Its astounding

[bru]

Ive just been reading thought the various forums and i noticed something that i found quite astounding.

Go read the CPU forums and it seems that faster is always better generally recommended, the only point that seems to be different to this is the 2500k vrs 2600k where the due to the price difference and very little performance difference the 2500k is normally the one to be recommended.

Go read the GPU forum and their is a growing debate that more video ram is better.

where as here on the memory forum when people suggest more than 8GB of ram they get shot down in flames for being stupid, so why in this enthusiast forum is less memory considered better than more.

 

[bru]

yes OK but you could just a well say most people don't need a 4.6GHz i5 and yet the 2500k is the one that is suggested more often than not. here buy the 500GB hard disk because not many actually need the 1 or 2 TB drives.
just the whole don't buy more memory attitude of the forum really shocked me considering everything else is about as much excess as possible.

just thought of another is there any real noticeable difference in everyday usage between say an vertex 1 120GB drive and the vertex 3 120GB and yet hardly anyone would suggest the older drive.

 

[bru]

Actually people who don't recommended more ram for their PCs are usually gamers. Everyone else using their PC all day will benefit pretty quickly from more ram.

The system caches disk blocks in free ram, so the longer you use it, the bigger the cache get, until at some point pretty much everything you use is in the cache. That means near zero disk activity.

Of course, again, player who use their PC like a console won't care about that.

well this was my understanding, so basically anyone who actually uses their pc will gain a benifit unless all you do is boot up, start game, play, shut down

 

[bru]

am i the only one on this forum who uses their machine for more than just gaming