"The RAM wall", and obsolescence

[VirtualLarry]

Single core systems are too slow for today's web browsing and typical daily tasks. Dual core systems are capable of supporting enough ram for web browsing and typical, daily tasks as well as gaming. Any dual core system of any age can handle modern daily tasks.

What do you think about the E-350? Is that (1.6Ghz dual-core) platform fast enough for modern web browsing? Because most people seem to think that it has the performance of a P4 single-core. If E-350 is capable of browsing, and a P4 isn't, then why? Remember, most browsers are still single-threaded (except for Chrome, I think).

 

[moonbogg]

What do you think about the E-350? Is that (1.6Ghz dual-core) platform fast enough for modern web browsing? Because most people seem to think that it has the performance of a P4 single-core. If E-350 is capable of browsing, and a P4 isn't, then why? Remember, most browsers are still single-threaded (except for Chrome, I think).

OK, well even if it isn't then its not because of a lack of RAM. Its because the CPU sucks. This thread is about platforms not supporting enough RAM, therefore creating an artificially short life for the platform, and I don't see that as being true. If any platform is so old that it can't support at least 4gb of RAM, then that platform would be all but useless even if it could.
Take my X79 for example. It is a top end system with 16gb currently installed. By the time even the 16gb isn't enough, the platform would be so outdated that it would be useless anyway.

 

[VirtualLarry]

OK, well even if it isn't then its not because of a lack of RAM. Its because the CPU sucks. This thread is about platforms not supporting enough RAM, therefore creating an artificially short life for the platform, and I don't see that as being true. If any platform is so old that it can't support at least 4gb of RAM, then that platform would be all but useless even if it could.
Take my X79 for example. It is a top end system with 16gb currently installed. By the time even the 16gb isn't enough, the platform would be so outdated that it would be useless anyway.

I agree that the issue that this thread's premise is based on, seems to be getting less severe, because RAM sizes keep doubling, for all practical purposes, while software's footprints keep increasing in a more linear manner.

I believe that this factor was why superfetch was developed, to start to make use of the "excessive" RAM on newer 64-bit capable platforms.

 

[djgandy]

Most consumer software is still 32-bit anyway, if you are running software that is 64-bit, then I think the company making it are telling you that you need a faster system

Most Socket 775's supported 8GB of ram. If you bought it when 2GB DDR2 modules were cheap then you'd have had plenty of memory for a good 3/4 years time.

Both my work machines, and my home machine have Q9400 and 4GB of ram. That is more than plenty for 20+ chrome tabs, eclipse, visual studio and some other tools, word processing. I never close things due to running out of memory. The slowest part of the systems is their hard drives. Chugging along loading stuff, getting slower by the day as they wear out.

Sure if I was buying a new system, I'd stick 16GB of ram in it. That is not because I need it now, but from knowing one thing after watching memory prices for 15 years. Buy it when its cheap! In the context of a £500/600 expenditure, there is no point saving £25/30 for 8GB of memory.

Your first example, a Pentium III, a little extreme too? The PIII was a good CPU, 13 years ago, but it is going to be goddamn slow running any modern web browser.

 

[SPBHM]

yes, it's very rare for most users to have any need for 8GB...

a little over 4GB might be getting more common (but I still think the "old" nehalem standard 6GB is more than enough for most),

it may be the case for some rare uses, but most Core 2 systems don't really need 8GB, the CPU is significantly slower than a current i5/i7, so I think there is a lot to be gained from a CPU upgrade anyway, if you really need a powerful PC.

 

[BrightCandle]

RAM is different to CPU speed. If you don't have enough RAM to run your program then the drop off in speed is enormous as the program pages. HDDs are 100MB/s verses 10GB/s of RAM, that is 2 orders of magnitude difference and its even worse when we consider the disk probably won't in practice achieve more than 1MB/s on random IO like paging.

CPU speed on the other hand increases more gradually within the time period of the machines life, it doesn't even hit an order of magnitude for 6 years let alone 4 orders of it. So RAM does extend the life of a machine quite a bit as it allows software to be run, even if its a little sluggish because the CPU is out of date.

