Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:
Germany 08/31
Chicago, IL USA, IL 10/19

Regularly scheduled events

Morning Tech Bits

View
32 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >

32. Re: Morning Tech Bits Dec 14, 2017, 10:44 Verno
 
Hmm ok, thanks for the info man. I will have to do a bunch of research first I guess. Its just intimidating, I don't really know where to start before I butcher a perfectly good Windows install just to do some dev work in Linux. I'm worried this is going to be like Skyrim modding where I tinker endlessly but never accomplish my goals haha.  
Playing: Ni No Kuni 2, Persona 5, Vermintide 2
Watching: Annihilation, The Quiet Place, A Dark Song
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
31. Re: RAM Matters: How Much Do You Need for Gaming? 4GB, 8GB, 16GB or 32GB. Dec 13, 2017, 22:44 Burrito of Peace
 
Verno wrote on Dec 13, 2017, 13:07:
Thanks for all of the info. I need to take some time and wrap my head around it I think. I think where I'm mentally stuck is how the physical resources are allocated between the VMs. Like if I passthru my GPU to the Windows VM, I assume that means I need another card or iGPU type thing for Linux?

That would be correct. However, if all you're doing in Linux is web surfing, email, etc then an iGPU is more than sufficient these days.

Verno wrote on Dec 13, 2017, 13:07:
Can I share a single monitor between them or do I need 2?

You can indeed. Just use different inputs like HDMI and DisplayPort or whatever connections you have. Just switch between them on your monitor of choice. I use my primary monitor and just switch from HDMI to DP.


Verno wrote on Dec 13, 2017, 13:07:
I want a Linux VM as well for programming and hosting my home server crap. Same thing with storage, it sounds like I should really just put them both on separate SSDs.

If the SSD is big enough, you can put them on the same SSD without issue. Hell, I've got six active VMs on my SSD that I use for my home directory without issue.

Verno wrote on Dec 13, 2017, 13:07:
Then I need a physical KVM or Synergy to control it all. What do I even bridge, just the networking and input devices? At that point I guess I'm wondering why am I not just building two systems?

You need neither a KVM or Synergy to control it. If you choose to use KVM (which is not a Keyboard-Video-Mouse switch but, rather, stands for Kernel-based Virtual Machine) ala Fedora, Red Hat or CentOS, you would simply use Virtual Machine Manager and it would provide you with console access to the VM. Whether that console was a GUI or a CLI would be up to your configuration.

Because you don't need two systems. You really don't. You're right now thinking about this like a VM is a real machine and they are far from that. Let me give you an example:

I have six active VMs running on my current workstation. Even though I only have a quad core Xeon and 64GB of memory, I have told each virtual machine that it "has" 4 cores and 8GB of memory. Even when they're all doing their assigned tasks, I have 1 PHYSICAL core that runs at about 80% load. The other three are still 100% free for my local use. The process of telling a bunch of VMs that there are more resources available than there actually is is called "overallocation" and it is awesome. You see, no one VM is going to actually use all available resources all the time. Hell, a bunch of VMs aren't going to use all available resources all the time. So you can use a lot of them while still making your workstation performant.

Verno wrote on Dec 13, 2017, 13:07:
Maybe I'm thinking about this wrong though. I've only dabbled a bit with VMWare at the office.

It takes a bit to get your head wrapped around a bit but you will and then you'll wonder "Why the Hell did I let my system sit idle for so damn long?"

This comment was edited on Dec 14, 2017, 06:28.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
30. Re: RAM Matters: How Much Do You Need for Gaming? 4GB, 8GB, 16GB or 32GB. Dec 13, 2017, 13:07 Verno
 
Burrito of Peace wrote on Dec 12, 2017, 14:10:

Don't use Hyper-V. Hyper-V is a dogshit hypervisor that is not at parity with the other players in the virtualization space. If you have access to it, use EXSi. If you don't and don't want to shell out the money for it, and I don't blame you, KVM is a superior alternative to Hyper-V. I have used both ESXi and KVM personally and professionally. I prefer EXSi for virtualizing servers but prefer KVM for my personal VMs because I feel KVM allows me greater flexibility in tuning how my VMs run. EXSi is based on Linux and KVM will require a Linux host to run. Stay away from VirtualBox or VMWare Workstation for this project. They're fine for light use but are, in my opinion, rather top heavy for getting the best performance out of a VM that you plan to do passthrough with for gaming purposes.

