Deadjasper
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2001
- Messages
- 2,593
I current everyday box running Mint Cinnamon has 24GB. Is that enough or would I benefit from more?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Agreed. Unless you are running some VM's or something, or DCing (depending on project), 24 is more than adequate and you won't really see a difference going for 32.I just 16GB on one of my computers and 32GB each on the other two computers. I cannot see where you would benefit from more than 24GB.
Three 8gb sticks. Triple-channel config in certain intel boards. Edit: or six 4gb sticks, but I don't know how common that config was.How did you get 24GB? I assumed you could only have 16GB or 32GB. But yeah, I would say 16GB is not quite enough for a high-end system these days, and you really need more like 22GB. I manage to use that much just using a web browser with a bunch of tabs open, especially if I'm doing something else in the background like compiling an application.
I would say 24GB is actually the perfect amount... more than 16GB which is starting to hurt and require more careful memory management like 8GB did 4 or 5 years ago, but 32GB is still slightly overkill most of the time. I already had 32GB of DDR3 in my old system and was used to it, and when I finally built a new system I couldn't bear to downgrade to 16GB to save money or justify ponying up for 64GB... so I just wound up with a couple of 16GB DDR4 modules. The memory was a sidegrade.
That is pretty surprising. I was always taught you have to install memory in pairs, couldn't mix RAM of different sizes, and have the same amount of RAM on each channel. Maybe that's old info, though. So yeah, I was thinking he must have 6GB or 12GB sticks somehow to make that work, and wondered if they were 8GB sticks with a bad 2GB chip on them disabled, etc. 3 sticks of 8GB seems way more obvious and common sense now that I know that can be a thing.Three 8gb sticks. Triple-channel config in certain intel boards. Edit: or six 4gb sticks, but I don't know how common that config was.
I used to have a setup that used triple channel ram, had to install in sets of 3 instead of 2, but that didn't seem to last long, guess it was more of a fad than anything else.That is pretty surprising. I was always taught you have to install memory in pairs, couldn't mix RAM of different sizes, and have the same amount of RAM on each channel. Maybe that's old info, though. So yeah, I was thinking he must have 6GB or 12GB sticks somehow to make that work, and wondered if they were 8GB sticks with a bad 2GB chip on them disabled, etc. 3 sticks of 8GB seems way more obvious and common sense now that I know that can be a thing.
Back in the old old days, you used to actually need to do things like that, I think 4x 30-pin or 2x 72-pin matched memory or you wouldn't boot on most systems. Since then, matching up memory has usually been more advisory than required; you'll lose out on performance by not filling things properly, but it'll still work most of the time. 16 GB + 8 GB in a dual slot board will get you to 24 GB; and Intel was doing either multiple of 3 channels or 3 DIMMs per channel or something on a lot of the Xeon servers I was working with for my last job (dual 2690 v1 - v4), so they had maxes like 768GB and 1.5 TB; I think we stopped at 1 TB of ram on our biggest machines, ran out of CPU before we could use more ram.That is pretty surprising. I was always taught you have to install memory in pairs, couldn't mix RAM of different sizes, and have the same amount of RAM on each channel. Maybe that's old info, though. So yeah, I was thinking he must have 6GB or 12GB sticks somehow to make that work, and wondered if they were 8GB sticks with a bad 2GB chip on them disabled, etc. 3 sticks of 8GB seems way more obvious and common sense now that I know that can be a thing.
Certain boards from... 2010?Three 8gb sticks. Triple-channel config in certain intel boards. Edit: or six 4gb sticks, but I don't know how common that config was.
Back in the old old days, you used to actually need to do things like that, I think 4x 30-pin or 2x 72-pin matched memory or you wouldn't boot on most systems. Since then, matching up memory has usually been more advisory than required; you'll lose out on performance by not filling things properly, but it'll still work most of the time. 16 GB + 8 GB in a dual slot board will get you to 24 GB; and Intel was doing either multiple of 3 channels or 3 DIMMs per channel or something on a lot of the Xeon servers I was working with for my last job (dual 2690 v1 - v4), so they had maxes like 768GB and 1.5 TB; I think we stopped at 1 TB of ram on our biggest machines, ran out of CPU before we could use more ram.
Yeah, that's what was thinking. So how much performance would you lose from mismatching? Like, suppose I'm on a Z77 motherboard, and I have 4GB installed in each channel for a dual-channel setup with a free DIMM slot for each channel. A couple years after building it, I find it's not enough and I need about 20GB of RAM for some specific task. What I actually did in that situation was sell off my 8GB kit and buy a whole 32GB kit of 4x8GB. But if instead I had chosen to buy a 2x8GB kit, and put another 8GB in each channel using the free DIMM slots so that each channel had 12GB, and total installed memory was 24GB... would that have incurred a performance penalty, or been fine because each channel has the same amount of RAM?
Also still running a Z97 here, with 4790K. Originally had 32GB RAM in it, but split off 16GB to my wife's computer when I had to rebuild her one some years ago. May upgrade the whole thing in the next year, or may just replace to storage from a kludge of old SSDs and HDs to something new and just keep the rest.My gaming rig is a Z97 pro with 8Gb of ram and I haven't found the need for more. But granted I don't play games much anymore.
Until last year I was running the Pentium G3258 @4Ghz as the CPU even lol. It ran world fo tanks just fine. Now I have the same cpu as you after my son upgraded his box. By far the biggest upgrade was the Samsung 32" curved display I got for free from work.Also still running a Z97 here, with 4790K. Originally had 32GB RAM in it, but split off 16GB to my wife's computer when I had to rebuild her one some years ago. May upgrade the whole thing in the next year, or may just replace to storage from a kludge of old SSDs and HDs to something new and just keep the rest.