My core 2 duo laptop was kitted with 4GB and 64 bit vista because I knew I would need that ram. Today it doesn't exactly run fast but it can do everything my desktop does because its got enough ram to run the software. If it had been equipped with the default 2GB it would struggle a lot more.

 

[Eureka]

I've actually found CPU limitations harder than RAM limitations, but I've ran into both.

A lot of it has to do just with optimization. Firefox (at least a few years back) had all sorts of memory problems and memory usage could explode.

On top of that, things like flash and heavy scripting tends to eat up CPU performance.

I found that on Atom and ULV chips, flash alone or a heavily scripted site will bog down a single thread to 100%. RAM won't help in this situation as it's not being limited there.

On the other hand, 100 tabs open really isn't out of the ordinary. I know of at least one person who will keep 100 tabs open across three browsers, and then consistently use sleep mode until he gets through all the tabs.

 

[djgandy]

RAM is different to CPU speed. If you don't have enough RAM to run your program then the drop off in speed is enormous as the program pages. HDDs are 100MB/s verses 10GB/s of RAM, that is 2 orders of magnitude difference and its even worse when we consider the disk probably won't in practice achieve more than 1MB/s on random IO like paging.

CPU speed on the other hand increases more gradually within the time period of the machines life, it doesn't even hit an order of magnitude for 6 years let alone 4 orders of it. So RAM does extend the life of a machine quite a bit as it allows software to be run, even if its a little sluggish because the CPU is out of date.

My core 2 duo laptop was kitted with 4GB and 64 bit vista because I knew I would need that ram. Today it doesn't exactly run fast but it can do everything my desktop does because its got enough ram to run the software. If it had been equipped with the default 2GB it would struggle a lot more.

4GB isn't the limitation for any core 2 duo platform. The initial statement was that mobo's set an upper limit on the upgrade-ability of RAM.

 

[VirtualLarry]

yes, it's very rare for most users to have any need for 8GB...

a little over 4GB might be getting more common (but I still think the "old" nehalem standard 6GB is more than enough for most),

it may be the case for some rare uses, but most Core 2 systems don't really need 8GB, the CPU is significantly slower than a current i5/i7, so I think there is a lot to be gained from a CPU upgrade anyway, if you really need a powerful PC.

Hmm. From my perspective, 8GB on a Core2 rig is going to be pretty limiting, a few years into the future.

My two Sandy Bridge rigs (one laptop, one desktop, both pre-built) both have 4GB of RAM, and I'm constantly bumping up against the RAM limits, browsing in Waterfox with 40 tabs open, with Skype and AIM in the background. I have to close my browser every two weeks or so because it starts getting flaky, probably because of lack of RAM.

 

[StrangerGuy]

Keep in mind the mainstream segment has just got more memory equipped than the 32-bit limitations of old, and 32-bit apps are still everywhere. I actually hope that limit and the slowing progress of CPUs lingers as much as possible as it forces programmers to be efficient with their code than just riding the free hardware lunch like in the last decade.

 

[Wolfpup]

My Penryn Core 2 feels sloooooooow just browsing the web. Granted it blows away my c50, which blows away my iPad 2 (that's slower even running a stripped down browser and no real multitasking) but still, I notice big jumps even for normal tasks.

 

[moonbogg]

Hmm. From my perspective, 8GB on a Core2 rig is going to be pretty limiting, a few years into the future.

My two Sandy Bridge rigs (one laptop, one desktop, both pre-built) both have 4GB of RAM, and I'm constantly bumping up against the RAM limits, browsing in Waterfox with 40 tabs open, with Skype and AIM in the background. I have to close my browser every two weeks or so because it starts getting flaky, probably because of lack of RAM.

