therefore having more ram than I arbitrarily decide on is a waste
Time to kys yourself

>You people and your placebos
i was forced to change some thing in gpedit.... without the change stupid windows was closing programs without asking me when it was using up to 7.2 gb of ram when i had 8.

>MUH GAMES LADS MUH FUCKING GAMES

Go back to Sup Forums, you stupid piece of shit.

I seem to remember similar statements being made when people were buying 32MB for their 486's and Pentium 60/66/90 machines. Shit, I had 32MB RAM for my 5x86-133MHz Prolinea 4/66 machine in '97. I knew I was the shit back then.

sometime in diagnostics.
something about lack of resources.... i don't remember what exactly.

you are just jealous.

all this you don't need 4 cores
you don't need 6 cores.
you don't need 16 gb of ram
you don't need 6 gb on videocard only 3gb is more than enough
comes from jealous people who have shitty hardware but they are refusing to admit it

Sort out your pagefile

>trying prove a point by posting irrelevant benchmarks
kys yourself

8 is the absolute minimum now, 16 is the average that most people need.

Futureproofing is retarded though. It's never a good idea.

Bullshit graph, ram speed has risen by a lot more than 10x. And the the usecases that are ram-speed limited are few.

i don't have this problems for now
but software keeps getting bigger and bigger.
when hevc will be used more.... memory usage will grow dramatically.

The real question is "for what?"
I bought a j1800 with 4 gigs for my mother. It runs Manjaro. For internet and youtube, it's more than sufficient. There's no point buing 32 gigs if you're not being dragged by cache use. If you need it, go for it.

I'm working on a project that is CPU intensive on 20G large data structures. I've noticed that when the third core kicks in it hits the bottleneck. Forth and more core effectively reduce total performance due to cache thrashing.

Seems that this article is benchmarking cache memory or using structures that are 'cache friendly'.

>He doesn't play space engineers

its just not the case for home use.

>Seems that this article is benchmarking cache memory or using structures that are 'cache friendly'.
>handbrake
it's a video encoding application.

>all these fags saying 8 and 16GB are absolute necessities
I know normies who tolerate 2GB. And I'm hanging in there with 4, but I'm gonna order 4 more as a Christmas gift to myself. If you're a normie, you can make do with 2 but 4 is comfy. If you're me, you can make do with 4 but 8 is comfy. If you're Sup Forums - I mean, Sup Forums of course, you can make do with 8 but 16 is comfy.

are they still using win xp ?

RAM speed isn't a bottleneck in anything

thinking gayming is the only demanding task you can do on a PC says more about you than it does about the rest of us.

Video encoding does not require 20G of memory.
Handbreak uses about 1.5G memory.
Even then, fat chance that FFT code is so memory local that the cache is doing a perfect job in relaxing external memory usage.

it doesnt matter why, it's just another scenario where ram speed doesnt matter.

>opening task manager spikes his cpu to 100% usage

BAOMNing at your computer and life

True, I would prefer 32G onchip cache memory.

>Not accelerating your FFTs in FPGA

soon videocards will have such amount of memory :) it will be fun

But it is not on-chip. well, with vega it's close.

>thinking everyone plays games

Is 32Gb not standard?

I have 64 and frequently use all of it when working.

i understand that it can be used for number crunching too :)

>she didn't get quad-channel mobo

The idea of a "RAM limitation" has been outdated since Windows 2000. Your computer will use RAM that it has. That's the point of RAM. You're SUPPOSED to be constantly at 90% RAM usage; if not, your programs aren't making use of it. That said, the growth curve of performance WRT RAM is usually not that favorable (because few programs actually implement dramatically different algorithms for high-RAM situations, they just cache a lot of shit they probably won't need again).

Very few things absolutely "need" that much RAM (having to fall back on slow-as-shit paging if you don't have it) so for most consumers, RAM clock timings are far more important and if you bought cheap high-capacity RAM, its performance is probably far shittier than even advertised.

>all these reddit posting faggots waiting to buy RAM
enjoy paying twice as much in a year or two when you actually use your computer to be productive

>tfw quad channel
it's almost as wide as muh dik

check out DDR4 price history for the past two years

I do just fine with 8GB.

>users only run handbrake and gaymes

Minecraft in space?

Sorry, user, black friday won't save you with regards to RAM

>only 1.6GB cached, the horror
trigger warning, please

RAM prices are high because it's in such high demand; bit growth is ~20%

I haven't used a pagefile in 6 years

>Futureproffing is retarded though
Yeah, if you want to spend double the money in the future and not enjoy the benefit of having more RAM

pcpartpicker.com/trends/price/memory/#ram.288dimm.ddr4_2133.4x4096

LOL, My board supported 32GB DDR3, so guess what, I loaded the sucker to the max @ 32GB. Why? cause I could and I knew that I would never have to worry about "ram" issues ever again. Plus I can always turn what I don't use into a "ram drive", which seems to be something of a lost thing anymore. I got two extra 8x2 sticks of DDR3 stock piled in case I need them (Both my server & desktop use DDR3. Desktop cpu is a Phenom II X4 955.

