Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Sep 2011
- Posts
- 12,883
- Location
- Surrey
Memory is so cheap these days it really isn't all that silly at all.
Is 32GB silly?
- Thread starter Jacky-Boy16
- Start date
- Joined
- 25 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 109
Cheers guys. Here's my build so far.
Have any of you got any recommendations for a 32gb quad channel kit?
Have any of you got any recommendations for a 32gb quad channel kit?
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 11,881
- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
I wouldn't use quad channel memory with haswell. That's more suited for the 2011 socket. 
No, but it depends how you will use it, I could happily run 16gb.
But, I run 32GB in my pc, 16gb for system, & the other split 12gb & 4gb for a Ram Drives, which is used for FF cache, work area for CS5 & a few other bits.
But, I run 32GB in my pc, 16gb for system, & the other split 12gb & 4gb for a Ram Drives, which is used for FF cache, work area for CS5 & a few other bits.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 15 May 2013
- Posts
- 64
My thoughts exactly
Wow so much RAM in use today, has software changed that much that it requires such vast amounts of system RAM?, i can't tell any real world difference between 4 and 8GB of RAM, mind you i'm only using music software and the latest games and general browsing. What was the scenario years ago or even 5 years ago?.
Associate
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2013
- Posts
- 220
Im still using 8gb of ram and i want to upgrade to 16GB you can always use RAM Disk to make use of the spare for some fast load times 
Can never have enough RAMMMM!
Jake
Can never have enough RAMMMM!
Jake
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 35,711
I don't know I forgot.
Ram is your Address space. If your CPU and more importantly your O/S can support more than memory the better. As for Windows 7, well if you buy the Ultimate package you get 32GB Address space. Windows 8 just naturally progresses from W7 Ultimate.
If you go back to the days when memory was a bundle of coils and magnetic tape we have come a very long way. The reason for this is consumerism. We wanted phones that did more and had more memory as well as familiar formats known to us. The iPhone gave us that in principal but it had a predecessor which ran a form of windows PE. But now you have a mass conglomerate of devices and the Windows Phone is back.
It all boils down to demand and supply. The bigger the supply the cheaper the price and the demand grows via word of mouth. And someone always asking how did you do that? telling them means they attempt to emulate to do something they believe is better. A consumer contious reminder of how powerful the word of mouth can be on social networks.
As for Adobe, since CS4 they attempted 64 bit computing with colour depth etc but some of the algorithms had fatal flaws. Like still being stuck on 8 bit depth for layer effects, instead of being able to apply them directly to the 16 bit image you already have. They sorted out a few of the algorithms in CS5 but it still isn't right. I haven't tried the latest version but they still have to catch Corel on some of their 24bit depth image handling. But they seem to have sorted out the buffers issue that plagued 3&4.
If you go back to the days when memory was a bundle of coils and magnetic tape we have come a very long way. The reason for this is consumerism. We wanted phones that did more and had more memory as well as familiar formats known to us. The iPhone gave us that in principal but it had a predecessor which ran a form of windows PE. But now you have a mass conglomerate of devices and the Windows Phone is back.
It all boils down to demand and supply. The bigger the supply the cheaper the price and the demand grows via word of mouth. And someone always asking how did you do that? telling them means they attempt to emulate to do something they believe is better. A consumer contious reminder of how powerful the word of mouth can be on social networks.
As for Adobe, since CS4 they attempted 64 bit computing with colour depth etc but some of the algorithms had fatal flaws. Like still being stuck on 8 bit depth for layer effects, instead of being able to apply them directly to the 16 bit image you already have. They sorted out a few of the algorithms in CS5 but it still isn't right. I haven't tried the latest version but they still have to catch Corel on some of their 24bit depth image handling. But they seem to have sorted out the buffers issue that plagued 3&4.
If your modelling uses 16 GB it's not really hard to imagine a model twice the size using 32 GB is it?
I often run out of memory dealing with tetrahedral meshes with between 2 M and 20 M elements on my 32 GB memory workstation. Which is why we use a machine with 90 TB of memory for actual computation
Vegas use an algorithm which interleaves memory. Set the prefferences in 4GB modules to test the efficiency. You may find if you set it to use 16GB it will use 18GB because of the workspace required. Adobe Premiere uses a Disk cache to avoid crashes.