How much RAM you got?

How much RAM is installed on your rig?

  • 4GB or less

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • 4GB+

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • 8GB+

    Votes: 13 2.2%

  • 12GB+

    Votes: 1 0.2%

  • 16GB+

    Votes: 112 18.6%

  • 32GB+

    Votes: 300 49.9%

  • 64GB+

    Votes: 155 25.8%

  • 128GB+

    Votes: 14 2.3%

  • 256GB+

    Votes: 6 1.0%

  • 512GB+

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    601
TheSlySyl said:
Due to Black Friday I finally hit my computers final form. I have 128GB of DDR3600 in my machine instead of 64GB of mixed, really old and slow DDR3200. I managed to spend $124 on dual 64GB DDR3200 LP kits that hit DDR3600 easily.

Did I need the space? Not really. I'm now using about 60GB as RAMcache. However, it did fix one potential bottleneck in my system that benchmarks pretty quickly showed wasn't actually as much of a bottleneck as I thought. Oh well.

Guess the wife is gonna end up with 64 GB of ram though. lol.
Click to expand...

Start playing DCS. 128 GB RAM is a godsent for its loading times.
 
LukeTbk said:
Went up to 64, having been to 48GB down too 32GB because of conflict with the cooler of ram stick, I new already that some stuff would use it to have more than 32.

Reached around 44 gig with (20 compressed) in some large compilation work, wonder if 12-16 gig of ram cache could be worth it.
Click to expand...
More ram always makes it worth it, especially when going that far over your physical ram size.
 
Nyageki said:
will 64gb the standard in like... 1-2 years?
Click to expand...
I kind of doubt it. There aren't enough things that require significantly more RAM to do. It's only useful for people doing specific workloads.
Gaming as an example will likely not saturate 32GB for a long long while. Right now I'd say that gaming benefits from having more than 16GB, but it doesn't actually need anywhere close to another 16GB. Really if it was possible to have 24GB of RAM in a system, that would likely be sufficient for another 4+ years. 32GB I imagine we'll be riding until at least 2030, unless again, you're in certain sectors that are already using a bunch of RAM.

Video editing, video rendering, certain audio tasks, and obviously any form of data center stuff are already utilizing more than 64GB. But for normal people? Yeah, 64GB won't be close to a standard for a (relatively) long while.
 
Deadjasper said:
Yup. Got bragging rights now. 😎
Click to expand...
1701970266011.png

Heh.
 
SamirD said:
I'm thinking sooner than that because win11=more bloat.
Click to expand...
I doubt there is much difference, they are almost the same OS, looking a couple of video testing up to date win10 vs win11, at least for fresh install, ram usage seem the same when not a tiny bit lower on win11.

Running a bunch of different AI inference model from SOC with custom AI capability could be the next shift in ram use for "regular" people, but there is many sign that small specialized 1.5-3 billion model can do a lot... , still 3-7 of RAM used.. if you have a language, personal assistant one that came with the OS running, one for your work and one that is specialized for one or your common activity and do not want to jungle which are active or closed, it could make 64 gig interesting.
 
LukeTbk said:
I doubt there is much difference, they are almost the same OS, looking a couple of video testing up to date win10 vs win11, at least for fresh install, ram usage seem the same when not a tiny bit lower on win11.

Running a bunch of different AI inference model from SOC with custom AI capability could be the next shift in ram use for "regular" people, but there is many sign that small specialized 1.5-3 billion model can do a lot... , still 3-7 of RAM used.. if you have a language, personal assistant one that came with the OS running, one for your work and one that is specialized for one or your common activity and do not want to jungle which are active or closed, it could make 64 gig interesting.
Click to expand...
Like all the versions of windows before it, I'm sure at some point win11 will require more memory.

Yeah, all these new applications will need gobs of memory to run well--especially when most of the development of this stuff is being done on systems with far more memory than 64GB.
 
SamirD said:
Yeah, all these new applications will need gobs of memory to run well--especially when most of the development of this stuff is being done on systems with far more memory than 64GB.
Click to expand...

Give a programmer a slow computer and he/she will write fast programs.

(slowly)
 
Interesting that 75% of votes have at least 32GB :) The 64GB route has been moving up recently, too.
 
Violator said:
Interesting that 75% of votes have at least 32GB :) The 64GB route has been moving up recently, too.
Click to expand...
Par for the course imo. You should have seen how many people went to 32MB as soon as 98se came out. ;)
 
Just upgraded my Linux box daily driver to 256GB and system info is showing 251.7. Is this normal? I tested the memory with memtest and it all passed.
 
2023 update:

Desktop/Workstation still has 64GB (4x16Gb) but now DDR4-3600, unbuffered, not ECC

Currently deployed server has 256GB (16x16GB) Registered DDR3-1600, ECC

I am currently testing what will become my next server on my desk in my office. It has 512GB (8x64GB) Registered DDR4-3200, ECC
 
O Give Me Land Lots of Land under Starry Skies Above, Don't Fence Me In......