Thanks for all of the info. I need to take some time and wrap my head around it I think. I think where I'm mentally stuck is how the physical resources are allocated between the VMs. Like if I passthru my GPU to the Windows VM, I assume that means I need another card or iGPU type thing for Linux? Can I share a single monitor between them or do I need 2? I want a Linux VM as well for programming and hosting my home server crap. Same thing with storage, it sounds like I should really just put them both on separate SSDs. Then I need a physical KVM or Synergy to control it all. What do I even bridge, just the networking and input devices? At that point I guess I'm wondering why am I not just building two systems?

Maybe I'm thinking about this wrong though. I've only dabbled a bit with VMWare at the office.
 
Playing: Ni No Kuni 2, Persona 5, Vermintide 2
Watching: Annihilation, The Quiet Place, A Dark Song
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
29. Re: RAM Matters: How Much Do You Need for Gaming? 4GB, 8GB, 16GB or 32GB. Dec 12, 2017, 19:15 RedEye9
 
NewMaxx wrote on Dec 12, 2017, 18:48:
RedEye9 wrote on Dec 11, 2017, 18:04:
2 questions.

1. What are your ideas on ram speed when it comes to CAS timing and Frequency.
I would think the low frequency memory would perform just as well as the faster memory due to it's better CAS latency.
Where do you think the current sweet spot/crossover is.

and 2.
I have researched the pagefile "always" question and I can never find a reason that you have to have a pagefile besides 'because'.
Can you point me to where it explains why you have to have a pagefile, especially if you have oodles of unused ram an ssd and a 4 core 4 ghz processor.

It seems like other people answered these for you but I'll give some basic thoughts.

1) Latency and bandwidth are effectively interchangeable but for gaming with modern CPUs, bandwidth is king. In the old days this wasn't the case so that might be what you're thinking. Also, [H] and AnandTech have shown the sweet spot was 2666 with the Skylake generation (and I consider modern CPUs still within that range) with 3200+ having vastly diminishing returns. FWIW I have a bunch of (relatively) cheap Team Dark CL14/2400 sticks that I have at CL16/3200 with some tweaking - my NE review should still be there for those sticks - and I explain that system memory is largely fungible these days (they take the same modules for multiple SKUs).

2) The short answer is because programmers who program for Windows (and I consider myself in that camp) assume the OS will have a paging file. It's non-optimal to work in an environment without one as Microsoft designed their framework that way. The longer reason would be that it can lead to a bit of a "buffer overflow" problem (which as you may know leads to vulnerabilities) if you happen to run out of memory for some reason (e.g. memory leak). I can't really get into this without explaining that a modern OS (Windows 10) handles memory far better than older ones (XP) with things like caching so that is less of a concern, but conversely W10's superior memory management also means the benefits of running without a paging file are likewise far less.
thanks
 
Avatar 58135
 
https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
28. Re: RAM Matters: How Much Do You Need for Gaming? 4GB, 8GB, 16GB or 32GB. Dec 12, 2017, 18:48 NewMaxx
 
RedEye9 wrote on Dec 11, 2017, 18:04:
2 questions.

1. What are your ideas on ram speed when it comes to CAS timing and Frequency. For example
DDR4 2133 (PC4 17000)
Timing 13-15-15-28
CAS Latency 13
-versus-
Speed
DDR4 2400 (PC4 19200)
Timing 17-17-17-39
CAS Latency 17
I would think the low frequency memory would perform just as well as the faster memory due to it's better CAS latency.
Where do you think the current sweet spot/crossover is.

and 2.
I have researched the pagefile "always" question and I can never find a reason that you have to have a pagefile besides 'because'.
Can you point me to where it explains why you have to have a pagefile, especially if you have oodles of unused ram an ssd and a 4 core 4 ghz processor.

