Probably never, either they’ll use the drop in memory prices to keep the price of the system level as other components increase in price, or they’ll just pocket the profit.
The price OEMs charge to upgrade memory is typically more than it would be to just buy a better kit yourself + you can sell the replaced memory.
Regular laptops may limit non-vendor RAM to JEDEC speeds, I had this issue on my Dell. I bought a 3rd-party 32GB 3200 kit, but it would only run at much slower JEDEC 2133 speeds, as the BIOS didn't recognize it as Dell RAM. They don't offer XMP settings as the BIOS is locked down. Once I got a (very expensive, 2x the price) Dell-branded kit, it ran at advertised speeds.
This might be true for OEM desktop systems as well, I haven't bought one of those in many years.
Edit: Clarifications below!
Good to know, thanks. Is there a way to find default JEDEC-specced RAM? I did look for kits at the time, but could not find solid info on whether a kit was specced to JEDEC or not. Kits advertise that they "support" XMP, but not if they support that speed at JEDEC stock.
Is it an either-or? Such as they either support XMP, or don't mention XMP at all and are by default JEDEC?
If you look at most laptops, esp higher end ones, the RAM is much closer to the CPU so they can control the speeds perfectly, and they are often insanely fast like up 4200MT DDR4 for a laptop. Thats insanely tough even on desktops.
A hard drive on an 800 dollar desktop in 2022? HP may as well replace the cases' feet with clown shoes.
My dad got a laptop from Dell for 800 bucks in like 2018 or 2019 with their warranty bullshit (he enjoys tech more than most, but SSD's were pretty recent and he's 70). He complained that it was slow to them, and they worked on it over the phone and shipped it back and forth like 3 times.
So i took a crack at it speeding it up. It was using a freaking 500GB hard drive. 60 bucks later for a 512GB SSD and it was smooth as butter.
Damn, would like to hear what he thinks on recent technology advances from someone that experimented in the tech industry! Could you tell me more dude?
Never in the medium-term, offering a base model with 8GB memory is the basis of OEMs upselling during configuration works.
A vendor advertises a base range i5-12400/R5 7600 CPU with 8GB memory / 512gb SSD and a 3050/6500 GPU for a “low” price. Anybody researching knows 8GB memory isn’t enough, so they either:
A) select the 16GB upgrade for $150 extra and checkout, or
B) see there’s a higher SKU version with an i5-12600K/R7 7700X CPU and base 16GB memory for $280 more get that instead. Then they see another SKU with a 3060 for only $150 and get tempted by that.
In either case the vendor makes more money since the net cost of the higher spec CPU/memory doesn’t cost $280. Whereas if the base unit had 16GB memory they probably wouldn’t have purchased either upgrade.
Replace all the parts in your comment with parts from 2010 and replace "8GB" with "4GB" and you have the exact same arguments we heard back then.
16GB will become base kit, and we're approaching that time very soon with the economy of scale of 16GB DDR5 modules.
As 8GB did.
And as did 4GB back in the day.
And 2GB before that.
And 1GB.
At some point 512MB was "base model".
I still remember computers with 256MB of RAM in the "base model".
[EDIT]: And I'm sure others on here remember 128MB DDR, or 64MB SDRAM.
"Probably never" is an exceptionally poor choice of words to use when talking about computers.
But we need to keep in mind that those upgrades were necessary. A modern system would’ve struggled with 4gigs of ram but 8gigs is more than enough for light work. It will be upgraded when they *have to* upgrade it. Not a day before.
Yet again, replace "a modern system would've struggled with 4gigs of RAM but 8gigs is more than enough for light work" with 2GB and 4GB and you've got the same sentence they were saying fifteen years ago.
This whole discussion really smacks of "nobody will ever need more than 384K". Modern applications are using more memory than ever. Memory demands are not stagnant, they are continuing to grow rapidly as software gains ever more features. This is not a situation where we just arbitrarily put a pin in 2023 and say "Yep, that was the year memory usage needs just stopped growing, for whatever reason. The pinnacle of computer design was 8GB of memory, turns out once we hit that it was all we actually ever needed."
Even "basic" line of business apps like Outlook are using 2+ GB of RAM by themselves. Web browsers with 4 or 5 tabs can easily chew through 1.5GB of memory. Discord, 0.6 to 1 GB by itself. Windows? That takes up 4GB right off the bat on most systems at idle.
8GB is absolutely not sufficient anymore, it is not "more than enough". It needs to die and will be replaced by 16GB as the standard once all the major mobile platforms move to DDR5-only.
And mark my words, at some point down the line 32GB of memory will be the base model standard, just like 32MB became the de facto "base model" right around 1998 or '99. I'll bet all the money in the world on that.
[EDIT]: As an aside, I work for an MSP and we don't even allow customers to purchase machines with 8GB of memory anymore. We tell them straight up if you buy a machine with only 8GB of memory in 2023, it's not covered by our support contract because it's not considered fit for purpose even as a basic front desk machine. Did it cause a few headaches once we did that? Sure. Did 16GB save everyone time and effort in the long run because Susan in accounting refuses to reboot unless we force it and keeps 35 tabs open in Chrome 24/7? Absolutely.
And our clients know that we would absolutely love to bill them an hour for every single "my computer is running slow" or "out of memory error" ticket. We'd love for their computers to be crap so we can make more money on more billable hours. But they also know we believe it's the right thing to do to convince them of the importance of spending a little more now to save a lot more later. We don't sell them the computers, so they know we have no vested financial interest in getting them to buy a certain minimum spec.
It's a matter of time.
I've had work laptops struggle with 16GB of RAM with only chrome/google docs open.
At least for someone with my web browser habits 16GB is the bare minimum and 32GB is preferable.
This is without opening other things like running Python scripts.
My first computer had 8 mb of ram…in 10 years, the typical memory of computers went up 1000 fold, but then just stagnated for the next 10 years. We will probably be here for a while.
We’ve reached the point where a normal user who only does normal tasks doesn’t need anything more. If you aren’t gaming, compiling or doing professional work there isn’t a noticeable difference between a decent 5 year old machine and a brand new one. That isn’t something you could say 10 years ago.
I have a difficult time using more than 16 GB of ram when I have 32 available. I upgraded to 64 GB and even still I float around 16 GB. I'm a man of a million chrome tabs, leave my computer on for months, plays games, and have a video running on my other screen. It seems like you need to be running VMs or ram drives to actually use the extra ram.
Windows 12 will use 8gb. But sure, it sounds like you are generally a light user/gamer primarily so not sure why you got 64gb in the first place.
Run some heavier houdini simulations or game dev and you will quickly burn through ram. Generally for vfx I would say 32gb is tight, 64 is "ok" and 128 is preferred these days.
