Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, Flying Fox, Thresher
Captain Ned wrote:Um, your poll is missing an option.
Flying Fox wrote:Chrome managed to eat up all my 8 gigs. Thanks to TR Vancouver stopped-by-parking-garage-cop meetup (fun times ), I upgraded to 16. Still Chrome ate it all up as if it was nobody's business. My next system should be 32 at a minimum.
just brew it! wrote:Why would RAM amount depend on CPU choice? Shouldn't this just be "How much RAM would you want if you were building a system today?"
Redocbew wrote:... and the reason you're buying that CPU is for the intended workload, no?
My intended workload would mostly be video encoding. I wouldn't need 32GB of memory for that. The current machine is headless with xfce installed on it just in case I need it, so I could get by with 8 and the CPU would be perfectly happy with that. If plans were to change in the future though I'd probably end up putting at least another 8 in it anyway.
just brew it! wrote:Why would RAM amount depend on CPU choice? Shouldn't this just be "How much RAM would you want if you were building a system today?"
synthtel2 wrote:just brew it! wrote:Why would RAM amount depend on CPU choice? Shouldn't this just be "How much RAM would you want if you were building a system today?"
I fully agree, but not everyone seems to, and that's the biggest reason this poll exists.
Welch wrote:Well of course you had RAM issues running VMs on 16gb JBI, how many chrome instances were you running on each guest OS!? If running virtual machines (plural) then I can easily see going over 16GB easy, if you're actually using the host machine with it's own OS.
just brew it! wrote:Welch wrote:Well of course you had RAM issues running VMs on 16gb JBI, how many chrome instances were you running on each guest OS!? If running virtual machines (plural) then I can easily see going over 16GB easy, if you're actually using the host machine with it's own OS.
My point was that I didn't have problems with Chrome in 16GB, unless I was also running VMs.
derFunkenstein wrote:So I went with 32 in the poll, but like lots of folks, I expect 16GB to be the sweet spot where most of the respondents answer. And someone has a broken Chrome install. I mean, it eats RAM, but I've *never* seen Chrome total up to more than 1.2 or 1.5GB.
just brew it! wrote:Yeah, 16GB seems to be enough for my last couple of builds. But I might go with 32GB for a new Ryzen build just to future proof.Why would RAM amount depend on CPU choice? Shouldn't this just be "How much RAM would you want if you were building a system today?"
synthtel2 wrote:HEDT systems have the slots on both sides because they're quad-channel, so four sticks becomes the minimum to get a full-width path to memory (and it's really tough to run that many traces under that kind of load to slots on just one side). OCs might theoretically be slightly better when not using all RAM channels, but it should be unnoticable to all but the most extreme overclockers, and the bandwidth penalty for not using all channels is massive.
It seems like there might be some gains in setting up a dual-channel system to have one or two slots on each side, but I'm not an EE and haven't done any math for such a thing, and the packaging challenges that introduces would probably be a much bigger deal.