It seems like other people answered these for you but I'll give some basic thoughts.

1) Latency and bandwidth are effectively interchangeable but for gaming with modern CPUs, bandwidth is king. In the old days this wasn't the case so that might be what you're thinking. Also, [H] and AnandTech have shown the sweet spot was 2666 with the Skylake generation (and I consider modern CPUs still within that range) with 3200+ having vastly diminishing returns. FWIW I have a bunch of (relatively) cheap Team Dark CL14/2400 sticks that I have at CL16/3200 with some tweaking - my NE review should still be there for those sticks - and I explain that system memory is largely fungible these days (they take the same modules for multiple SKUs).

2) The short answer is because programmers who program for Windows (and I consider myself in that camp) assume the OS will have a paging file. It's non-optimal to work in an environment without one as Microsoft designed their framework that way. The longer reason would be that it can lead to a bit of a "buffer overflow" problem (which as you may know leads to vulnerabilities) if you happen to run out of memory for some reason (e.g. memory leak). I can't really get into this without explaining that a modern OS (Windows 10) handles memory far better than older ones (XP) with things like caching so that is less of a concern, but conversely W10's superior memory management also means the benefits of running without a paging file are likewise far less.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
27. Re: RAM Matters: How Much Do You Need for Gaming? 4GB, 8GB, 16GB or 32GB. Dec 12, 2017, 18:38 NewMaxx
 
Creston wrote on Dec 11, 2017, 17:40:
Isn't that what I said? Confused

The listed article did various tests and shows that the difference between 8 and 16GB is basically a rare few fps

Compared to RAID-0 SSDs, the gains are probably minimal, yes. Compared to a bog standard single Sata 3 SSD, it is considerably faster. Like, noticeably faster without even benchmarking. I'm not sure why that's "naive".

Also, an NVMe SSD costs roughly the same as two SATA 3 SSDs, but doesn't require two or four cables running through your case.

You acted like the refresh is a big deal when in reality at the price you can get Ryzen now, and with the feature set the current chipsets have, there's really no reason to feel buyer's remorse. ("I just bought one! GRRRR!")

Well, for gaming, [H] had an article showing that a SSD versus a fast mechanical actually had 0 performance improvement outside of loading times. I argued then that multiplayer games still benefit from the I/O but in any case, the leap there from SATA SSD to NVME is nonexistent under those conditions. Except for loading times. And, sure, a NVME takes up a lot less space, but again it also overheats/throttles like crazy. And, yes, a few SATA SSDs will be the same price - but I could have had those SSDs and at equal or greater capacity 5+ years ago (since, you know, I did). With memory prices the way they are I'd be hard pressed to suggest NVME for a gamer.

Also, as a side note I didn't get into, you're far better off having more RAM for caching than relying on a SSD, anyway. In other words having a same-capacity SATA SSD with 8-16GB more RAM versus a NVME, your overall performance will be better with the former case.

This comment was edited on Dec 12, 2017, 18:58.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
26. Re: RAM Matters: How Much Do You Need for Gaming? 4GB, 8GB, 16GB or 32GB. Dec 12, 2017, 14:10 Burrito of Peace
 
Verno wrote on Dec 12, 2017, 12:40:
Is gaming performance near native?

Depending on hardware configuration, yes. My rough average is 95% of native performance. The handful of frames I may lose isn't noticeable to me. Granted, the only graphically intensive games I am currently playing are AC:O and Stellaris with a shit ton of mods.

Verno wrote on Dec 12, 2017, 12:40:
Don't some games now detect if they're being run in a VM as an anti-cheat/piracy measure? I hear disk performance (writes) isn't great either.

