My home server still has 96GB. At this rate i might shut it down and call it my retirement plan
Right over the last 5 years I think I bought about 4-5k of ram and storage. Which is a lot but I think at today’s rates I could flip it for 50k. I’m extremely tempted to do so cause prices have to come down right, but knowing my luck this will all be worth 500k in a few years and I’ll never be able to buy it again.
I say hoard it unless there’s an emergency where you need money.
Is this a sloppified version, exacerbating the reason 32 rams is so scarce right now?
I can take 2 screenshots from this. And make my own edit. Not everything is AI.
Obviously it would be simple enough to make it right. But the skin looks a bit “smoothed” here or something. That would be far from the first time that we saw a meme go through some AI upscaling or whatever.
I hope not!
I found it elsewhere myself 🤷🏻
Are we still ok?
I have 32GB of RAM! DDR4, though.
Same! 16, though.
i guess currently you can cash it in for early retirement
Below 32gb is unusable. Can’t even load rimworld
I’m still on Windows (looking to switch) and somehow I can run AI with 16 GB to spare.
I can hear this image
My main rig has 64 of DDR5 and my backup rig (Yes I’m that kind of fucking nerd) has 32 of DDR4.
I’m so fucking lucky I bought this hardware JUST in time.
Depending on what you do 16 might be plenty or 32 can be barely enough.
i have 32gb ram. run video, emulation, jukebox simultaneously daily
64 GB DDR4. I ain’t the best but I do okay.
More fun than I thought it would be.
There’s a sweet spot for RAM efficiency, it’s not actually a more = better thing. In many cases more RAM results in a worse bottleneck.
Are you pointing to a price-performance degradation or a measurable degradation on hardware with all other factors controlled? The latter doesn’t exist.
All the SEO slop that appears similar to your link (that I’m definitely not clicking) are for PC builders and nobody is making these outrageous claims for server builders.
There are workloads that demand a higher memory-to-compute ratio than others. Web server? Throw them a bone sure. But they mainly want computing power. Big database? Can’t have enough, and can’t have them fast enough. Especially when a single index can be multiple gigabytes big.
Yeah, no, this is telling me my system will choke under any usage type and resolution, but it actually rips through everything I’ve thrown at it.
It’s fancy referral link spam. I’m sure the inflammatory comment is meant to garner attention.
Please explain how more ram can cause a greater bottleneck then less ram of the same sku
I guess bigger ram might have slower speeds and vice versa
Not if they are the same sku
Some systems are less stable with 4 dimms populated instead of 2. This is the only real valid one I can think of.
Or if you have an algorithm that tries to use all available ram, it will spend more time filling up more ram. Though that’s the stupid algorithm, not the RAM.
Or if you add virtual ram and run programs to the point where it needs to constantly page data out and in. Though that’s running more programs than you have ram for and it suffers from a lack of RAM, not the other way around.
Maybe with bad RAM refresh settings where all RAM access is paused during refresh will slow down the system with a sufficient amount of RAM if it needs to be refreshed in series. Though I’m pretty sure I’ve already seen UEFI settings to do that dynamically over sections of RAM, plus I think that RAM already parallelizes it inside the dimms because it’s an obvious limitation for them.
Oh, another real one, though I don’t think it has a huge impact, but the amount of available RAM can affect how many bits are used in the data structures used to manage/track memory allocations, and the number of bits could determine the size of the structures, though those could also be dynamic and depend on memory used rather than available, but I’m not familiar enough with memory allocators to say for sure (both whether it would be a factor at all and how well current managers would handle it). Though even if it does make an impact, each bit added means double the RAM handled, so it doesn’t even scale that badly, and could be optimized to that “used” version if it is the “available” version.
So yeah, without a better mechanism to create bottlenecks, I’d call BS on that statement.
Have more ram then the cpu can address
What worse bottleneck then not being able to boot?
(If anyone has this problem i will gladly take the ram)
I don’t think that results in a failure to boot. Not to mention 64bit addressable space is like 16 QB (though I’m not sure all bits have traces since we’re still orders of magnitude away from being able to use all those bits).
It had reminded me of my old laptop which wouldnt boot if it had more then 4 gb of ram
It may have been 32 bit (dont remember the exact model and no longer have it) or it may have been due to mismatched sticks
4GB is the 32-bit address space. You could be right. My thought was that there wasn’t really a technical reason to not boot with more RAM than is addressable, but it’s certainly possible that BIOS/firmware or even the OS treated it as a fatal error.
Sometime between November 5th 2024 and Jan 20th 2025 I decided I had better replace my ailing laptop before something drove prices up. I was debating between the 32G of RAM I needed and the 64G I wanted. I am really glad I splurged back then. The way costs have gone between tariffs and AI’s demand for braaainz (plus the fact that vibe coders don’t make any account for efficiency or specs) it feels like I practically got it for free.
I’m happy both my PCs have 32 😅.
Laptop is at 16 but the expansion slot is broken so it is what it is. 16GB on linux is alright for me though.
I did splurge on a 2TB 990Pro SSD though, that I am so happy about!
i would sell them and retire