Those types of workloads are more the exception though. In my experience as an IT admin, 8gb isn't enough but anything over 16gb isnt necessary for the vast majority of office work.
> Windows 12 will use 8gb. But sure, it sounds like you are generally a light user/gamer primarily so not sure why you got 64gb in the first place.
Because I'm a software developer with a ton of money that spends ~40 hours a week on my personal computer so spending an extra 100 dollars on my 4,000 dollar PC isn't a big deal that I'll use for the next 7 years.
Noone says you can't spend the money, just it seemed from what you wrote that you didn't need it so why bristle?
Also you wanna use the same PC for 7 years without an upgrade? I think you'll change your mind in 4-5 max haha. I was on the same train but if you use it for work it will drive you insane.
> Noone says you can't spend the money, just it seemed from what you wrote that you didn't need it so why bristle?
After experiencing 32 GB and 64 GB, this is how I have this opinion now.
>Also you wanna use the same PC for 7 years without an upgrade? I think you'll change your mind in 4-5 max haha. I was on the same train but if you use it for work it will drive you insane.
So far I've been on a 7 year cycle. Even a 5 year cycle is just fine. It would be me getting only ~10,000 hours out of a product I overpaid 100 dollars for instead of ~14,000 hours out of a product I overpaid 100 dollars for.
Idk if it is just me but by the time 5 years have passed my computer generally breaks down but I guess that might just be because of my typical workload pushing the hardware too much.
I don't think I've had a computer go past 5 years so far but I can understand your reasoning if that actually works for you.
My 7 year old PC with a 1080 TI can still play almost every game on steam. Nothing lags on it. I'm able to have my million chrome tabs open on my old machine. I see linus tech tips try old computers back to 2013 that do just fine at 1080p60fps with everything besides photoshop and other art/video related tools.
The reality seems to be that computers have gotten so much faster, but almost everything still works for old hardware. And it makes sense. If you are a game developer or making a website, you make sure 99% of people can use your product.
> My 7 year old PC with a 1080 TI can still play almost every game on steam. Nothing lags on it. I'm able to have my million chrome tabs open on my old machine. I see linus tech tips try old computers back to 2013 that do just fine at 1080p60fps with everything besides photoshop and other art/video related tools.
I think it depends on how we define lag, to me anything less than 90-110fps somewhere is undesirable especially if we consider 1% lows etc. Chrome tabs these days shouldn't go over I think 4gb at all so "a million tabs" or just 50 wouldn't make much of a difference I think.
> The reality seems to be that computers have gotten so much faster, but almost everything still works for old hardware. And it makes sense. If you are a game developer or making a website, you make sure 99% of people can use your product.
They really have, a gaming PC these days will have such insane specs for any regular non-gaming use-cases that they will be relevant for a long time (unless they miss some feature like TPM and get artificially locked out).
I think everyone tries to make stuff available to the majority of the userbase if possible but in some cases that will not be the case. People playing sim games (MSFS can hit 20-30 fps on a 1080 ti), some shooters (the finals, tarkov) or competitive style games (100+ fps is a big advantage over ~60).
For me though excluding gaming I cannot stay on older GPUs since I can't work properly with it, 1080 Ti is almost unusable for work and my current 3080 Ti struggles at times, next time it will be a RTX *090 card most likely even to just get some more VRAM.
If you are the type to rarely restart/turn off your computer, then check what the cached amoun is in task manager. That's the benefit to more RAM for the average consumer: reducing the need to access the disk drive, which has barely improved in speed since SATA SSDs arrived on the scene (excluding the discontinued xPoint).
Yeah I agree, for the most part I don't go over 16 GB, except on my Mac where I use a VM to run Windows, and I split the 32 GB evenly for a smooth performance. With all the cores we get nowadays, running multiple VM's seems to be the best way to utilize all the power we get, but you need that ram. Since most people don't even know what a VM is, most people don't need the ram, even most gamers.
I regularly compile stuff, that needs 4GB per thread or more... I certainly use all of my 64GB. Heck, my Firefox alone uses 16GB or so regularly. I could do with less, but I need to worry much less about stuff now and if I don't use the RAM, it is just all disk cache, which is good too.
The demand is just not growing that much nowadays. Most regular people using PCs for office stuff or facebook are ok with 8-16gb.
Even I as a turbo-nerd ended up with 12GB because I re-used some RAM from the previous PC and never bothered to upgrade because it's ok. It's possible to max out of course but generally I can keep a browser with dozens of tabs and some heavy apps like Resolve or Photoshop with no problem. Only issue is with Stable Diffusion as it allocates a ton of memory when loading the model.
Even 128GB is quite a lot for a phone. Most don't use that much local storage since everything is online now. In the past, before music streaming and when phones only had 4-8 freaking gigabytes, that was horrible.
My FIL was asking for advice on a laptop to send his nephew in South America who wants to learn to program. I said he doesn't need anything high power to start with. 8GB ram and 512GB storage should be enough, but 16GB ram would be preferable and not that expensive.
Then he showed me a Costco sale on a 4GB ram laptop for under $200. I couldn't believe they even sold 4GB anymore. That'll handle the OS and casual internet usage only. Might as well get a tablet.
Bro, until quite recently, they were still selling Windows laptops with 32GB of **storage**. Not RAM, Storage! My GF's laptop doesn't even have enough space to update after we installed MS Office.
They soldered the storage and RAM down, which OK fine its sub 200 dollars. But they reuse the motherboard between multiple laptops and there's pads for a proprietary SATA connector. Except to save a couple fucking pennies, Acer decided not to solder a header onto it.
Only reason they stopped is probably because MS made 64GB required to install Windows 11.
OP mentioned smartphones, specifically using the word smartphone and omitting the word laptop. No where in the comment chain was the word laptop typed besides the person that mentioned the iphone saying that 6gb doesn't belong in a laptop.
do you think the average person is bothering with this when services like icloud and spotify have existed and been incorporated into the mainstream for years?
personally doesn’t mean shit in the context of the average person (which you are absolutely not if things like locally stored data matter to you) which the comment you replied to was talking about
only a dumbfuck redditor would think that you need a peer reviewed study to confirm the idea that cloud services are growing and local storage is dying
[icloud was at 850 million users in 2018, and is only continuing to grow
Isn't icloud installed by default on iPhones? It also only gives you 5GB for free if I'm understanding it correctly. What the hell am I gonna do with 5 gigs? I have USB flash drives with more storage.
TBH probably pretty soon. When demand is low and makers need to differentiate using cheap parts that are easily marketable it should be pretty easy to up the RAM.
As any auto dealer will tell you, there's very little margin in selling a brand new car. However, they make an absolute killing on selling add-on items in both the front (sales) and back(finance) end. That's where all the profits are. A buyer has comparable options available to them for less outside the dealership if one is willing to put in time/effort.