If so, I have yet to come face to face with it. I am currently playing through AC:O, Stellaris, KSP, Wolfenstein II, and The Long Dark. Write speed has a lot of variables to it. Does the VM have a dedicated disk that is passed through? Has the VM been tuned? I can only relate my experience. I have done my VM two ways with near parity performance: I have passed an SSD through to it and I have run it off an all flash NAS with a 10Gbe connection. If all you have is 1Gbe, then a spinning rust NAS is an acceptable replacement because your network connection will saturate faster than an array in either 0, 5, or 6 configuration. However, I want to state a massive caveat to running a VM for gaming off a spinning rust NAS with a 1Gbe connection. You will have slow read and write times because, at best, you'll average ~107MB/s. That is much, much slower than a DAS disk so you will want to forgo using a NAS configured in that way for this application.


Verno wrote on Dec 12, 2017, 12:40:
I'm intrigued by the concept and would like to dick around a bit with HyperV but I'm worried I would just end up reinstalling Windows later due to all of the little VM related issues compounding.

Don't use Hyper-V. Hyper-V is a dogshit hypervisor that is not at parity with the other players in the virtualization space. If you have access to it, use EXSi. If you don't and don't want to shell out the money for it, and I don't blame you, KVM is a superior alternative to Hyper-V. I have used both ESXi and KVM personally and professionally. I prefer EXSi for virtualizing servers but prefer KVM for my personal VMs because I feel KVM allows me greater flexibility in tuning how my VMs run. EXSi is based on Linux and KVM will require a Linux host to run. Stay away from VirtualBox or VMWare Workstation for this project. They're fine for light use but are, in my opinion, rather top heavy for getting the best performance out of a VM that you plan to do passthrough with for gaming purposes.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
25. Re: Morning Tech Bits Dec 12, 2017, 13:42 RedEye9
 
Porn-O-Matic wrote on Dec 12, 2017, 13:33:
I have 16GB and I've never seen any game use more than 50~60% of it.
You realize that statement means nothing without more information like what games you play, are the games modded-if so what mods, your video card etc. etc. etc.
 
Avatar 58135
 
https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
24. Re: Morning Tech Bits Dec 12, 2017, 13:33 Porn-O-Matic
 
I have 16GB and I've never seen any game use more than 50~60% of it.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
23. Re: RAM Matters: How Much Do You Need for Gaming? 4GB, 8GB, 16GB or 32GB. Dec 12, 2017, 12:40 Verno
 
Burrito of Peace wrote on Dec 12, 2017, 08:32:
Hell yes it is. For me, 64GB is the minimum I am willing to entertain for my personal workstation. As I have said in the past, I do game on my workstation but that is not the only use for it. A lot of my work is done in virtualization where RAM and core count are kings.

Besides, there's a certain joy in knowing that I can use my machine without all of Windows' bullshit and only use it when I want to play a game that doesn't have a native game client or doesn't work properly in WINE.

Is gaming performance near native? Don't some games now detect if they're being run in a VM as an anti-cheat/piracy measure? I hear disk performance (writes) isn't great either.

I'm intrigued by the concept and would like to dick around a bit with HyperV but I'm worried I would just end up reinstalling Windows later due to all of the little VM related issues compounding.
 
Playing: Ni No Kuni 2, Persona 5, Vermintide 2
Watching: Annihilation, The Quiet Place, A Dark Song
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
22. Re: RAM Matters: How Much Do You Need for Gaming? 4GB, 8GB, 16GB or 32GB. Dec 12, 2017, 10:13 RedEye9
 
DG wrote on Dec 11, 2017, 18:20:
RedEye9 wrote on Dec 11, 2017, 18:04:
2 questions.
I've been out of the loop on hardware for a bit, but I think the answer might still depend on what you're running the cpu at. I don't think it matters as much as once upon a time, but I think there's still diminishing returns from having ram bus speed higher than cpu bus. So I think they're going to ask you what you're running your cpu at.

Or I'm interested in whether that still matters, anyway...
There was a thread a while back on Blue and his new build.
I made my mandatory statement of "Get the fastest memory you can afford". And it was mentioned that with DDR4 there were diminishing returns, but I stand with what I originally said.
I'm not saying you need to steal from the kids college fund but research the subject and make an educated choice. Faster is rarely ever worse.
 
