Source
It runs with 5-5-5-15 and on 1,8V.
You can never get too much RAM
edit: TG Daily's article
It runs with 5-5-5-15 and on 1,8V.
You can never get too much RAM
edit: TG Daily's article
Last edited by CruZ4dR (2008-03-26 05:28:12)
how the fuckkkkkkk...wow
Epic FailBill Gates wrote:
The source of "640kb ought to be enough for anybody." may have actually been "No one will need more than 637 kb of memory for a personal computer."
Nice RAM though
Last edited by Kurazoo (2008-03-26 05:25:20)
Haha yeah epic fail tbh.Kurazoo wrote:
Epic FailBill Gates wrote:
The source of "640kb ought to be enough for anybody." may have actually been "No one will need more than 637 kb of memory for a personal computer."
What's ironic is that I consistently ran out of memory in DOS! I remember the good old days where I had to modify autoexec.bat and config.sys and reboot every time I wanted to play a DOS game.
Epic Persia Fail.
Epic Persia Fail.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2008-03-26 06:19:31)
Shame very few mainstream motherboards will actually support 16GB.
Personally I'd rather have faster RAM than more. I've only got a quarter of what this thread is about, and yet I still never reach even half the maximum.
We will be needin' this for what exactly?
Complex 3D renders, working with many, many layers in photoshop etc..Sup wrote:
We will be needin' this for what exactly?
Although in normal usage scenarios having lots of RAM can actually slow a system down (and no, I'm not talking about PAE stuff for 32-bit systems, I'm talking about genuine worse performance on systems with 8GB opposed to 4GB on apps that don't require it - I'm not sure why this happens, but it often does).
Because it has to cache the entire amount of RAM. When it searches for a file in the RAM, it searches all of it even after it finds it.Bertster7 wrote:
I'm not sure why this happens, but it often does)..Sup wrote:
We will be needin' this for what exactly?
Sounds very plausible.CrazeD wrote:
Because it has to cache the entire amount of RAM. When it searches for a file in the RAM, it searches all of it even after it finds it.Bertster7 wrote:
I'm not sure why this happens, but it often does)..Sup wrote:
We will be needin' this for what exactly?
You can turn that Vista service off. I did, though I can't remember which one it was; the name I mean. It's a service that has something to do with prediction, it supposedly increases performance over time. I found it does this instead: that with large-program apps that can handle massive files - it decreases application performance immediately even if it's supposedly increasing Windows Vista OS system performance. I have 8GB on my vista 64 and it performs significantly faster/smoother with: photoshop and 64 bit programs that load freaken HUGE 3D-model files or CADD files.Bertster7 wrote:
Sounds very plausible.CrazeD wrote:
Because it has to cache the entire amount of RAM. When it searches for a file in the RAM, it searches all of it even after it finds it.Bertster7 wrote:
I'm not sure why this happens, but it often does).
overkill...
3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8