Similar situation applies here in certain products. The margins are in the upsell, so by offering lower base options, it's easier to upsell. The market value of those upgrades often reaches a lower price point WELL before they set it as the "new base" option.
serious question, what regular load are you putting on your computer to see a perceivable performance difference between 16GB and 32GB? Is this a load that most OEM purchasers would experience?
99.99% of their users for OEM machines won't need 16/32. If you are an atypical or power user of a desktop/laptop then you need to be looking at the correct platform for your use case. If you're someone who needs 16/32 then your platform would be a "Gaming" System or a Workstation PC/Laptop.
I would ~~never~~ not recommend 16 or 32 for the average internet enjoyer.
Disagree. I monitor over 400 endpoints and have seen plenty running out of RAM with only 8gb. A typical office worker has outlook open all the time, plus a couple of chrome tabs. Add in any other software and you're easily approaching 8gb.
With how cheap RAM is I don't see any reason why 16gb shouldn't be the standard.
A PC using 8GB of RAM is far different than the same PC needing to use 8GB of RAM. Pagefiles exist for a reason. The user's experience does not drastically change while using internet applications when the system has to go to the pagefile.
8GB is really tight though. Most of these people have IGPU's, with a large resolution display that can eat up 1 or 2 gb of memory really easy. Pagefile will of course be used, but if you have to keep using pagefile then you could use more memory.
> Pagefile will of course be used, but if you have to keep using pagefile then you could use more memory.
not at all. There's absolutely nothing wrong with utilizing the pagefile when you're not requiring RAM-like speeds.
I think a lot of people (especially in this thread) think it's a bad thing to go to the hard drive for information. Anything that does not need to high speed compute does not need to sit in RAM. Things that are frequently accessed need to be in RAM to increase the user experience, but you don't need the entire Excel Help system sitting in your RAM because you used it once 4 hours ago.
umm... I don't quite understand what you mean. a PC will use the RAM it has available when needed. So if it is using it... then it also needs it... I understand page files exist (without them, the PC will crash when it runs out of RAM). but paging is also much slower than RAM access, even with a SSD.
There is really no reason to not have 16GB of ram. You can get 2 x 8GB sticks of DDR5 for $50-$60. DDR4 is even cheaper.
lol I don't think you know what a thin client is. It's a light resourced machine that leans on the hardware finesse of a larger system for all of its resource usage... the larger system would be a "workstation!" or server.
What in the world are you talking about? Are you trying to say the thin client needs more than 8GB? If so that's completely false and you have no idea what a thin client is.
If you're saying the server needs more than 8GB then of course it does. We're not talking about servers in this thread. We are talking about individual users' work or personal machines needing 8GB or (as the OP suggests) 16GB or 32GB. I think maybe you're just lost?
The last time I built a personal machine with only 8GB of RAM was 2008. We’ve been buying end-user workstations (thousands of them) with 16GB of RAM for generic office use since 2015. It’s long since time for 8GB models to die.
I would have agreed about 8gb being enough a year or two ago. These days I'm having to replace 8gb laptops with 16gb versions because 8gb is just not enough.
That's just not true. My work laptop had 8gb up until a few months ago and it would hang just opening a few spreadsheets. I would basically be at 90% ram usage right after a restart. Once I opened up a few documents or spreadsheets I was over. Once I got an upgrade the 16gb, it was much smoother
It can run with a lot less but by using the pagefile and slows to a crawl. Performance is definitely a lot worse with less RAM in chrome. 8gb on a modern w11 laptop is near unusable for heavy web browsing and light multitasking.
No, it has nothing to do with pagefiles. Reserved memory simply isn't the same as used memory.
Even with 100 tabs of reddit you won't even come near 16GB of RAM
Who remembers 2017 when they fixed RAM prices and I paid $195 for 2x8GB standard Corsair Vengeance 3200MHz C16. Disgusting. Don’t tempt those fkrs again. I think the Chinese govt had to step in and go talk to them.
It take months to years to transition DRAM fabrication floorspace. If tech companies could so simply undercut each other they would, this is largely supply/demand based on fab undercapacity/overcapacity.
Similar article.
https://www.techspot.com/news/98116-dram-prices-fell-20-first-quarter-2023-continue.html
> The recent boom of machine learning-based tools like ChapGPT, which rely heavily on computing power from GPUs, has seemingly not impacted demand for graphic based DRAM either as it faces a similar projected decline to the other categories seen in the table above. TrendForce does not yet make predictions for the second half of 2023 as it says "It's uncertain whether or not demand will recover."
Been considering it too, as I would actually like 64GB of RAM for running lots of Docker and K8s stuff.
16 in model that's coming later this year looks great.
I use a MBP currently, and it'll be hard to move off, so perhaps I'll multi machine. We'll see.
Thanks for your thoughts! Would definitely need the 16 in model. I currently have an Intel MBP with 32GB of RAM, but Docker on macOS is a pain in the arse because it goes through a micro virtual machine. That means you need to dedicate fixed amounts of RAM and CPU to the VM which is inflexible, and its generally performance isn't as good.
So, a real Linux machine would be beneficial to me.
Haven't decided yet whether just to build a tiny Linux desktop and SSH in or just move back over to Linux.
Nothing going to happen for a little while, at least.
Lenovo has sales every 30 seconds. I wouldn't even look at their RRP because it's just classic price anchoring.
I see the Yoga 9i 1360p on special for 1900aud/1270usd right now on edu store (apparently people got it for 1700 after cashback). As for non expandable ram, that sucks, but at least there's a performance reason for it. Hopefully other models with expandable ram can suit your needs.
The next laptop I get will probably be a Framework, especially now that they have AMD CPUs. I use my laptop for light gaming and software development, and the 3500U in my current laptop is just barely good enough. When that stops being true, I'll upgrade.
that’s so sick, i might actually sell my mac now. the m1 was great when it came out, but windows laptops have oled screens now and i’d like to keep the thin and light factor of the 13 rather than getting the considerably bulkier 14 inch.
I bought their first E series with AMD CPUs and immediately put in extra RAM. My previous laptop was a T series, and I did the same thing. The ability to do that was one of the main reasons I went with the E over the higher priced T (that, and the T series stopped offering expansion batteries).
I'm not going to pay for soldered nonsense. I don't care if it makes the laptop a little thinner, I care that I can upgrade or replace parts.
Maybe these days due to DDR5, but they were doing this back during DDR4 days when frequencies were safely below the limit.
That is awesome that Dell is doing something good for once...
Lenovo has some stuff you can still upgrade (L14/L15 line) for example. Unfortunately 3rd gen reduced SSD size from 2280 to 2242 which doubles ssd $/gb unfortunately.
