Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

System76 Preparing Coreboot Laptop With Core i9 10900K, Up To 128GB RAM

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    I think that...maybe ... they are somewhere almost there on Ram... maybe they should double it.. and please continue to put the money in the dead horse( intel )

    Because a laptop with a swiss cheese cpu that everybody is starting to avoid, and with 128GB of Ram is not yet a laptop, you should insist and show that the cazy limits are only in the minds of some... go big 1TB of Ram is enough?...omg

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
      Well, GTA V is somewhere around 100GB so you'd need at least that + 16GB of ram to run it from a ram disk. 128GB is just enough so you can do that and run Firefox with a bunch of tabs open.

      Most people would do something like 9VMs with ~12GB memory per VM and the rest held over for host use, but me, I'd do some dumbass shit like running my games from ram.
      I don't think you would realize any real-world performance benefit running a large game from RAM vs. simply using a good NVMe SSD.

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by sophisticles View Post

        This makes absolutely no sense, you claim you run games from ram, how exactly does that work? You create a ram disk, install the game on the ram disk and then what happens when you shut down? You reinstall the game from scratch?
        On Linux, sometimes you just copy/paste crap to /tmp and run it from there; sometimes you use things like overlays because the game is hardcoded to look at certain directories. It can be more work that what it's worth. It's really only worth doing when you're playing large, open world games like Skyrim or GTA V and you only have a HDD or your SSD is an older, slower model leaving you with noticeable loading when running around an open world. It's also useful if you play a heavily modded KSP because that gives the game an atrocious load time and anything to speed that up is welcome. But overall it isn't worth doing.

        Now that we have things like PCIe Gen 4 SSDs, ram disks might as well be a thing of the past unless DDR5 happens to be magic ram. From a home user perspective, that's the technology that's going to force a lot of us to upgrade our older but working just fine systems...3000 and 4000 mpbs r/rw speeds...it's like HDD to SSD all over again.

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by OneTimeShot View Post
          Hmm... quantity of RAM hasn’t been following Moore’s law for a while. Good to see 128Gb, but I’m pretty sure that 1Gb was standard 20 years ago. We should be in the Tb by now.
          20 years ago 1GB RAM certainly was not standard. About 128 MB maybe.

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by Jabberwocky View Post

            Go big or go home



            There are many applications for that amount of RAM. The challenge that I see is clocking of those modules. It must be difficult to find the sweet spot of the memory controller.
            Sure, but I think pretty much everyone will be running those apps on desktops or other systems rather than laptops.

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by pracedru View Post
              20 years ago 1GB RAM certainly was not standard. About 128 MB maybe.
              Eh... My Windows 98 machine had 128Mb RAM, and that was mid-range. I remember adverts hitting the 1Gb RAM mark while I was at Uni so even if wasn't standard, it was a very much what you'd expect at the top end.

              Comment


              • #27
                Sure, but I think pretty much everyone will be running those apps on desktops or other systems rather than laptops.
                Just because $$$
                Powerful laptop cost a lot. I want something like this on max RAM/CPU/disks
                https://www.mediaworkstations.net/sy...tations/a-x2p/

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by Drago View Post
                  Who is going to buy ~$3000 laptop, and use Linux on it? I would love to be that way, but reality is if someone needs that much of RAM, he would already use some cloud solution, or other OS. Also, No Ryzen, No party!
                  Why wouldn't they run Linux? If you're doing analytics on big data sets, you might need tons of RAM with relatively modest CPU, for example.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by Vistaus View Post
                    Sure, but I think pretty much everyone will be running those apps on desktops or other systems rather than laptops.
                    Of course, anything computationally intensive is best done on a desktop. Those tiny little laptop fans whirring at 7000 rpm get real annoying after a while. There are certain jobs however that require you to travel or otherwise require more mobility than a desktop allows. This laptop fills that niche.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by easy View Post
                      Just because $$$
                      Powerful laptop cost a lot. I want something like this on max RAM/CPU/disks
                      https://www.mediaworkstations.net/sy...tations/a-x2p/
                      Business users don't always care about the expense.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X