Avatar 58135
 
https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
21. Re: Morning Tech Bits Dec 12, 2017, 10:02 RedEye9
 
Mordecai Walfish wrote on Dec 11, 2017, 21:51:
EDIT:

To compare by the actual latency of the two examples you gave:
DDR4-2133 @ cas latency 13 would have an effective latency of 12.19 ns
DDR4-2400 @ cas latency 17 would have an effective latency of 14.17 ns
The formula for this is (2000 x CL) / rating, and going by these numbers you would be better off with the DDR4-2133 @ CL 13 setup. DDR4 3200 ram is commonly sold at CL 16 ratings, so DDR4-2400 @ CL 17 is not very good. the actual minimum frametimes and frame stability are most dependent on the latency of your ram, so going for the lowest number using that formula generally results in the best performance in games, especially when running at higher framerates (90+fps).
Thank you.
I researched newegg for parts with those actual CAS latencies to get the "worst case" scenario. You confirmed my suspicions.

TLDR If I was going to buy memory today (money no issue) I would buy the fastest ram both frequency and CAS wise that my mb supported. And I would use your "effective latency" calculation to verify it was the right stuff. Plus I would leave slots open to get 32 GB or get it to begin with.

I have played around with the pagefile on or off and did not have any issues, what I do is not critical (gaming, entertainment, etc.) but I chose to leave it on just 'because'.
 
Avatar 58135
 
https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
20. Re: RAM Matters: How Much Do You Need for Gaming? 4GB, 8GB, 16GB or 32GB. Dec 12, 2017, 08:32 Burrito of Peace
 
Redmask wrote on Dec 12, 2017, 07:35:
I personally use 32GB of memory because I'm running ESXi with 16GB allocated to FreeNAS and a Windows boot with the other 16GB. GPU passthru is amazing.

Hell yes it is. For me, 64GB is the minimum I am willing to entertain for my personal workstation. As I have said in the past, I do game on my workstation but that is not the only use for it. A lot of my work is done in virtualization where RAM and core count are kings.

Besides, there's a certain joy in knowing that I can use my machine without all of Windows' bullshit and only use it when I want to play a game that doesn't have a native game client or doesn't work properly in WINE.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
19. Re: RAM Matters: How Much Do You Need for Gaming? 4GB, 8GB, 16GB or 32GB. Dec 12, 2017, 07:35 Redmask
 
RedEye9 wrote on Dec 11, 2017, 18:04:
I have researched the pagefile "always" question and I can never find a reason that you have to have a pagefile besides 'because'.
Can you point me to where it explains why you have to have a pagefile, especially if you have oodles of unused ram an ssd and a 4 core 4 ghz processor.

You will run out of memory and programs will either crash or get force closed by Windows. This is because programmers can't account for everything and you will run into memory leaks. As I'm sitting here typing this Firefox Quantum is taking up 3GB in a single tab because of some dipshit Javascript programmer. Just enable the pagefile and stop trying to outsmart the guys who made the operating system.

I have experimented with it on and off, sometimes everything is fine and other times you will encounter problems due to memory leaks. Not fun to be in the middle of a round and be dumped out to desktop. So I leave a reasonable pagefile on my boot drive and call it a day.

I personally use 32GB of memory because I'm running ESXi with 16GB allocated to FreeNAS and a Windows boot with the other 16GB. GPU passthru is amazing.
 
Avatar 57682
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
18. Re: Morning Tech Bits Dec 11, 2017, 21:51 Mordecai Walfish
 
RedEye9 wrote on Dec 11, 2017, 18:04:
2 questions.

1. What are your ideas on ram speed when it comes to CAS timing and Frequency. For example
DDR4 2133 (PC4 17000)
Timing 13-15-15-28
CAS Latency 13
-versus-
Speed
DDR4 2400 (PC4 19200)
Timing 17-17-17-39
CAS Latency 17
I would think the low frequency memory would perform just as well as the faster memory due to it's better CAS latency.
Where do you think the current sweet spot/crossover is.

and 2.
I have researched the pagefile "always" question and I can never find a reason that you have to have a pagefile besides 'because'.
Can you point me to where it explains why you have to have a pagefile, especially if you have oodles of unused ram an ssd and a 4 core 4 ghz processor.