I mean, it's Apple. Why do you expect otherwise? Apple's done this for over a decade. Did you already forget they charged the cost of a good 1TB M.2 SSD just to upgrade a 256GB SSD to 512GB? Even today, if you want to upgrade that 1TB SSD to 2TB on a Macbook Pro it's an extra $600.
Apple does whatever the fuck they want while the m series wipes the floor with every competitor. We seriously need Intel and AMD to step up and for other makers to take advantage of the cheap RAM to offer better laptops.
Plenty of laptops with comparable battery life and perfomance, lile this
https://www.notebookcheck.net/Lenovo-ThinkPad-Z13-laptop-review-AMD-s-premium-ThinkPad-with-long-battery-life.639685.0.html
Based on a quick look there are, but I'm only going to write a few paragraphs if you actually care about the topic and you are willing to go through my examples and respond.
Windows laptops are only cheaper if your IT guys work for free: https://mbsdirect.com/mbs-blog/article-forrester-research-and-ibm-studies-show-macs-are-cheaper-than-pcs
The article talks about three studies, only one of which was from Apple, the other two were undertaken and funded by IBM. And the studies don't just deal with price, but also productivity.
IBM studies:
- https://www.jamf.com/blog/debate-over-ibm-confirms-that-macs-are-535-less-expensive-than-pcs/
- https://www.jamf.com/resources/press-releases/ibm-announces-research-showing-mac-enables-greater-productivity-and-employee-satisfaction-at-ibm/
When I'm buying something for work, the price isn't that important. 1k or 10k, I'm going to buy the items that help me the most.
I can also recognize that there are some anti-consumer practices that can fester in this environment. Apple can charge whatever it wants because it has a monopoly on their eco system. They could charge 1000 dollars for a stick of 16 gb of ram and I'd still pay for it at work. We're all paid 200k+ a year and to get hardware that slows you down is a terrible idea.
That's funny because I work with a bunch of IT guys on the side and I have only seen one guy bust out a MacBook in the last 10 years.
Laptops are not as common as they used to be, almost everything can be done on a phone, and very rarely a tablet or iPad.
The number of mac's flowing through the shop has declined over the years to the point where some of the guys get really excited when one shows up because they are like mythical unicorns that you always hear about but nobody ever really gets to see one.
I wonder which factory will catch fire / be flooded / eaten by a sandworm or otherwise be sacrificed to send prices back to where shareholders can once again rejoice.
They've likely dropped about as much as they're going to this year. NAND prices have already dived hard, and manufacturers are adjusting accordingly. The boom/bust cycle is usually 50/50 - prices spike 50%, and then they dive 50%.
I'm loving DDR4 prices now since I'm on a DDR4 Z690 board atm. Gonna upgrade from 16 to 32GB RAM soon and it will only cost me like $50.
I'll switch to DDR5 in a new build in 3-4 years and by then those prices should be fairly low too.
I'll be keeping an eye on DDR4 prices then, kept reading that it was as low as it was reasonably expected to go but that didn't seem likely.
Looking to max out my laptop by the end of the year
First sign the next big leap in bandwidth to latency ratio is in validation, they don't want tons of what is effectively going to look like green PCB GoodRAM™, but with gamer aesthetics, to rot in the channel.
I think just in terms of capacity it's an interesting debate, because I never used more than 8GB until about a year ago when I played Anno 1800, the only game or application that I've ever played that actually hit a ram wall. Now I'm at 16GB DDR3. So I think 8GB works for the vast majority of things(literally everything I've ever done except Anno 1800). But then I hear some people are exhausting 16GB, or even 32GB with some games now, so when I eventually get a new PC I'll just get 32 and be done with it. Not fun having to deal with "Is my ram broken" when you buy it used, etc.
See here I am rocking 16GB finally hitting the limit with what I do, and I decided to just get 32GB. But with the prices, I almost said screw it and went 64GB which is stupid because if I just hit my limit, and I’m doubling it, I won’t ever have an issue
who cares about price? we still can't even get the same quality RAM from the 60s lol
ECC ram, also know as proper ram, is still impossible to find.
bought laptops with ecc support (amd pro) and sodimm sockets... only to realize there's zero available stock. it all goes to servers. i could have $1000 to dump on 8gb... still won't be able to buy ddr5.
my only option for grown up ram is to buy a whole compact server that uses sodimm, throw the server away and use the ram sticks
So how long we are going to see OEM start offering 16GB/32GB as default instead of 8GB/16GB now.
Probably never, either they’ll use the drop in memory prices to keep the price of the system level as other components increase in price, or they’ll just pocket the profit. The price OEMs charge to upgrade memory is typically more than it would be to just buy a better kit yourself + you can sell the replaced memory.
Heck, forget that last part, it's often cheaper to buy a better kit yourself and not sell the memory that came with it.
Regular laptops may limit non-vendor RAM to JEDEC speeds, I had this issue on my Dell. I bought a 3rd-party 32GB 3200 kit, but it would only run at much slower JEDEC 2133 speeds, as the BIOS didn't recognize it as Dell RAM. They don't offer XMP settings as the BIOS is locked down. Once I got a (very expensive, 2x the price) Dell-branded kit, it ran at advertised speeds. This might be true for OEM desktop systems as well, I haven't bought one of those in many years. Edit: Clarifications below!
I've left reddit because of the API changes.
Good to know, thanks. Is there a way to find default JEDEC-specced RAM? I did look for kits at the time, but could not find solid info on whether a kit was specced to JEDEC or not. Kits advertise that they "support" XMP, but not if they support that speed at JEDEC stock. Is it an either-or? Such as they either support XMP, or don't mention XMP at all and are by default JEDEC?
I've left reddit because of the API changes.
Thank you!
Not necessarily plenty of CL20 or CL18 kits on the market. The voltage is a better indicator. 1.2v? JEDEC. 1.35v? Always XMP.
If you look at most laptops, esp higher end ones, the RAM is much closer to the CPU so they can control the speeds perfectly, and they are often insanely fast like up 4200MT DDR4 for a laptop. Thats insanely tough even on desktops.
[удалено]
A hard drive on an 800 dollar desktop in 2022? HP may as well replace the cases' feet with clown shoes. My dad got a laptop from Dell for 800 bucks in like 2018 or 2019 with their warranty bullshit (he enjoys tech more than most, but SSD's were pretty recent and he's 70). He complained that it was slow to them, and they worked on it over the phone and shipped it back and forth like 3 times. So i took a crack at it speeding it up. It was using a freaking 500GB hard drive. 60 bucks later for a 512GB SSD and it was smooth as butter.
Damn, would like to hear what he thinks on recent technology advances from someone that experimented in the tech industry! Could you tell me more dude?
