Patriot: 16GB is the new 8GB for Sandy Bridge-E

50 Comments

View All Comments

• neotiger - Wednesday, June 1, 2011 - link

  When I said 32G RAM, I was referring to my assumption that quad-channel RAM would mean 8 RAM slots. That would mean a total of 32GB (8 x 4GB) using just the current 4GB DIMMs.
  
  But if it's really true that all the new motherboards only support 4 slots, then the max memory will only be 16G (4 x 4GB).
  
  Right now I have 24GB because the motherboard supports 6 slots (6 x 4GB). In that case "upgrading" would mean going from the current 24GB to 16GB.
  
  This is just total BS.
  
  Can anyone confirm that the new motherboard really will not support 8 slots??

• Rippleyaliens007 - Wednesday, June 1, 2011 - link

  I see posts, on why one needs 16 gb, of ram, yet you have 4gb yourself. It is called this marvelous thing called GROWTH!!!!
  I remember 2mb being ALOT, and yes that is 2mb.. not GB..
  If you cant use it, then deal with it, but putting consumers in your shoes makes 0 sense.
  My main machine has 32 GB of RAM, 8 Cores, 2x SSD's and guess what.. ITS NOT ENOUGH FOR ME.
  My last server project i put in, had 2x 12 CORE Procs in it, 256GB of RAM. 4x of those servers, and guess what.. Customer needs 2 more. AS it is getting much more lean.
  
  No one considers getting the software, until they have the hardware. Now we have apps that can fully utilize multi GB of ram, this trend trickles down to the consumer. ITS not about gaming all the time, but being able to actually do some work, lol

• Gonemad - Wednesday, June 1, 2011 - link

  I have 12GB and spared myself a ramdisk of 6GB just to test out new software. Smaller ones go all the way installed there, while larger ones demand some trickery to work (hardlinks or something)... but anyways, I love the idea of having a "spare" drive to run volatile stuff.
  
  If the system gets borked in any way, shape or form (virus, whatever) just pull the plug and the whole thing evaporates in the thin air. If the new software is worth installing, then it gets properly installed on a HDD.
  
  Plus I love having 4GB/s on a drive, not involving extra cost for a SSD, or RAID controllers and loads and loads of conventional HDDs. It is pretty comical to run a disk defragmenter on a ramdisk, since you can't see it working, it finishes in the blink of an eye.
  
  If I could spare myself a whole 24GB of RAM some other games would be stored there. And I don't give a damn about boot time, because if you choose to do so, these things can be preloaded during boot taking sweet 2 minutes to do it. But, using suspension instead of shutdown saves you all the hassle, even in a desktop.
  
  Oh yes, not everybody can see reason to have 6+ gigs of RAM, but those who know better...

• jecs - Wednesday, June 1, 2011 - link

  This happens because sometime ago (a few years) everybody benefited from more memory and CPU power, and these capacities grabbed so much attention that it became a rule: more ram = better faster performance. And this is true today and very fortunate for power users, but yes it is coming to an end where most people are even starting to migrate to less powerful systems like tablets.
  
  And, as the megapixel race, and as the bigger monitors or tvs with more contrast and colors and speed, and dynamic contrast ratio, the memory may start to slow down as a big feature in the next months or years.
  
  Who needs a 16-32 or more megapixel consumer camera? Scattered aficionados.
  Who needs a 105' 2600-1600px trillion colors, 1000000:1 contrast, >240 refresh rate? (I want one, don't need it and can't afford)
  Who needs 178-178 viewing angles? Everybody!
  Who needs 5+ ghz 16 cores CPUs (I do)
  Who needs 32+ memory (I do)
  Higher internet speed? We all want it, many people need it
  SSDs? Evrybody.
  Less power consumption? Everybody
  More battery life? Everybody
  
  Just some features I can think off right now.

• Ikefu - Wednesday, June 1, 2011 - link

  I could use 16Gb+ no problem. My home computer is both a work machine and my gaming rig.
  
  For work I use multiple Virtual Machines running simultaneously to simulate computers/equipment talking to each other on large industrial networks. Each VM uses 1Gb minimum of Ram so I can run out of space in a hurry. I have 8Gb right now and really wish I had 16Gb so I could add more VMs or bump up my existing ones to 2Gb each
  
  For personal use, 8Gb has always been plenty though. But I really want to see how much using 4 memory channels speeds things up versus using only 2.

• venomblade - Wednesday, June 1, 2011 - link

  lol no matter what I do i've never gone over 4gb, or even close to it, 16gb? No thx.

• GullLars - Thursday, June 2, 2011 - link

  The price pr GB of this just made me want a new generation RAM-drive...
  A full size dual slot PCIe x16 Gen2 with 8 DIMMs, BBU, and a SATA port to dump contents to an SSD (or HDD if u're an irrational cheap guy). 4x8 = 32GB, which is enough for OS and core apps, and then just stick with the SSD RAID for the rest of apps and games.
  The price pr GB of DDR3 is now lower than what it was for SLC when i bought my first 2 32GB SSDs.

• salmanshah - Friday, June 3, 2011 - link

  You need more than 22GB RAM to compress files with 7zip!

• s1ugh34d - Thursday, June 9, 2011 - link

  I upgraded to 4GB last november, I will not upgrade to more till at least 2012. I used 1.5GB of ram for 5 years, never needed more, just the fastest ram for AM3 was 4GB sets.
  
  I do know people that need 8GB for digital djing, and some people need more for really hefty virtualization, but the average gamer never needs more than 3GB. even crysis doesn't take that kind of memory, even when windows is hogging up all the resources in the background.

• KokoBill011 - Monday, February 13, 2012 - link

  ..if I`m only in position to buy myself, not 16GB but 64GB of RAM I would do it right now...why not...???? Tell me ...why NOT, if I have a large wallet...... (which I don`y)...!!!