Just created a 128GB swap file in memory just because I could. :p

OK, just changed it to a more reasonable 4GB which is twice the default size. Should be plenty enough for my needs.
 
Last edited:
Deadjasper said:
O Give Me Land Lots of Land under Starry Skies Above, Don't Fence Me In......

Just created a 128GB swap file in memory just because I could. :p

OK, just changed it to a more reasonable 4GB which is twice the default size. Should be plenty enough for my needs.
Click to expand...
You don't need no stinken swap file if you have enough memory. :D

The reality is that some programs depend on a swap file so best to have one, but I'd make it bigger since you don't want some dumb program crashing because the swap was too small.
 
SamirD said:
You don't need no stinken swap file if you have enough memory. :D

The reality is that some programs depend on a swap file so best to have one, but I'd make it bigger since you don't want some dumb program crashing because the swap was too small.
Click to expand...

I thought he meant it was a "for fun" thing. Otherwise putting one on a RAM drive would have no purpose at all, as the system would be better served by just using the RAM directly :p
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
I thought he meant it was a "for fun" thing. Otherwise putting one on a RAM drive would have no purpose at all, as the system would be better served by just using the RAM directly :p
Click to expand...
Yep, I think he meant it for fun, but with the stupid requirement of windows needing a swap file, might as well put it in ram vs storage.
 
SamirD said:
Yep, I think he meant it for fun, but with the stupid requirement of windows needing a swap file, might as well put it in ram vs storage.
Click to expand...

Wait, you can't disable the swap anymore? I've been doing this for decades. If it has been re-enabled through updates, I hadn't noticed.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Wait, you can't disable the swap anymore? I've been doing this for decades. If it has been re-enabled through updates, I hadn't noticed.
Click to expand...
You can disable it, but some badly coded stuff breaks if you do. I ran into this years ago so I stopped shutting it off.
 
SamirD said:
You can disable it, but some badly coded stuff breaks if you do. I ran into this years ago so I stopped shutting it off.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I've never had an issue, but then again, I only use Windows for games these days.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Interesting. I've never had an issue, but then again, I only use Windows for games these days.
Click to expand...
It's been several years so maybe it's not an issue anymore. I only use portable software anymore so my OSes are generally not being touched by the programs so maybe it's a non-issue. I just remember something having a fit until I added the swapfile back--might have just been an issue with my xp embedded thin clients as I just checked and they have a 0mb swapfile.
 
I read somewhere that putting the swap file in ram will speed the computer up. Can't prove it by me. May have been true in the Stone Age but not today. But it was easy to configure and it's easy to turn off. Only wasted about 30 minutes at most.
 
Deadjasper said:
I read somewhere that putting the swap file in ram will speed the computer up. Can't prove it by me. May have been true in the Stone Age but not today. But it was easy to configure and it's easy to turn off. Only wasted about 30 minutes at most.
Click to expand...
Probably was a bit true back in the day when swap files and memory were optimized differently than today. It's crazy to think that we've actually got to the point where everything can be in ram and there is no 'storage' and ram, but yet we are still not completely there yet because RAM is still faster than 'storage', but that gap is closing. I guess that's what optane was supposed to be about.
 
SamirD said:
Probably was a bit true back in the day when swap files and memory were optimized differently than today. It's crazy to think that we've actually got to the point where everything can be in ram and there is no 'storage' and ram, but yet we are still not completely there yet because RAM is still faster than 'storage', but that gap is closing. I guess that's what optane was supposed to be about.
Click to expand...
Optane is awesome but RAM it is not. There were some ram-like products for the server space though, but I can't remember what their applications were.

I went up to 64GB in my desktop already in 2014 when I decommissioned an old consumer parts server. I had extra slots on my motherboard so I popped the RAM from the server in and had 64GB with no need for it.

I used to run Red Orchestra 2 from a ram disk just so I could join maps faster and prevent noobs who didn't know how to play important player classes from snagging them, losing us an entire map. It was pretty awesome. I always joined maps first.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Optane is awesome but RAM it is not. There were some ram-like products for the server space though, but I can't remember what their applications were.

I went up to 64GB in my desktop already in 2014 when I decommissioned an old consumer parts server. I had extra slots on my motherboard so I popped the RAM from the server in and had 64GB with no need for it.

I used to run Red Orchestra 2 from a ram disk just so I could join maps faster and prevent noobs who didn't know how to play important player classes from snagging them, losing us an entire map. It was pretty awesome. I always joined maps first.
Click to expand...
Ah yes, the NVDIMMs that were supported on some boards. And then there was the Intel Phi chips that had so many cores and memory that you could install and run windows right from ram with their proprietary motherboard setup.

I actually haven't run a ram drive since the days of ramdisk.sys so I have no idea how to do it, lol. But that's definitely an awesome use for it if it gave you that much of an advantage. :)
 
Just upgraded to a 7800x3d system and stayed with 32gb. Don't see the need for more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top