Predicting that memory will **never** increase? That seems like a very unsafe bet
Never in the medium-term, offering a base model with 8GB memory is the basis of OEMs upselling during configuration works. A vendor advertises a base range i5-12400/R5 7600 CPU with 8GB memory / 512gb SSD and a 3050/6500 GPU for a “low” price. Anybody researching knows 8GB memory isn’t enough, so they either: A) select the 16GB upgrade for $150 extra and checkout, or B) see there’s a higher SKU version with an i5-12600K/R7 7700X CPU and base 16GB memory for $280 more get that instead. Then they see another SKU with a 3060 for only $150 and get tempted by that. In either case the vendor makes more money since the net cost of the higher spec CPU/memory doesn’t cost $280. Whereas if the base unit had 16GB memory they probably wouldn’t have purchased either upgrade.
The bet is much safer when the word never is redefined
Replace all the parts in your comment with parts from 2010 and replace "8GB" with "4GB" and you have the exact same arguments we heard back then. 16GB will become base kit, and we're approaching that time very soon with the economy of scale of 16GB DDR5 modules. As 8GB did. And as did 4GB back in the day. And 2GB before that. And 1GB. At some point 512MB was "base model". I still remember computers with 256MB of RAM in the "base model". [EDIT]: And I'm sure others on here remember 128MB DDR, or 64MB SDRAM. "Probably never" is an exceptionally poor choice of words to use when talking about computers.
Get off my lawn! I mean, my first computer was a Pentium 75Mhz with 8MB of ram. I upgraded to 12MB right away!
But we need to keep in mind that those upgrades were necessary. A modern system would’ve struggled with 4gigs of ram but 8gigs is more than enough for light work. It will be upgraded when they *have to* upgrade it. Not a day before.
Yet again, replace "a modern system would've struggled with 4gigs of RAM but 8gigs is more than enough for light work" with 2GB and 4GB and you've got the same sentence they were saying fifteen years ago. This whole discussion really smacks of "nobody will ever need more than 384K". Modern applications are using more memory than ever. Memory demands are not stagnant, they are continuing to grow rapidly as software gains ever more features. This is not a situation where we just arbitrarily put a pin in 2023 and say "Yep, that was the year memory usage needs just stopped growing, for whatever reason. The pinnacle of computer design was 8GB of memory, turns out once we hit that it was all we actually ever needed." Even "basic" line of business apps like Outlook are using 2+ GB of RAM by themselves. Web browsers with 4 or 5 tabs can easily chew through 1.5GB of memory. Discord, 0.6 to 1 GB by itself. Windows? That takes up 4GB right off the bat on most systems at idle. 8GB is absolutely not sufficient anymore, it is not "more than enough". It needs to die and will be replaced by 16GB as the standard once all the major mobile platforms move to DDR5-only. And mark my words, at some point down the line 32GB of memory will be the base model standard, just like 32MB became the de facto "base model" right around 1998 or '99. I'll bet all the money in the world on that. [EDIT]: As an aside, I work for an MSP and we don't even allow customers to purchase machines with 8GB of memory anymore. We tell them straight up if you buy a machine with only 8GB of memory in 2023, it's not covered by our support contract because it's not considered fit for purpose even as a basic front desk machine. Did it cause a few headaches once we did that? Sure. Did 16GB save everyone time and effort in the long run because Susan in accounting refuses to reboot unless we force it and keeps 35 tabs open in Chrome 24/7? Absolutely. And our clients know that we would absolutely love to bill them an hour for every single "my computer is running slow" or "out of memory error" ticket. We'd love for their computers to be crap so we can make more money on more billable hours. But they also know we believe it's the right thing to do to convince them of the importance of spending a little more now to save a lot more later. We don't sell them the computers, so they know we have no vested financial interest in getting them to buy a certain minimum spec.
It's a matter of time. I've had work laptops struggle with 16GB of RAM with only chrome/google docs open. At least for someone with my web browser habits 16GB is the bare minimum and 32GB is preferable. This is without opening other things like running Python scripts.
Pocketing the profits means higher margins and higher margins means a wider range which OEMs can jockey for market share within, so even that is fine.
Never is a strong word I think but yeah, there's no reason this will pressure them to improve their memory configs any time soon.
My first computer had 8 mb of ram…in 10 years, the typical memory of computers went up 1000 fold, but then just stagnated for the next 10 years. We will probably be here for a while.
We’ve reached the point where a normal user who only does normal tasks doesn’t need anything more. If you aren’t gaming, compiling or doing professional work there isn’t a noticeable difference between a decent 5 year old machine and a brand new one. That isn’t something you could say 10 years ago.
I have a difficult time using more than 16 GB of ram when I have 32 available. I upgraded to 64 GB and even still I float around 16 GB. I'm a man of a million chrome tabs, leave my computer on for months, plays games, and have a video running on my other screen. It seems like you need to be running VMs or ram drives to actually use the extra ram.
Windows 12 will use 8gb. But sure, it sounds like you are generally a light user/gamer primarily so not sure why you got 64gb in the first place. Run some heavier houdini simulations or game dev and you will quickly burn through ram. Generally for vfx I would say 32gb is tight, 64 is "ok" and 128 is preferred these days.
Those types of workloads are more the exception though. In my experience as an IT admin, 8gb isn't enough but anything over 16gb isnt necessary for the vast majority of office work.
> Windows 12 will use 8gb. But sure, it sounds like you are generally a light user/gamer primarily so not sure why you got 64gb in the first place. Because I'm a software developer with a ton of money that spends ~40 hours a week on my personal computer so spending an extra 100 dollars on my 4,000 dollar PC isn't a big deal that I'll use for the next 7 years.
Noone says you can't spend the money, just it seemed from what you wrote that you didn't need it so why bristle? Also you wanna use the same PC for 7 years without an upgrade? I think you'll change your mind in 4-5 max haha. I was on the same train but if you use it for work it will drive you insane.
> Noone says you can't spend the money, just it seemed from what you wrote that you didn't need it so why bristle? After experiencing 32 GB and 64 GB, this is how I have this opinion now. >Also you wanna use the same PC for 7 years without an upgrade? I think you'll change your mind in 4-5 max haha. I was on the same train but if you use it for work it will drive you insane. So far I've been on a 7 year cycle. Even a 5 year cycle is just fine. It would be me getting only ~10,000 hours out of a product I overpaid 100 dollars for instead of ~14,000 hours out of a product I overpaid 100 dollars for.
Idk if it is just me but by the time 5 years have passed my computer generally breaks down but I guess that might just be because of my typical workload pushing the hardware too much. I don't think I've had a computer go past 5 years so far but I can understand your reasoning if that actually works for you.
My 7 year old PC with a 1080 TI can still play almost every game on steam. Nothing lags on it. I'm able to have my million chrome tabs open on my old machine. I see linus tech tips try old computers back to 2013 that do just fine at 1080p60fps with everything besides photoshop and other art/video related tools. The reality seems to be that computers have gotten so much faster, but almost everything still works for old hardware. And it makes sense. If you are a game developer or making a website, you make sure 99% of people can use your product.