For the first question, both of those configurations would perform similarly but the 2133 configuration would probably be the best option. The way Ryzen and intel's new processors utilize ddr4 ram is different, so depending on your cpu/motherboard, you may even have *slightly* better performance with the ddr2400 timings instead of 2133. For gaming you typically want to go for the lowest latency possible, but other desktop applications may perform better with higher mhz ratings.

Best way to be sure, is to test the timings on your pc in the two configurations you are considering, and run AIDA 64 memory tests as well as a gaming benchmark in something that is more modern/demanding with both configurations. With DDR3 ram, going above 2133 made little to no difference, but DDR4 can have a much higher impact depending on your CPU/motherboard. Test it if you are interested at all in finding the best for your particular setup, but both of those are very similar in speed and will have little overall difference. I've tweaked memory timings for years and optimized ram setups to get that last bit of performance out of them. The difference is very minimal, but i did have a good speedup on my old phenom II rig by tightening timings and adjusting some things. It's really up to you whether you find it worth your time to go through all the stability tests and benchmarks just for a *very* minimal improvement though.

For the pagefile question, you don't lose *any* performance by having it enabled, even if you have tons of memory, etc. Some older games/programs will have issues with it disabled because they were programmed to always take pagefile into account. You can roll the dice and disable it and hope that nothing funky occurs, but you literally are not losing any performance by leaving it enabled, just a bit of disk space.

EDIT:

To compare by the actual latency of the two examples you gave:

DDR4-2133 @ cas latency 13 would have an effective latency of 12.19 ns

DDR4-2400 @ cas latency 17 would have an effective latency of 14.17 ns

The formula for this is (2000 x CL) / rating, and going by these numbers you would be better off with the DDR4-2133 @ CL 13 setup. DDR4 3200 ram is commonly sold at CL 16 ratings, so DDR4-2400 @ CL 17 is not very good. the actual minimum frametimes and frame stability are most dependent on the latency of your ram, so going for the lowest number using that formula generally results in the best performance in games, especially when running at higher framerates (90+fps).

This comment was edited on Dec 11, 2017, 22:45.
 
Avatar 56178
 
         
"What do I want? I don't really know. Most of the time I ignore my quest and walk into the homes of others, riffling through people's shelves... oooh, like those over there!"
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
17. Re: Morning Tech Bits Dec 11, 2017, 21:40 Mr. Tact
 
Unless you are either 1) budget constrained or 2) replacing your computer every two years -- I can't see building or buying a computer with less than 32 GB of RAM. First, it is just cheap. Second, assuming as I said you aren't replacing the PC every two years, you'll want the 32 GB for future proofing.  
Truth is brutal. Prepare for pain.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
16. Re: RAM Matters: How Much Do You Need for Gaming? 4GB, 8GB, 16GB or 32GB. Dec 11, 2017, 21:26 Quboid
 
Creston wrote on Dec 11, 2017, 17:40:
In any case, MajorD was asking 32 vs 16, and it's completely ridiculous to spend 200 dollars more on 32GB of memory for the purpose of gaming. There is literally no difference.

I recently hit big performance problems with 16GB RAM, in Cities Skylines with many additional assets from the Workshop. It's unusual, but if you play something particularly RAM intensive it is worth checking how much you're using now.
 
Avatar 10439
 
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
15. Re: RAM Matters: How Much Do You Need for Gaming? 4GB, 8GB, 16GB or 32GB. Dec 11, 2017, 18:20 DG
 
RedEye9 wrote on Dec 11, 2017, 18:04:
2 questions.
I've been out of the loop on hardware for a bit, but I think the answer might still depend on what you're running the cpu at. I don't think it matters as much as once upon a time, but I think there's still diminishing returns from having ram bus speed higher than cpu bus. So I think they're going to ask you what you're running your cpu at.

Or I'm interested in whether that still matters, anyway...
 
Avatar 14793
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
14. Re: RAM Matters: How Much Do You Need for Gaming? 4GB, 8GB, 16GB or 32GB. Dec 11, 2017, 18:04 RedEye9
 
NewMaxx wrote on Dec 11, 2017, 17:16:
Allow me to correct a few things here.

