On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 07:05:51 -0000, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

> On Fri, 04 Feb 2022 00:54:50 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
> <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>> Agreed - but then if/when I go win 11 I intend to have it done by my
>>> favorite tech who built the machine in the first place.
>>>
>>> It would be equivalent to a mid-level corporate file server with 64 gb=
>>
>>> DDR4 RAM, a high end graphics card (top 20 on the PassCard list which
>>> of course a server wouldn't have), 20 Tb on 4 drives (one of which I
>>> have Bitlocker on which makes me wonder whether or not I'm golden for
>>> TPM) plus a couple more 8Tb externals
>>>
>>> Basically what would be the best way to investigate suitability? Both
>>> for TPM and Win 11?
>>
>> 20Tb is a lot of porn.
>
> <headbang>

I've never heard of that fetish, what's it involve?

On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 13:16:06 -0000, wrote:

> Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> posted this:
>
>> On Thu, 03 Feb 2022 21:56:25 -0000, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 10:13:58 -0500, Wolffan <akwolffan@zoho.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> And you usually can’t tell in advance which ch
>>>> ip you have. One of may
>>>> reasons why I decline to screw with the TPM on my machines.
>>>
>>> Agreed - but then if/when I go win 11 I intend to have it done by my
>>> favorite tech who built the machine in the first place.
>>>
>>> It would be equivalent to a mid-level corporate file server with 64 gb
>>
>>> DDR4 RAM, a high end graphics card (top 20 on the PassCard list which
>>> of course a server wouldn't have), 20 Tb on 4 drives (one of which I
>>> have Bitlocker on which makes me wonder whether or not I'm golden for
>>> TPM) plus a couple more 8Tb externals
>>>
>>> Basically what would be the best way to investigate suitability? Both
>>> for TPM and Win 11?
>>
>>
>> 20Tb is a lot of porn.
>
>
> Not if you spread it over several encrypted hard drives and call it "art".
>
> Hope this helps.

You should have told me earlier.

Ken Blake wrote:

> It's interesting that in my reply to him, I correctly used GB instead
> of MB, *and still hadn't noticed my original error*.
>
Join the club.

--
....w¡ñ§±¤ñ

On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 20:35:10 -0000, ...w¡ñ§±¤ñ <winstonmvp@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ken Blake wrote:
>
>> It's interesting that in my reply to him, I correctly used GB instead
>> of MB, *and still hadn't noticed my original error*.
>>
> Join the club.

alt.silversurfers is that way --->

On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 13:09:21 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Sun, 06 Feb 2022 10:03:30 -0700, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 05 Feb 2022 22:37:50 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 03 Feb 2022 12:18:35 -0700, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Home or Professional. Right-click on any bank space on the task bar.
>>>
>>>My understanding is that Home doesn't work with more than 16gb of RAM.
>>>True or untrue?
>>
>>
>>
>>Untrue.
>>
>>32-bit Home - 4MB
>>64-bit Home - 128MB
>>
>>> I'm using Pro and have 64 gb DDR4)
>>
>>OK, but that's a *lot* of RAM for almost everyone. What do you do that
>>warrants having so much?
>
>For me I run two monitors

So do I.

> and tend to keep lots of apps open at one
>time.

I have eight open now, the same eight that I almost always have open.

The number of programs that you have *open* doesn't matter very much.
What's important is the number of programs you have that you are
actively using. If you had less RAM, the inactive but open programs
would quickly get paged out and performance would be about the same.

At the moment I'm using 33% of my 32GB, and I rarely use significantly
more.

> At the time I went to 64 gb they were having a 'deal of a
>lifetime' on 16gb DDR4 sticks and I had the money so 'go for it!'

Understood. That's not very different from the reason for my having
32GB. I know I don't need 32GB, and I've never used close to it. But
as Windows and programs get bigger, I'll need more, so besides it not
costing a lot more than 16GB, my electing to get 32GB is looking ahead
to the future.

>These days even if I get carried away I seldom get under 30% free and
>coupled with my 1 Tb SSD (which is not huge but big enough to keep the
>OS on) seldom get fouled up except for certain games which think they
>have a god given right to my C drive.

I never play games on my computer (except for Fritz or Rybka--and
that's not very often these day--and Spider Solitaire, which I
sometimes play just to pass the time if I'm waiting for something).