This guy fucks

>RAM has hardly gotten faster in the past 40 years
>But in 5 more, it's totes going to be obsoletely slow

But really anymore the way computers are so cheap you can just setup a 2nd damn headless tower bout anywhere and dedicate it to just intense video encoding work. That way it frees up your desktop for other shit. I did, got an old X2 system from a family member and turned it into a video encoding system. Who cares if it ain't got an 8 core cpu? All it does it crunch video, if it takes 8 hrs to do a big batch job, who cares, I still got the main desktop just sitting there.

Latency doesn't get better because you add more channels, you know.

>that pic
how many hours in mspaint?

wut

>Beyond DDR3
What could it be?

>bandwidth
Now give me a graph of the row-cycle time.

Man I remember back in 2010 I finally decided to rip my entire DVD collection, 200+ dvds without counting box sets. This was right before I got the Phenom II (using a X2 6000 at that time). Had three separate systems doing vdieo work, the X2 6000 system, the donated family member's X2, and my Toshiba laptop. Needless to say the job got done quick. Which proved useful when I got the 100+ dvd 20 season set of Law & Order a few yrs later.

You realize cycle time shortens as the clock increases, yes?

Except that's exactly what it doesn't, which is why every generation of DDR RAM has higher CAS latency as specified in clocks.

One thing that annoys me lately with ram.

In the past you bought a motherboard and put 512mb of ram in it and it said the motherboard had a capacity of like 3gb. Now you put in 16gb and got are likely to have a max of only 32gb. Like 2x vs 6x.

yes, so what's your point? DRAM must be refreshed within a specific period to keep it's data, that will never change.

>handbrake
Really user?
Is encoding all you do with that RAM?

VMs and disk caching can benefit hugely from interleaving.

Don't pay much attention to max memory. usually max memory is calculated from number of slots x largest DIMM available at the time. My NAS's max memory was listed as 6GB and I currently have 32GB in it.

Your CPU specs will show how much memory it can address, and it's almost guaranteed to be way more than you can plug into your motherboard.

Prices go up and down. A new factory comes on line, there's a glut, prices crash. Then a new technology comes out, or demand for a new platform, or whatever. Suddenly prices are through the roof.

Future proofing is very smart so long as you time the market.

I literally run out of ram with 16GB sometimes

im too cheap to buy 32GB ddr3 though, fuck that.

Here's the thing: there are no new DRAM fabs coming on line for years. DRAM bit growth will primarily be from process migration, which means slower bit growth as existing processes are torn down and obviously not operational as the new process is built.

My point is if you think you will need more RAM in the next couple of years, you might as well buy now; prices are not going to go down in that time, will probably increase, and at least you'll have the extra memory now.

The true next big thing in the memory space is 3DXP DIMMs. That's what will get me to build a new system.

Physics simulation with fully destructible blocks that can be crushed and sliced.

Persistent colossal fully destructible planets and terrain to fuck around on with asteroids to build in and mine.

You can drill to the center of the earth if you want and throw stones into the perfect gravity well at the center and watch them orbit.

Only downside is that the physics sim and MP interp isn't that high tech so shit can spazz and explode.

Odd. I never tried to go above what the motherboard lists. I had a 12gb limit on my last computer. One of the reasons I upgraded is to get 16gb. Fuck.

Refresh time has nothing to do with the row-cycle time. The point being that row-cycle times were on the order of 400 ns on the Apple 2, and modern DDR4 RAM is on the order of 40 ns or slightly less.

so it's an order of magnitude faster...? Still don't follow what your beef is

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but in the same timespan, most other metrics of computer performance have increased by more like four orders of magnitude.
Also, just extrapolating, it certainly means that not much is going to happen in the next five years, contrary to what OP claimed.

>didn't buy loads of ram back when I had a job
>DDR3 now costs more than 2x what it did
>programs demand more memory than ever
I've learned my fucking lesson.

motherboard literally doesn't support anything faster

if you are using half your channels for 32 gb that costs $100? you can double your bandwidth and size for less in the future.

how often are you upgrading your motherboards?

DRAM is hard, this is why only 3 manufacturers managed to stay in business and control over 95% of the production (and also why China has no shot at a competitive product and just announced they gave up even after being funded by the state for over $18B)

The future is in-memory computing. Check out Micron's Automata (recently spun off into naturalsemi.com, but google "Micron Automata" for useful information) and Hybrid Memory Cube. I think HBM might be in trouble with GDDR6 coming out at 16Gbps transfer rates.

>Xim didn't get 64 core 256 thread CPU

>64 cores
>256 threads
erm

It exists

My main laptop is a ThinkPad from 2006. I upgraded it to a 2GHz 64-bit Core 2 Duo CPU and 4GB of RAM and a 64GB SSD. I installed Fedora with XFCE and it works well for all my daily tasks. Honestly what the fuck are you on about?

>programmers are getting worse, they thrive on bloat to do their convoluted shit.

woah holy shit