It might be, we'll have to wait and see, that is those of us that will still be using one. Regarding my next question, I admit ignorance so bear with me. As ram becomes more dense, higher capacity chips have become available. Would it be possible to install higher capacity chips in the core 2 system, or is it that the CPU itself cannot support the use of more than 8gigs? Even if not, I can hardly imagine a core 2 system being able to cope with any kind of work load that involves anything approaching the use of 8 gigs of RAM.
In any case, I don't see any potential RAM limits as being the signs of corporate trickery or planned obsolescence. The kind of person who uses a PC so long that they run out of ram is likely the same person who will just break down and buy a new emachine every 12 years for $250.00. Having a PC is cheap for people of this type and they certainly get their money's worth in any case.

 

[fuzzymath10]

Agree with moonbogg here. If I have enough tabs open on a Core 2 to be limited by 8GB, then the CPU is going to be heavily pegged by scripts/plugins running on all the pages unless you have done more optimization/disabling of stuff that most users should be subjected to.

 

[Sheep221]

Single core systems are too slow for today's web browsing and typical daily tasks. Dual core systems are capable of supporting enough ram for web browsing and typical, daily tasks as well as gaming. Any dual core system of any age can handle modern daily tasks.

Single core celerons from sandy bridge family are as fast as top dual cores from few years ago. They consume only 22W at 100% load and are doing everything smoothly.

 

[djgandy]

Anyone can grind a machine to a halt, I see very little reason to leave 40 tabs open permanently.

Do some house keeping, read them and close them (or book mark them). You can't read 40 tabs at a time, so in fact the computer is not the problem here

No one is saying that given n amount of memory you can't saturate it, I don't consider "I have 40 tabs open" a work flow though. Nor do I consider it a common problem without a very easy fix (bookmarking). I'd say the same for having 40 instances of MS word open.

What is the argument of the future? Socket 1155 isn't good enough because i need 200 tabs open and it only allows 32GB of ram?

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Even with light video editing, music editing and encoding, I typically keep 2GB of my 8GB as a ramdisk. Especially if both the source and output file will both fit on the ramdisk, it is sooooo much faster!

 

[BudgetBuild]

One problem with consumer desktops is that they typically only come with two DIMM slots. This becomes a problem as the PC ages because one way to extend the life of a PC is to add RAM. With only two DIMM slots you are not only limited in the total amount of RAM you can install but you must also replace the existing DIMMs instead of adding to them. As the years go by you end up accumulating piles of smaller DIMMs that nobody wants.

So yes, I agree with the OP statement. While it is much less of a problem these days, it was a bigger problem back in the PIII days.

 

[grkM3]

One problem with consumer desktops is that they typically only come with two DIMM slots. This becomes a problem as the PC ages because one way to extend the life of a PC is to add RAM. With only two DIMM slots you are not only limited in the total amount of RAM you can install but you must also replace the existing DIMMs instead of adding to them. As the years go by you end up accumulating piles of smaller DIMMs that nobody wants.

So yes, I agree with the OP statement. While it is much less of a problem these days, it was a bigger problem back in the PIII days.

You can buy 2 8GB dimms that will last you a long time and just a thought I paid 160 bucks for 4 MB of ram to install in my 486 dx to play the 7th quest back in the day.

80 bucks shipped for 2 8gb dimms

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820231489

 

[Idontcare]

You can buy 2 8GB dimms that will last you a long time and just a thought I paid 160 bucks for 4 MB of ram to install in my 486 dx to play the 7th quest back in the day.

80 bucks shipped for 2 8gb dimms

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820231489

Ram prices have come back up a bit after the holiday-season lows.

It is listed at $185 shipped now, but back on Dec 10 I picked up this 4x8GB DDR3-1866 ram for a cool $109.90 shipped (no fancy rebates or nothing, just standard pricing).

At those kinds of prices, it is hard to pass up packing 32GB into your rig. I couldn't

Ram is up now but it will be back down in another month or two. (end of March, when everyone is trying to make their Q1 numbers)

 

[grkM3]

Ram prices have come back up a bit after the holiday-season lows.

