JonathonWyble wrote:

Finally, a thread where Intel486dx33 doesn't contribute anything about iPads (no offense, your information is still worth readin […]
Show full quote

Finally, a thread where Intel486dx33 doesn't contribute anything about iPads (no offense, your information is still worth reading) 😀

Back on topic, it's not surprising that 24GB RAM is the most memory anyone would ever see on a computer. Some people use 64GB RAM, even though they might not need it, but they still have it in their computers anyway.

On my main desktop, I have 16GB RAM, and I consider that a pretty decent amount of memory I would need for an every-day computer used to do things like play games and write code on. Prior to having this computer, I was originally thinking of having 32GB RAM for its memory, but then I decided that that would be a little too much overkill, and therefore I went with 16 gigabytes.

I've also heard of a couple organizations using 128 - 256 gigabytes of RAM, but of course, that would be way too much overkill, unless it's used by the government or NASA 😜

For VM hosts with high core-count CPUs, 128-256GB is super easy to use up.

Pretty sure the hosts I have at work right now have 96GB or RAM a piece.

The old ones I have at home I upgraded to I think 48GB each.

Max I have had in a personal computer was 64GB. My standard now is 32GB.

JonathonWyble wrote:

32GB: A little too much, unless you're a heavy gamer or something like that.

No way you're wasting money on RAM that could be used for a better GPU in that case.

I run 64 GB in both my gaming and productivity PCs.

I initially installed only 16 GB in my gaming PC. Then I tried Cities: Skylines with mods and quickly discovered it wasn't nearly enough. I upgraded to 64 GB to give myself enough of a ceiling that I wouldn't need to worry about it anymore.

In the latter PC, I use it for graphics and music production. With some modern music sample libraries being in the hundreds of gigabytes, it's not hard for a project to climb quickly in RAM usage.

keenmaster486 wrote:

Is 24 gigabytes.

24 freaking gigabytes of RAM. Let's take a moment to sit back and think about this. I don't need 24 GB of RAM. Not even by a long stretch.

Wait, isn't 24GB mentioned in the minimum requirements of Electron apps?

I've had 64GB RAM before and i needed all of it for SkiFree.

JonathonWyble wrote:

I've never heard of that much memory for any computer. If that were to exist, it probably won't happen until about the beginning of the 22nd century 🤣

umm, you can quite easily buy 1TB ram kits ...today

that is not unheard of in the server world ^^

How much of this is due to lazy coding?

Errius wrote:

How much of this is due to lazy coding?

With the complexity of today's software, lazy coding is required or you'll never get anything done 😜 If your project is a couple thousands lines of code, you can afford to not be lazy. But when it's a dozen million lines of code, you can't do that anymore. You rely on abstractions upon abstractions upon frameworks that provide more abstractions... (Actually I'm amazed the end result even works as well as it does sometimes.)

cyclone3d wrote:

Try my old prime number sieve program. It can use that much RAM and more. It can also use more CPU cores than any computer has.. except for maybe some of the super computers. Even then, the current theoretical limit of threads is (2^32)-1.. and that is only because I used a 32-bit unsigned integer for the thread count variable.

That takes me back. I remember in school writing a prime number calculator in Turbo C. I had to make my own EMS routines since the compiler libraries didn't support it.

cyclone3d wrote:

For VM hosts with high core-count CPUs, 128-256GB is super easy to use up. […]
Show full quote

For VM hosts with high core-count CPUs, 128-256GB is super easy to use up.

Pretty sure the hosts I have at work right now have 96GB or RAM a piece.

The old ones I have at home I upgraded to I think 48GB each.

Max I have had in a personal computer was 64GB. My standard now is 32GB.

I've also heard of 48GB RAM, but I've never knew of a lot of people who use that kind of memory, because in my perspective, the choices for memory amounts usually skip count by twelves, but it's a little rare for people to use 24GB, 48GB, or even 12GB.

imi wrote:

JonathonWyble wrote:

I've never heard of that much memory for any computer. If that were to exist, it probably won't happen until about the beginning of the 22nd century 🤣

umm, you can quite easily buy 1TB ram kits ...today

that is not unheard of in the server world ^^

I have actually seen 1TB and even 2TB RAM kits on places like Newegg, so I know that exists...

JonathonWyble wrote:

I've also heard of 48GB RAM, but I've never knew of a lot of people who use that kind of memory, because in my perspective, the choices for memory amounts usually skip count by twelves, but it's a little rare for people to use 24GB, 48GB, or even 12GB.

Some of Intel's workstation/server platforms used 3-channel memory and memory modules had to be installed in 3s leading to such numbers.

cyclone3d wrote:

Try my old prime number sieve program. It can use that much RAM and more. It can also use more CPU cores than any computer has.. […]
Show full quote

Try my old prime number sieve program. It can use that much RAM and more. It can also use more CPU cores than any computer has.. except for maybe some of the super computers. Even then, the current theoretical limit of threads is (2^32)-1.. and that is only because I used a 32-bit unsigned integer for the thread count variable.

I have tested it with around 40,000 threads and it starts acting kinda strange with that many threads on a 4-core, 8-threaded CPU.

And for the icing on the cake, the ONLY thread lock it uses is on the master thread.. and it just waits until all the other threads are complete before it outputs the results.
Multitudes of threads all working on the same data array without any locks because, the way I programmed it, it is impossible for any thread to interfere with any other thread.

https://sourceforge.net/projects/fastestprimes/

Hmmmm.

This is a quad-core CPU. I tried it out and after specifying to find primes from 0-192000000000, with 100000 threads and 100000 work units, it wouldn't go above 7 gigabytes of RAM usage! Plus it took way too long and I lost patience and killed the task after several minutes.

Specifying numbers below 192 billion for the max, though, yielded very nice results. It found primes up to a billion in only a couple seconds and used hardly any RAM doing it.

I am running the Win64 version using Wine in Linux, though, so maybe that has something to do with it.