On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 21:09:21 -0000, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

> On Sun, 06 Feb 2022 10:03:30 -0700, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 05 Feb 2022 22:37:50 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 03 Feb 2022 12:18:35 -0700, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Home or Professional. Right-click on any bank space on the task bar.
>>>
>>> My understanding is that Home doesn't work with more than 16gb of RAM.
>>> True or untrue?
>>
>> Untrue.
>>
>> 32-bit Home - 4MB
>> 64-bit Home - 128MB
>>
>>> I'm using Pro and have 64 gb DDR4)
>>
>> OK, but that's a *lot* of RAM for almost everyone. What do you do that
>> warrants having so much?
>
> For me I run two monitors and tend to keep lots of apps open at one
> time.

I have 5 monitors. 7 programs in the taskbar, plus the countless ones hidden in the tray.

> At the time I went to 64 gb they were having a 'deal of a
> lifetime' on 16gb DDR4 sticks and I had the money so 'go for it!'

I have two 32GB sticks, I can install another two.

> These days even if I get carried away I seldom get under 30% free

I can get to 20% free if I run 24 instances of LHC software.

> and coupled with my 1 Tb SSD (which is not huge but big enough to keep the
> OS on) seldom get fouled up except for certain games which think they
> have a god given right to my C drive.

I have a 0.5TB SSD, it only contains Windows, most programs, music, and a large game. The 4TB HDD contains Boinc, TV and films, and copies of installers.

On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 21:32:32 -0000, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 13:09:21 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 06 Feb 2022 10:03:30 -0700, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 05 Feb 2022 22:37:50 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 03 Feb 2022 12:18:35 -0700, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Home or Professional. Right-click on any bank space on the task bar.
>>>>
>>>> My understanding is that Home doesn't work with more than 16gb of RAM.
>>>> True or untrue?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Untrue.
>>>
>>> 32-bit Home - 4MB
>>> 64-bit Home - 128MB
>>>
>>>> I'm using Pro and have 64 gb DDR4)
>>>
>>> OK, but that's a *lot* of RAM for almost everyone. What do you do that
>>> warrants having so much?
>>
>> For me I run two monitors
>
>
> So do I.
>
>
>> and tend to keep lots of apps open at one
>> time.
>
> I have eight open now, the same eight that I almost always have open.
>
> The number of programs that you have *open* doesn't matter very much.
> What's important is the number of programs you have that you are
> actively using.

No, the number of RAM hungry programs, I have one that can use 50GB.

> If you had less RAM, the inactive but open programs
> would quickly get paged out and performance would be about the same.

Not nice if you have a hard disk, and paging to an SSD wears it out, they can only be written to hundreds of times. And most programs still tick over even if you aren't touching them.

> At the moment I'm using 33% of my 32GB, and I rarely use significantly
> more.

Then you haven't lived.

>> At the time I went to 64 gb they were having a 'deal of a
>> lifetime' on 16gb DDR4 sticks and I had the money so 'go for it!'
>
> Understood. That's not very different from the reason for my having
> 32GB. I know I don't need 32GB, and I've never used close to it. But
> as Windows and programs get bigger, I'll need more, so besides it not
> costing a lot more than 16GB, my electing to get 32GB is looking ahead
> to the future.

In the future that RAM will cost far less, so you were stupid.

>> These days even if I get carried away I seldom get under 30% free and
>> coupled with my 1 Tb SSD (which is not huge but big enough to keep the
>> OS on) seldom get fouled up except for certain games which think they
>> have a god given right to my C drive.
>
> I never play games on my computer (except for Fritz or Rybka--and
> that's not very often these day--and Spider Solitaire, which I
> sometimes play just to pass the time if I'm waiting for something).

Then you haven't lived. Fallout 4 is better than real life.

On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 04:38:50 -0000, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

> On Sun, 06 Feb 2022 21:14:42 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
> <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>> Maybe but it had serious performance issues which were fixed for 7
>>
>> I didn't notice any, on fast or slow machines.
>
> I sure did and was grateful for 7

You must have been using a computer you found in the skip.