It is listed at $185 shipped now, but back on Dec 10 I picked up this 4x8GB DDR3-1866 ram for a cool $109.90 shipped (no fancy rebates or nothing, just standard pricing).

At those kinds of prices, it is hard to pass up packing 32GB into your rig. I couldn't

Ram is up now but it will be back down in another month or two. (end of March, when everyone is trying to make their Q1 numbers)

exactly ram is so cheap right now you might as well buy 16 or 32gb but back when p3s were out and about we were paying 260 bucks for 2x1gb sticks and 4gb was over 400

 

[DominionSeraph]

How many people are familiar with putting an older, once top-of-the-line rig,'out to pasture" as a hand-me-down rig for web browsing to someone that wasn't going to play games. Including upgrading the OS to something more modern. What is necessary to do that, most times? Usually, it requires more RAM than the computer originally came with.

This actually goes against your case. If the RAM can be upgraded to a sufficient level the system size limitation isn't the deciding factor.

You also seem to be missing that CPU sufficiency is taken into account in what constitutes a proper hand-me-down computer. I have an 8088 in the basement, but it's not filtered out of the hand-me-down pool because it only has 256K of memory. Same goes for a PII 400 I have: the 512MB limit of the 440BX chipset was never relevant.
I have a S939 Athlon 64 3000+, though, whose CPU is still powerful enough to do web browsing just fine. Guess how much RAM it can hold? 4GB... which is actually twice the amount I currently have in my main rig. So, again, we have an example where RAM limit isn't the deciding factor for the platform. When a web content hits the point where you need 4GB, do you think a 2GHz single-core with DDR1 and an ancient PATA hard drive is going to cut it?

I think you have managed to land upon the least hit system limitation (other than RAM speed). Processor instruction set, processor speed, non-volatile storage type and speed, various internal and external interface types and speeds, video output, and audio output have all come out as reasons to upgrade long before system memory size limits have been hit.

 

[VirtualLarry]

So, again, we have an example where RAM limit isn't the deciding factor for the platform. When a web content hits the point where you need 4GB, do you think a 2GHz single-core with DDR1 and an ancient PATA hard drive is going to cut it?

Well, this G630 rig, I run out of the 4GB of RAM far before I run out of CPU grunt, with the number of tabs I leave open in Waterfox.

I think you have managed to land upon the least hit system limitation (other than RAM speed). Processor instruction set, processor speed, non-volatile storage type and speed, various internal and external interface types and speeds, video output, and audio output have all come out as reasons to upgrade long before system memory size limits have been hit.

I still think that RAM is more of a limiting factor than CPU. I don't know how you manage on your main rig with only 2GB of RAM. You must not browse the web very heavily.

 

[Torn Mind]

Shouldn't every very recent Firefox variant have that feature that leaves tabs that are not selected off?

 

[VirtualLarry]

One factor that I haven't brought up yet, is soldered-on RAM. This is becoming more common with some budget notebooks, and ultrabooks. What you gain in sleekness, you lose in platform longevity. And if Intel gets their way, post-haswell, with the mobos with soldered-on CPUs, then we may start to see soldered-on RAM too. That will truly be the era of "disposable computing" (which I thank Apple for starting), and e-waste will become an even greater problem than before.

 

[Golgatha]

This thread went south fast lol... seriously what is difficult to understand about what the OP says? He even gave a clear example of a PIII computer.

Anyways i dont think its just RAM being a limitation. Yes a PIII could run windows 7 32 bit but even if it had enough RAM the performance of most apps on the system would be abysmal with that CPU. IMO the whole platform becomes obsolete around a similar time.

Perhaps with C2Q a RAM limitation may happen, what did they support at max? 8GB? C2Q is when CPU performance really began to outstrip the demand for it.

I would say the C2Q will have a RAM limitation before the platform becomes obsolete. I would argue the obsolescence comes more from the monetary side of things though. 4-8GB DDR2 pricing vs DDR3 pricing at the same capacity. It's simply cheaper to sell the old system and buy new stuff or at least price competitive to the point where you're not out anything.