1) Zen 2 isn't coming out until 2019. This is a Ryzen ("2") refresh (Zen+). Confusing I know. It's because it's been listed both ways depending on the source. 2018 is Pinnacle Ridge, Matisse is 2019.

2) You absolutely do need 16GB of RAM to game well today. More is better. Not just due to raw usage but caching. With the prices the way they are (and I expect that to remain through much of 2018 if not longer), 16GB is acceptable however. I do recommend 32GB if you can manage it.

3) I'd had SATA SSDs in RAID-0s for more than half a decade with speeds up to 1.5 GB/s. The sequential speed gains for NVME are mostly meaningless. The advantages are much higher I/O - which is useless for consumers - with better overhead efficiency (which isn't an issue for the most recent CPUs) and signalling benefits. But there's also drawbacks such as overheating and throttling. The idea that "NVME is the best!11!!1" is pretty naive if you're just looking at sequential transfers since I've achieved similar speeds six years ago.

4) Always have a pagefile. Always.

Now for anecdotal - hell, I was hitting 12GB+ used on my 2500K last year let alone now when gaming (BF1). I actually had the opportunity to test it in 8GB/16GB on my cousins PC (we were diagnosing crashes) with his GTX 960 and he exceeded 8GB within forty-five minutes or so IIRC.

2 questions.

1. What are your ideas on ram speed when it comes to CAS timing and Frequency. For example
DDR4 2133 (PC4 17000)
Timing 13-15-15-28
CAS Latency 13
-versus-
Speed
DDR4 2400 (PC4 19200)
Timing 17-17-17-39
CAS Latency 17
I would think the low frequency memory would perform just as well as the faster memory due to it's better CAS latency.
Where do you think the current sweet spot/crossover is.

and 2.
I have researched the pagefile "always" question and I can never find a reason that you have to have a pagefile besides 'because'.
Can you point me to where it explains why you have to have a pagefile, especially if you have oodles of unused ram an ssd and a 4 core 4 ghz processor.
 
Avatar 58135
 
https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
13. Re: RAM Matters: How Much Do You Need for Gaming? 4GB, 8GB, 16GB or 32GB. Dec 11, 2017, 17:40 Creston
 
NewMaxx wrote on Dec 11, 2017, 17:16:
1) Zen 2 isn't coming out until 2019. This is a Ryzen ("2") refresh (Zen+). Confusing I know. It's because it's been listed both ways depending on the source. 2018 is Pinnacle Ridge, Matisse is 2019.

Isn't that what I said? Confused

2) You absolutely do need 16GB of RAM to game well today. More is better. Not just due to raw usage but caching. With the prices the way they are (and I expect that to remain through much of 2018 if not longer), 16GB is acceptable however. I do recommend 32GB if you can manage it.

The listed article did various tests and shows that the difference between 8 and 16GB is basically a rare few fps, though the minimums do drop off a bit more. Whether that's worth a 100 bucks more...

In any case, MajorD was asking 32 vs 16, and it's completely ridiculous to spend 200 dollars more on 32GB of memory for the purpose of gaming. There is literally no difference.

3) I'd had SATA SSDs in RAID-0s for more than half a decade with speeds up to 1.5 GB/s. The sequential speed gains for NVME are mostly meaningless. The advantages are much higher I/O - which is useless for consumers - with better overhead efficiency (which isn't an issue for the most recent CPUs) and signalling benefits. But there's also drawbacks such as overheating and throttling. The idea that "NVME is the best!11!!1" is pretty naive if you're just looking at sequential transfers since I've achieved similar speeds six years ago.

Compared to RAID-0 SSDs, the gains are probably minimal, yes. Compared to a bog standard single Sata 3 SSD, it is considerably faster. Like, noticeably faster without even benchmarking. I'm not sure why that's "naive".

Also, an NVMe SSD costs roughly the same as two SATA 3 SSDs, but doesn't require two or four cables running through your case.

 
Avatar 15604
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
32 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo