- cross-posted to:
- memes@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- memes@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
8gb of system ram is enough for a low end system (especially with Linux) and 8gb of vram is enough for 1080p gaming.
RAM on phones is ok, though.
What does 1GB of cache look like?
That’s a lot of cache! For a new battery :P
CPU or SSD cache?
CPU
I always thought it would be funny running an os from an usb stick.
Never would I have thought that there would be storage in the size of a stick exceeding the default configuration of a desktop pc.
2 TB in one small nvme drive?! Wtf. Amazing but also crazy.
I have an 8GB Ubuntu flash drive, so it’s certainly possible
You should check out Linux live USBs from nearly 2 decades ago then.
When my dad first saw an nvme drive he had to triple check what he was looking at BC in his old 70s computer brain there’s no fucking way something so small and unmoving can hold so much data, read/write it so fast, and all for a relatively cheap price.
The first hard drive I got had 20MB and it was glorious.
The first one I used was 5MB. The OS on the machine (a CP/M version) didn’t know how to handle it, so it was partitioned as lots and lots of floppies. Not very useful.
How about the other way around?
So I can boot up without a disk now?
I had a conspiracy theory that it’s trying to communicate with me using morse code, but I was too lazy to learn it
8GB of Atari 2600 games
Generally there’s a reverse relationship between size and speed. A 8gb cache would also be super slow thus defeating the purpose of the cache. If it were so easy every cpu would have a huge cache
Not really, if you’re putting that size on the physical chip it will be fast because it’s close by. It’s just that we can’t fit that much on a chip now.
Unfortunately that’s not how it works. This is coming from someone who studied computer hardware and software in university.
Cache sizes are a trade off. Small cache means quick access speeds but higher chance of a cache miss. Larger caches have a lower access speed but a lower chance for a cache miss.
This is why we have different levels of cache on a computer actually. It allows us to harness the benefits of the different sizes of caches without impacting the speed as much. With multiple layers we can have small caches that are super fast and then larger caches that are slower and so and so forth. This way we can have both speed and size.
8GB of (internet) bandwidth.
8GB/s, or 8GB per month.
I have 3gb of VRAM.
I’m on 2 lol
Still remember my first 500MB drive, thought I would never manage to fill it up
I remember being thrilled to move from floppies to a 16mb flash drive for my school assignments, even if I did have to constantly download and reinstall the USB Mass Storage drivers for the Windows 1998 sp2 computers in the library which reset every night. And the transfer speed was SLOW.
The fact that you can get a terabyte flash drive now, which can hold 62,500 of my school assignment drives, is mind blowing to me.
I always wanted the zip drives with 250mb capacity.
I remember when this applied to 8kB.
Noone will ever need more than 640k of RAM
- no one
Achshully, you’re right
8GB of registers.
What it feels like moving from x86 to ARM
Isn’t vram usually bigger than ram? Those pics should be switched.
EDIT: Oh, I took vram to be virtual ram, not video ram. It makes sense for video ram.
Creating your swap as 2x your RAM is outdated advice. Now it’s essentially changed to be 2x until 4GB of RAM, then 1x until 8GB, and anything over 8GB just use 4GB of swap because you probably have enough RAM. Or, even some modern systems like Fedora will swap to zRAM. Which is just a highly compressed portion of RAM.
I think that recommendation came partly due to hibernation, where the ram is dumped to disk before powering off. Today, I’d probably use a swapfile instead.
Swap files are just a file version of the swap partition. I need a 24GB swap file to hibernate.
Mine certainly isn’t. 6GB vram, 16gb ram.
It depends on your definition of “usually”, high end GPUs for data centers, AI, workstations or “enthusiasts” yea. For these applications you’re starting at like 16
GPUs for us plebs, no
It’s also fairly cheap to buy 32+ GB of RAM, lots of choices for under $80. Meanwhile, I’m not even sure how you find a video card with 32GB of VRAM (not that you really need this much, 12GB and 16GB are pretty solid for a video card nowadays).
https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/design-visualization/rtx-a6000/
48GB, so not enough. I want the A100 80GB.
Afaik for consumers only the 5090 has 32GB VRAM. So you’re correct, practically impossible to find. And even if you find it, prone to spontaneous combustion.
For servers, it tops out at 288GB currently, with the AMD Mi355X.
Afaik for consumers only the 5090 has 32GB VRAM
Only if you don’t count Apple Silicon with its shared RAM/VRAM. Ironically a Mac Mini / Studio is currently the cheapest way to get a GPU with lots of vram for AI
Tbf, we should be starting with 16GB for gaming GPUs too, especially for those prices. But … NVidia.
But yeah, modern HPC Processors have at least 48GB or so. And max. is the AMD Mi355X with 288GB VRAM afaik. Which is actually less than my servers RAM, ha! But also probably like a thousand times fasted, considering my RAM runs at 1600 MT/s.
I’m seeing games today regularly hitting 11 GB, and that’s without raytracing or frame generation which require more VRAM.
The new 8GB GPU Nvidia just launched is a trap. It exists to trick people into buying a GPU that they’ll need to upgrade next year.
Normally you don’t even have that much virtual ram. It’s at most twice your system ram, but honestly past 8gb and you’re gonna want to start closing out of stuff.
8gb of VRAM is still pretty good, but 8GB of RAM is getting pretty low these days. 16GB of ram and 6-8 VRAM is pretty common, and even that might go up relatively soon.
If you have an 8GB GPU that’s a few years old, it’s probably doing okay-ish. It probably doesn’t have the performance to really suffer from VRAM limits and you don’t game with things like raytracing or ultra detail settings turned on because the GPU isn’t fast enough for those things anyway.
My Vega 64 had 8GB VRAM and that was fine.
If you buy one of the new GPUs with 8GB though, the VRAM is a huge problem. You have the GPU power to have all the features turned on, but you’re going to see real performance crippled because it overflows VRAM.
Longevity is the other issue - when games released in 2025 run like ass on your 8GB GPU from 2017, you won’t be surprised. Bad performance from an 8GB GPU that released in 2025 for $500, that’s a problem.
The first computer I bought had eight megs of RAM.
Mine got upgraded to a full meg.
I remember being thrilled with a 20 meg scsi hard drive I got as a kid.