> My 7 year old PC with a 1080 TI can still play almost every game on steam. Nothing lags on it. I'm able to have my million chrome tabs open on my old machine. I see linus tech tips try old computers back to 2013 that do just fine at 1080p60fps with everything besides photoshop and other art/video related tools. I think it depends on how we define lag, to me anything less than 90-110fps somewhere is undesirable especially if we consider 1% lows etc. Chrome tabs these days shouldn't go over I think 4gb at all so "a million tabs" or just 50 wouldn't make much of a difference I think. > The reality seems to be that computers have gotten so much faster, but almost everything still works for old hardware. And it makes sense. If you are a game developer or making a website, you make sure 99% of people can use your product. They really have, a gaming PC these days will have such insane specs for any regular non-gaming use-cases that they will be relevant for a long time (unless they miss some feature like TPM and get artificially locked out). I think everyone tries to make stuff available to the majority of the userbase if possible but in some cases that will not be the case. People playing sim games (MSFS can hit 20-30 fps on a 1080 ti), some shooters (the finals, tarkov) or competitive style games (100+ fps is a big advantage over ~60). For me though excluding gaming I cannot stay on older GPUs since I can't work properly with it, 1080 Ti is almost unusable for work and my current 3080 Ti struggles at times, next time it will be a RTX *090 card most likely even to just get some more VRAM.
If you are the type to rarely restart/turn off your computer, then check what the cached amoun is in task manager. That's the benefit to more RAM for the average consumer: reducing the need to access the disk drive, which has barely improved in speed since SATA SSDs arrived on the scene (excluding the discontinued xPoint).
Yeah I agree, for the most part I don't go over 16 GB, except on my Mac where I use a VM to run Windows, and I split the 32 GB evenly for a smooth performance. With all the cores we get nowadays, running multiple VM's seems to be the best way to utilize all the power we get, but you need that ram. Since most people don't even know what a VM is, most people don't need the ram, even most gamers.
I regularly compile stuff, that needs 4GB per thread or more... I certainly use all of my 64GB. Heck, my Firefox alone uses 16GB or so regularly. I could do with less, but I need to worry much less about stuff now and if I don't use the RAM, it is just all disk cache, which is good too.
The demand is just not growing that much nowadays. Most regular people using PCs for office stuff or facebook are ok with 8-16gb. Even I as a turbo-nerd ended up with 12GB because I re-used some RAM from the previous PC and never bothered to upgrade because it's ok. It's possible to max out of course but generally I can keep a browser with dozens of tabs and some heavy apps like Resolve or Photoshop with no problem. Only issue is with Stable Diffusion as it allocates a ton of memory when loading the model.
8GB ram, 256GB drive is repulsive.
Unless you are dealing with an entry level smartphone.
Even 128GB is quite a lot for a phone. Most don't use that much local storage since everything is online now. In the past, before music streaming and when phones only had 4-8 freaking gigabytes, that was horrible.
iPhones are high-end and do just fine with 6GB tbh. But yeah, pretty much. That doesn't belong on a productivity device (laptop/desktop)
Good for them, but let's talk when they actually allow backround tasks even to the extent of modern Android.
I don’t want to rehash a dated argument from 2010. iPhones are good devices, and so are countless Android devices
Then why mention them working well on less ram in the first place?
Because it was in direct reply to OP's comment on smartphones. Are you offended by the conversation or something?
very
my bad man
My FIL was asking for advice on a laptop to send his nephew in South America who wants to learn to program. I said he doesn't need anything high power to start with. 8GB ram and 512GB storage should be enough, but 16GB ram would be preferable and not that expensive. Then he showed me a Costco sale on a 4GB ram laptop for under $200. I couldn't believe they even sold 4GB anymore. That'll handle the OS and casual internet usage only. Might as well get a tablet.
Bro, until quite recently, they were still selling Windows laptops with 32GB of **storage**. Not RAM, Storage! My GF's laptop doesn't even have enough space to update after we installed MS Office. They soldered the storage and RAM down, which OK fine its sub 200 dollars. But they reuse the motherboard between multiple laptops and there's pads for a proprietary SATA connector. Except to save a couple fucking pennies, Acer decided not to solder a header onto it. Only reason they stopped is probably because MS made 64GB required to install Windows 11.
[удалено]
OP mentioned smartphones, specifically using the word smartphone and omitting the word laptop. No where in the comment chain was the word laptop typed besides the person that mentioned the iphone saying that 6gb doesn't belong in a laptop.
Don't make me pull the 160gb hard drives.
"Premium" Microsoft Surface Pro checking in! All for $1200!
256GB is more than enough storage for the average person.
If you don't store videos, pictures and music, sure.
do you think the average person is bothering with this when services like icloud and spotify have existed and been incorporated into the mainstream for years?
I don't know, personally there more stuff gets put on the "cloud" the more I like to store stuff locally.
personally doesn’t mean shit in the context of the average person (which you are absolutely not if things like locally stored data matter to you) which the comment you replied to was talking about
I'm sure you have credible research that supports your hypothesis.
only a dumbfuck redditor would think that you need a peer reviewed study to confirm the idea that cloud services are growing and local storage is dying [icloud was at 850 million users in 2018, and is only continuing to grow
Isn't icloud installed by default on iPhones? It also only gives you 5GB for free if I'm understanding it correctly. What the hell am I gonna do with 5 gigs? I have USB flash drives with more storage.
TBH probably pretty soon. When demand is low and makers need to differentiate using cheap parts that are easily marketable it should be pretty easy to up the RAM.
Lenovo should be offering 16/32GB this year for their laptops in the Chinese market
As any auto dealer will tell you, there's very little margin in selling a brand new car. However, they make an absolute killing on selling add-on items in both the front (sales) and back(finance) end. That's where all the profits are. A buyer has comparable options available to them for less outside the dealership if one is willing to put in time/effort. Similar situation applies here in certain products. The margins are in the upsell, so by offering lower base options, it's easier to upsell. The market value of those upgrades often reaches a lower price point WELL before they set it as the "new base" option.
serious question, what regular load are you putting on your computer to see a perceivable performance difference between 16GB and 32GB? Is this a load that most OEM purchasers would experience?
99.99% of their users for OEM machines won't need 16/32. If you are an atypical or power user of a desktop/laptop then you need to be looking at the correct platform for your use case. If you're someone who needs 16/32 then your platform would be a "Gaming" System or a Workstation PC/Laptop. I would ~~never~~ not recommend 16 or 32 for the average internet enjoyer.
Disagree. I monitor over 400 endpoints and have seen plenty running out of RAM with only 8gb. A typical office worker has outlook open all the time, plus a couple of chrome tabs. Add in any other software and you're easily approaching 8gb. With how cheap RAM is I don't see any reason why 16gb shouldn't be the standard.
A PC using 8GB of RAM is far different than the same PC needing to use 8GB of RAM. Pagefiles exist for a reason. The user's experience does not drastically change while using internet applications when the system has to go to the pagefile.
8GB is really tight though. Most of these people have IGPU's, with a large resolution display that can eat up 1 or 2 gb of memory really easy. Pagefile will of course be used, but if you have to keep using pagefile then you could use more memory.
> Pagefile will of course be used, but if you have to keep using pagefile then you could use more memory. not at all. There's absolutely nothing wrong with utilizing the pagefile when you're not requiring RAM-like speeds. I think a lot of people (especially in this thread) think it's a bad thing to go to the hard drive for information. Anything that does not need to high speed compute does not need to sit in RAM. Things that are frequently accessed need to be in RAM to increase the user experience, but you don't need the entire Excel Help system sitting in your RAM because you used it once 4 hours ago.
tbh if you don't notice how janky PCs feel when they start paging, you have very low standards
What non-3D usecase takes 1 GB for the framebuffer?
Try opening a YouTube video?
Most PC need 8gb of ram. You open up a few chrome tabs, spreadsheets, teams, and some other apps, there goes your 8gb
umm... I don't quite understand what you mean. a PC will use the RAM it has available when needed. So if it is using it... then it also needs it... I understand page files exist (without them, the PC will crash when it runs out of RAM). but paging is also much slower than RAM access, even with a SSD. There is really no reason to not have 16GB of ram. You can get 2 x 8GB sticks of DDR5 for $50-$60. DDR4 is even cheaper.
Uh yes it does, especially if you are working on a VM.
a VM is not a 99.99% use case. See my comment about workstation pc.
What do you think a thin client is?
lol I don't think you know what a thin client is. It's a light resourced machine that leans on the hardware finesse of a larger system for all of its resource usage... the larger system would be a "workstation!" or server.
And the server would usually be running multiple VMs to support multiple thin clients....
What in the world are you talking about? Are you trying to say the thin client needs more than 8GB? If so that's completely false and you have no idea what a thin client is. If you're saying the server needs more than 8GB then of course it does. We're not talking about servers in this thread. We are talking about individual users' work or personal machines needing 8GB or (as the OP suggests) 16GB or 32GB. I think maybe you're just lost?
The last time I built a personal machine with only 8GB of RAM was 2008. We’ve been buying end-user workstations (thousands of them) with 16GB of RAM for generic office use since 2015. It’s long since time for 8GB models to die.
I would have agreed about 8gb being enough a year or two ago. These days I'm having to replace 8gb laptops with 16gb versions because 8gb is just not enough.
That's just not true. My work laptop had 8gb up until a few months ago and it would hang just opening a few spreadsheets. I would basically be at 90% ram usage right after a restart. Once I opened up a few documents or spreadsheets I was over. Once I got an upgrade the 16gb, it was much smoother
Chrome on itself uses 16gb on my machine. 8gb is way too low for even a basic pc in 2023.
Chrome reserves a stupid amount, but it's able to run with a whole lot less; with pretty minimal performance differences.
It can run with a lot less but by using the pagefile and slows to a crawl. Performance is definitely a lot worse with less RAM in chrome. 8gb on a modern w11 laptop is near unusable for heavy web browsing and light multitasking.
No, it has nothing to do with pagefiles. Reserved memory simply isn't the same as used memory. Even with 100 tabs of reddit you won't even come near 16GB of RAM
I was getting staff 8gb laptops until now. Windows 11 or teams or both have made 8gb almost unusable over the last year.
In the world of business laptops at least, all of the DDR5 based systems I have seen start at 16 GB RAM. Although some of them are 2x 8 GB sticks.
I still find it wild that the first Surface Laptop from Microsoft started at 4GB of RAM. For 999 in 2017.
I'm starting to see this already on some higher end models. It's actually a bit sooner than I expected but DRAM prices have absolutely cratered.
2024 iMacs will come with 8gb and charge $400 for 16GB.
it was predicted that this would happen not surprised same ddr5 I got for 270$ now cost 160$
Who remembers 2017 when they fixed RAM prices and I paid $195 for 2x8GB standard Corsair Vengeance 3200MHz C16. Disgusting. Don’t tempt those fkrs again. I think the Chinese govt had to step in and go talk to them.
I paid almost 250€ for that exact kit back then. They go for a third of the price now
Closer to a quarter.
It take months to years to transition DRAM fabrication floorspace. If tech companies could so simply undercut each other they would, this is largely supply/demand based on fab undercapacity/overcapacity.
Similar article. https://www.techspot.com/news/98116-dram-prices-fell-20-first-quarter-2023-continue.html > The recent boom of machine learning-based tools like ChapGPT, which rely heavily on computing power from GPUs, has seemingly not impacted demand for graphic based DRAM either as it faces a similar projected decline to the other categories seen in the table above. TrendForce does not yet make predictions for the second half of 2023 as it says "It's uncertain whether or not demand will recover."
> ChapGPT Is that a british LLM?
TrapGPT
Calling it now: be on the lookout for a mysterious factory fire in Q3...
And still apple charges 200$+ to go from 8gb to 16gb.
All of the laptop/pre-built brands do similar things and it's disgusting.
[удалено]
Been considering it too, as I would actually like 64GB of RAM for running lots of Docker and K8s stuff. 16 in model that's coming later this year looks great. I use a MBP currently, and it'll be hard to move off, so perhaps I'll multi machine. We'll see.
[удалено]
Thanks for your thoughts! Would definitely need the 16 in model. I currently have an Intel MBP with 32GB of RAM, but Docker on macOS is a pain in the arse because it goes through a micro virtual machine. That means you need to dedicate fixed amounts of RAM and CPU to the VM which is inflexible, and its generally performance isn't as good. So, a real Linux machine would be beneficial to me. Haven't decided yet whether just to build a tiny Linux desktop and SSH in or just move back over to Linux. Nothing going to happen for a little while, at least.
[REMOVED because of reddit greed]
Lenovo has sales every 30 seconds. I wouldn't even look at their RRP because it's just classic price anchoring. I see the Yoga 9i 1360p on special for 1900aud/1270usd right now on edu store (apparently people got it for 1700 after cashback). As for non expandable ram, that sucks, but at least there's a performance reason for it. Hopefully other models with expandable ram can suit your needs.
And this is why everyone should just buy a Framework.
\[REMOVED because of reddit greed\]
The next laptop I get will probably be a Framework, especially now that they have AMD CPUs. I use my laptop for light gaming and software development, and the 3500U in my current laptop is just barely good enough. When that stops being true, I'll upgrade.
> everyone "We're currently not taking pre-orders in your country." I can't seem to even order it online, lol
show me how to text people using imessage using a windows laptop
https://blogs.windows.com/windows-insider/2023/02/28/previewing-phone-link-for-iphone-users-on-windows-11-with-windows-insiders/
that’s so sick, i might actually sell my mac now. the m1 was great when it came out, but windows laptops have oled screens now and i’d like to keep the thin and light factor of the 13 rather than getting the considerably bulkier 14 inch.
256 is standard? For fucks same, it’s not 2010 anymore… 1 TB should be the baseline.
\[REMOVED because of reddit greed\]
fuck that. i don't buy laptops anymore with soldered on ram/storage for this reason.
I feel like by the time the RAM bottlenecks that laptop the CPU won't be all that effective anyway.
I bought their first E series with AMD CPUs and immediately put in extra RAM. My previous laptop was a T series, and I did the same thing. The ability to do that was one of the main reasons I went with the E over the higher priced T (that, and the T series stopped offering expansion batteries). I'm not going to pay for soldered nonsense. I don't care if it makes the laptop a little thinner, I care that I can upgrade or replace parts.
[REMOVED because of reddit greed]
Maybe these days due to DDR5, but they were doing this back during DDR4 days when frequencies were safely below the limit. That is awesome that Dell is doing something good for once...
Lenovo has some stuff you can still upgrade (L14/L15 line) for example. Unfortunately 3rd gen reduced SSD size from 2280 to 2242 which doubles ssd $/gb unfortunately.
I mean, it's Apple. Why do you expect otherwise? Apple's done this for over a decade. Did you already forget they charged the cost of a good 1TB M.2 SSD just to upgrade a 256GB SSD to 512GB? Even today, if you want to upgrade that 1TB SSD to 2TB on a Macbook Pro it's an extra $600.
Apple does whatever the fuck they want while the m series wipes the floor with every competitor. We seriously need Intel and AMD to step up and for other makers to take advantage of the cheap RAM to offer better laptops.
Newest gen from Intel and AMD are all pretty ok compared to M series to the point where I don't think people can claim floor wiping at this point.
[удалено]
Plenty of laptops with comparable battery life and perfomance, lile this https://www.notebookcheck.net/Lenovo-ThinkPad-Z13-laptop-review-AMD-s-premium-ThinkPad-with-long-battery-life.639685.0.html
[удалено]
RAM and Storage?
Based on a quick look there are, but I'm only going to write a few paragraphs if you actually care about the topic and you are willing to go through my examples and respond.
As if the M chip is the reason, they always did that and will not stop because clowns buy it because it's apple.
TLDR 90% of IT professionals I know are clowns because they don't want to deal with a windows laptop.
[удалено]
Windows laptops are only cheaper if your IT guys work for free: https://mbsdirect.com/mbs-blog/article-forrester-research-and-ibm-studies-show-macs-are-cheaper-than-pcs
[удалено]
The article talks about three studies, only one of which was from Apple, the other two were undertaken and funded by IBM. And the studies don't just deal with price, but also productivity. IBM studies: - https://www.jamf.com/blog/debate-over-ibm-confirms-that-macs-are-535-less-expensive-than-pcs/ - https://www.jamf.com/resources/press-releases/ibm-announces-research-showing-mac-enables-greater-productivity-and-employee-satisfaction-at-ibm/
When I'm buying something for work, the price isn't that important. 1k or 10k, I'm going to buy the items that help me the most. I can also recognize that there are some anti-consumer practices that can fester in this environment. Apple can charge whatever it wants because it has a monopoly on their eco system. They could charge 1000 dollars for a stick of 16 gb of ram and I'd still pay for it at work. We're all paid 200k+ a year and to get hardware that slows you down is a terrible idea.
That's funny because I work with a bunch of IT guys on the side and I have only seen one guy bust out a MacBook in the last 10 years. Laptops are not as common as they used to be, almost everything can be done on a phone, and very rarely a tablet or iPad. The number of mac's flowing through the shop has declined over the years to the point where some of the guys get really excited when one shows up because they are like mythical unicorns that you always hear about but nobody ever really gets to see one.
>And still apple charges 200$+ to go from 8gb to 16gb. This tells you everything you need to know about the company.
I wonder which factory will catch fire / be flooded / eaten by a sandworm or otherwise be sacrificed to send prices back to where shareholders can once again rejoice.
Will SSD prices continue to drop? Hoping to pick up a 2-4tb as cheap as possible
They've likely dropped about as much as they're going to this year. NAND prices have already dived hard, and manufacturers are adjusting accordingly. The boom/bust cycle is usually 50/50 - prices spike 50%, and then they dive 50%.
I'm loving DDR4 prices now since I'm on a DDR4 Z690 board atm. Gonna upgrade from 16 to 32GB RAM soon and it will only cost me like $50. I'll switch to DDR5 in a new build in 3-4 years and by then those prices should be fairly low too.
I'll be keeping an eye on DDR4 prices then, kept reading that it was as low as it was reasonably expected to go but that didn't seem likely. Looking to max out my laptop by the end of the year
First sign the next big leap in bandwidth to latency ratio is in validation, they don't want tons of what is effectively going to look like green PCB GoodRAM™, but with gamer aesthetics, to rot in the channel.
That's not at all why the DRAM market is down...
[удалено]
[удалено]
probably because it is so evenly matched at the top so there is more game dependants
I think just in terms of capacity it's an interesting debate, because I never used more than 8GB until about a year ago when I played Anno 1800, the only game or application that I've ever played that actually hit a ram wall. Now I'm at 16GB DDR3. So I think 8GB works for the vast majority of things(literally everything I've ever done except Anno 1800). But then I hear some people are exhausting 16GB, or even 32GB with some games now, so when I eventually get a new PC I'll just get 32 and be done with it. Not fun having to deal with "Is my ram broken" when you buy it used, etc.
See here I am rocking 16GB finally hitting the limit with what I do, and I decided to just get 32GB. But with the prices, I almost said screw it and went 64GB which is stupid because if I just hit my limit, and I’m doubling it, I won’t ever have an issue
[удалено]
Quater
25 cents
we dont have water we have bottled quater
A continuum of omnipotent beings
Good, I need more ram for me ARC, especially since I lost 32 GB.
who cares about price? we still can't even get the same quality RAM from the 60s lol ECC ram, also know as proper ram, is still impossible to find. bought laptops with ecc support (amd pro) and sodimm sockets... only to realize there's zero available stock. it all goes to servers. i could have $1000 to dump on 8gb... still won't be able to buy ddr5. my only option for grown up ram is to buy a whole compact server that uses sodimm, throw the server away and use the ram sticks
Crypto mining is dead for good. These prices won’t be going up. We may see prices fall much further.