Ken Blake wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 13:09:21 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
> wrote:
>
> At the moment I'm using 33% of my 32GB, and I rarely use significantly
> more.
>
>
>> At the time I went to 64 gb they were having a 'deal of a
>> lifetime' on 16gb DDR4 sticks and I had the money so 'go for it!'
>
>
> Understood. That's not very different from the reason for my having
> 32GB. I know I don't need 32GB, and I've never used close to it. But
> as Windows and programs get bigger, I'll need more, so besides it not
> costing a lot more than 16GB, my electing to get 32GB is looking ahead
> to the future.

>
I thought about 32 GB, opted for 16 GB.
Figured that the difference for more while not expensive was not value
added for the next 8-10 yrs.

Normal and right now too, is 4-5 programs open, two browsers each with a
few tabs. Using about 20% of 16GB.

Not too worried about o/s or programs getting bigger. Programs grow by
MB, not GB over time.

--
....w¡ñ§±¤ñ
msft mvp 2007-2021

On Tue, 01 Mar 2022 21:54:58 -0000, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 14:32:32 -0700, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Understood. That's not very different from the reason for my having
>> 32GB. I know I don't need 32GB, and I've never used close to it. But
>> as Windows and programs get bigger, I'll need more, so besides it not
>> costing a lot more than 16GB, my electing to get 32GB is looking ahead
>> to the future.
>>
> My personal downfall is leaving far too many browser windows open at
> once. I regularly keep Task Manager open and when I see usage getting
> too high start closing lots of tabs.

What kind of usage? CPU? Memory? Idle memory is just paged.

> I currently have 8 tabs open but 2 of them are Chrome and Firefox and
> I know there are way more than 1 or 2 tabs open as I write this

You must have a very pitiful computer if a browser can overload it. My mobile phone had 50 tabs open at once point (because the stupid browser left them there).

On Wed, 02 Mar 2022 03:28:54 -0000, ...w¡ñ§±¤ñ <winstonmvp@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ken Blake wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 13:09:21 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>> At the moment I'm using 33% of my 32GB, and I rarely use significantly
>> more.
>>
>>
>>> At the time I went to 64 gb they were having a 'deal of a
>>> lifetime' on 16gb DDR4 sticks and I had the money so 'go for it!'
>>
>>
>> Understood. That's not very different from the reason for my having
>> 32GB. I know I don't need 32GB, and I've never used close to it. But
>> as Windows and programs get bigger, I'll need more, so besides it not
>> costing a lot more than 16GB, my electing to get 32GB is looking ahead
>> to the future.
>
>>
> I thought about 32 GB, opted for 16 GB.
> Figured that the difference for more while not expensive was not value
> added for the next 8-10 yrs.
>
> Normal and right now too, is 4-5 programs open, two browsers each with a
> few tabs. Using about 20% of 16GB.
>
> Not too worried about o/s or programs getting bigger. Programs grow by
> MB, not GB over time.

You don't do enough interesting stuff, I get 50/64GB used quite often.

On 3/2/2022 1:52 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Mar 2022 21:54:58 -0000, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 14:32:32 -0700, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Understood. That's not very different from the reason for my having
>>> 32GB. I know I don't need 32GB, and I've never used close to it. But
>>> as Windows and programs get bigger, I'll need more, so besides it not
>>> costing a lot more than 16GB, my electing to get 32GB is looking ahead
>>> to the future.
>>>
>> My personal downfall is leaving far too many browser windows open at
>> once. I regularly keep Task Manager open and when I see usage getting
>> too high start closing lots of tabs.
>
> What kind of usage?  CPU?  Memory?  Idle memory is just paged.
>
>> I currently have 8 tabs open but 2 of them are Chrome and Firefox and
>> I know there are way more than 1 or 2 tabs open as I write this
>
> You must have a very pitiful computer if a browser can overload it.
> My mobile phone had 50 tabs open at once point (because the stupid
> browser left them there).

You know about the browser bug, right ?

It looks like a browser memory leak, but it's more complicated
than that.

I've had a few cases, where the browser (even with *one* tab),
can use all the memory on the machine.

So one day, I come back from the kitchen, and my browser
is open where I left it. I glance at Task Manager (in other words,
hands off, not touching anything), and the browser is not updating
the page, yet the browser memory is shooting up.

And if you look at the rate the memory is shooting up, it could
correspond to a pixmap the browser is drawing 60 times a second.
Firefox should pass these to DWM, and DWM should composite them.
The memory could be returned to the free pool, if only DWM would
do its job.

But in this case, the visual appearance suggests DWM is not incorporating
anything the browser is doing.

My theory is, that instead of using a double buffered interface
and dropping frames on a failure, they just keep pouring the frames
to DWM. Since DWM is not processing them, there's a queue, an infinitely
long queue forming. And that's what is eating the RAM. It's a DWM
failure to respond. Which is not the same thing as a video card
failure to respond which is covered by a watchdog timer in hardware.

Initially, there were theories it was related to Javascript code
or to Service Worker running in the browser. Since I've had a second
browser with the same problem (Seamonkey), and Seamonkey has Service
Workers disabled by default, that's not it. And while it's fine to blame
that banner crap at the bottom of a web page, that so many sites use,
I'm not convinced that is it.

About:Performance in the browser, is rather non-committal. In one case,
there was tons of memory being used in the very long Performance listing.
But in a second case of the running-out-of-RAM thing, About:Performance
claimed the current tab was using 350KB or so. Task Manager said
3GB of memory was being used by x64 Firefox.

It's a good puzzle, if you love puzzles.

Paul

On Wed, 02 Mar 2022 08:37:15 -0000, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

> On 3/2/2022 1:52 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Tue, 01 Mar 2022 21:54:58 -0000, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 14:32:32 -0700, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Understood. That's not very different from the reason for my having
>>>> 32GB. I know I don't need 32GB, and I've never used close to it. But
>>>> as Windows and programs get bigger, I'll need more, so besides it not
>>>> costing a lot more than 16GB, my electing to get 32GB is looking ahead
>>>> to the future.
>>>>
>>> My personal downfall is leaving far too many browser windows open at
>>> once. I regularly keep Task Manager open and when I see usage getting
>>> too high start closing lots of tabs.
>>
>> What kind of usage? CPU? Memory? Idle memory is just paged.
>>
>>> I currently have 8 tabs open but 2 of them are Chrome and Firefox and
>>> I know there are way more than 1 or 2 tabs open as I write this
>>
>> You must have a very pitiful computer if a browser can overload it.
>> My mobile phone had 50 tabs open at once point (because the stupid
>> browser left them there).
>
> You know about the browser bug, right ?
>
> It looks like a browser memory leak, but it's more complicated
> than that.
>
> I've had a few cases, where the browser (even with *one* tab),
> can use all the memory on the machine.
>
> So one day, I come back from the kitchen, and my browser
> is open where I left it. I glance at Task Manager (in other words,
> hands off, not touching anything), and the browser is not updating
> the page, yet the browser memory is shooting up.
>
> And if you look at the rate the memory is shooting up, it could
> correspond to a pixmap the browser is drawing 60 times a second.
> Firefox should pass these to DWM, and DWM should composite them.
> The memory could be returned to the free pool, if only DWM would
> do its job.
>
> But in this case, the visual appearance suggests DWM is not incorporating
> anything the browser is doing.
>
> My theory is, that instead of using a double buffered interface
> and dropping frames on a failure, they just keep pouring the frames
> to DWM. Since DWM is not processing them, there's a queue, an infinitely
> long queue forming. And that's what is eating the RAM. It's a DWM
> failure to respond. Which is not the same thing as a video card
> failure to respond which is covered by a watchdog timer in hardware.
>
> Initially, there were theories it was related to Javascript code
> or to Service Worker running in the browser. Since I've had a second
> browser with the same problem (Seamonkey), and Seamonkey has Service
> Workers disabled by default, that's not it. And while it's fine to blame
> that banner crap at the bottom of a web page, that so many sites use,
> I'm not convinced that is it.
>
> About:Performance in the browser, is rather non-committal. In one case,
> there was tons of memory being used in the very long Performance listing.
> But in a second case of the running-out-of-RAM thing, About:Performance
> claimed the current tab was using 350KB or so. Task Manager said
> 3GB of memory was being used by x64 Firefox.
>
> It's a good puzzle, if you love puzzles.

Well I've never had it happen to Opera. Blame Firefox.

On Wed, 02 Mar 2022 06:52:05 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
<CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

>> My personal downfall is leaving far too many browser windows open at
>> once. I regularly keep Task Manager open and when I see usage getting
>> too high start closing lots of tabs.
>
>What kind of usage? CPU? Memory? Idle memory is just paged.
>
>> I currently have 8 tabs open but 2 of them are Chrome and Firefox and
>> I know there are way more than 1 or 2 tabs open as I write this
>
>You must have a very pitiful computer if a browser can overload it. My mobile phone had 50 tabs open at once point (because the stupid browser left them there).

64 gb ram, at the time I wrote that I had both Chrome + Firefox open
with about 30-40 tabs open between them plus Skyrim, Civ 6 and an
online game plus a couple more lesser apps. I was watching Task Manage
at the time and it was saying 60+% CPU (Right now it's 15% and
everything is flying)

On Wed, 02 Mar 2022 06:54:20 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
<CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 02 Mar 2022 03:28:54 -0000, ...w¡ñ§±¤ñ <winstonmvp@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ken Blake wrote:
>>> On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 13:09:21 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>> I thought about 32 GB, opted for 16 GB.
>> Figured that the difference for more while not expensive was not value
>> added for the next 8-10 yrs.

The important thing is to get the biggest memory stick you can afford
and get your 16gb and still have memory slots open for future
expansion. It's the cheapest and most cost effective upgrade available
most of the time.

I made that mistake on a previous machine thinking to save a bit of
money but getting myself into a situation that if I wanted an upgrade
having to replace ALL my RAM. Never again.

I tend to have a bad habit of leaving tabs open when not in use -
right now I have 10 open and not too many browser tabs open but that
is often not the case. I've noticed MS Office in particular can get
sluggish when I have too much going on

>> Normal and right now too, is 4-5 programs open, two browsers each with a
>> few tabs. Using about 20% of 16GB.
>>
>> Not too worried about o/s or programs getting bigger. Programs grow by
>> MB, not GB over time.
>
>You don't do enough interesting stuff, I get 50/64GB used quite often.

On Sun, 20 Mar 2022 17:40:59 -0000, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

> On Wed, 02 Mar 2022 06:52:05 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
> <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>> My personal downfall is leaving far too many browser windows open at
>>> once. I regularly keep Task Manager open and when I see usage getting
>>> too high start closing lots of tabs.
>>
>> What kind of usage? CPU? Memory? Idle memory is just paged.
>>
>>> I currently have 8 tabs open but 2 of them are Chrome and Firefox and
>>> I know there are way more than 1 or 2 tabs open as I write this
>>
>> You must have a very pitiful computer if a browser can overload it. My mobile phone had 50 tabs open at once point (because the stupid browser left them there).
>
> 64 gb ram, at the time I wrote that I had both Chrome + Firefox open
> with about 30-40 tabs open between them

I've never had Opera overload my computer even with multiple tabs. Then again, 30-40?! How can your brain keep track of that?

> plus Skyrim, Civ 6 and an
> online game plus a couple more lesser apps.

Games don't usually get on with each other, they all like direct hardware access, especially to the GPU.

> I was watching Task Manage
> at the time and it was saying 60+% CPU (Right now it's 15% and
> everything is flying)

My CPU is normally 100%. I run Boinc.

On Sun, 20 Mar 2022 17:46:21 -0000, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

> On Wed, 02 Mar 2022 06:54:20 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
> <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 02 Mar 2022 03:28:54 -0000, ...w¡ñ§±¤ñ <winstonmvp@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Ken Blake wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 13:09:21 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>> I thought about 32 GB, opted for 16 GB.
>>> Figured that the difference for more while not expensive was not value
>>> added for the next 8-10 yrs.
>
> The important thing is to get the biggest memory stick you can afford
> and get your 16gb and still have memory slots open for future
> expansion. It's the cheapest and most cost effective upgrade available
> most of the time.
>
> I made that mistake on a previous machine thinking to save a bit of
> money but getting myself into a situation that if I wanted an upgrade
> having to replace ALL my RAM. Never again.

I've done that but for another reason - to have multi channel memory. It's not actually a help for most things anyway. So on this machine it takes 4 of up to 32GB sticks. I bought one 32GB stick assuming the single channel wouldn't slow it much, but I'd never haver to remove that stick. I later needed more than 32GB and wanted to see if dual channel would help a game. It didn't much, but I needed the extra space. So I now have 32GB, 32GB, two spaces.

On 3/21/2022 12:00 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Mar 2022 17:46:21 -0000, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 02 Mar 2022 06:54:20 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
>> <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 02 Mar 2022 03:28:54 -0000, ...w¡ñ§±¤ñ <winstonmvp@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ken Blake wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 13:09:21 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> I thought about 32 GB, opted for 16 GB.
>>>> Figured that the difference for more while not expensive was not value
>>>> added for the next 8-10 yrs.
>>
>> The important thing is to get the biggest memory stick you can afford
>> and get your 16gb and still have memory slots open for future
>> expansion. It's the cheapest and most cost effective upgrade available
>> most of the time.
>>
>> I made that mistake on a previous machine thinking to save a bit of
>> money but getting myself into a situation that if I wanted an upgrade
>> having to replace ALL my RAM. Never again.
>
> I've done that but for another reason - to have multi channel memory.  It's not actually a help for most things anyway.  So on this machine it takes 4 of up to 32GB sticks.  I bought one 32GB stick assuming the single channel wouldn't slow it much, but I'd never haver to remove that stick.  I later needed more than 32GB and wanted to see if dual channel would help a game.  It didn't much, but I needed the extra space.  So I now have 32GB, 32GB, two spaces.

Did you consult the manual on the channel layout ?

You could end up like this:

Channel Channel Single channel mode
32GB X
32GB X

Channel Channel Dual channel mode
32GB 32GB
X X

One way to monitor and figure it out, is to
use "memtest86+" or similar, which has a
readout of L1, L2, Main Memory bandwidths.
You could measure the system while there
was only one stick present with the Memtest.

Then, install two sticks, and see if the bandwidth
changed by 30% or something. That might be a
dual channel result.

One of the most sensitive applications is 7Z compression.
(Or WinRAR compression, for those people who bought
the program.)

Many other programs really don't care about memory layout
all that much.

When you have more sticks, you can have more Pages
open, but this is not a cost-effective way of getting
more from the CPU. Just as speeding up the RAM and
paying twice as much for it, isn't all that wonderful.

Channel Channel Dual channel mode
32GB 32GB
32GB 32GB

With interleaving, as you go up through the memory
space, you alternate between (horizontal) DIMM pairs.
The pages stay open on the sticks, so that more
accesses can be done without opening a page again.
That buys you, like, 1% or 2% or so (yes, I can
see you're excited).

Paul

On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 08:53:29 -0000, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

> On 3/21/2022 12:00 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Mar 2022 17:46:21 -0000, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 02 Mar 2022 06:54:20 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
>>> <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 02 Mar 2022 03:28:54 -0000, ...w¡ñ§±¤ñ <winstonmvp@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ken Blake wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 13:09:21 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>> I thought about 32 GB, opted for 16 GB.
>>>>> Figured that the difference for more while not expensive was not value
>>>>> added for the next 8-10 yrs.
>>>
>>> The important thing is to get the biggest memory stick you can afford
>>> and get your 16gb and still have memory slots open for future
>>> expansion. It's the cheapest and most cost effective upgrade available
>>> most of the time.
>>>
>>> I made that mistake on a previous machine thinking to save a bit of
>>> money but getting myself into a situation that if I wanted an upgrade
>>> having to replace ALL my RAM. Never again.
>>
>> I've done that but for another reason - to have multi channel memory. It's not actually a help for most things anyway. So on this machine it takes 4 of up to 32GB sticks. I bought one 32GB stick assuming the single channel wouldn't slow it much, but I'd never haver to remove that stick. I later needed more than 32GB and wanted to see if dual channel would help a game. It didn't much, but I needed the extra space. So I now have 32GB, 32GB, two spaces.
>
> Did you consult the manual on the channel layout ?
>
> You could end up like this:
>
> Channel Channel Single channel mode
> 32GB X
> 32GB X
>
> Channel Channel Dual channel mode
> 32GB 32GB
> X X
>
> One way to monitor and figure it out, is to
> use "memtest86+" or similar, which has a
> readout of L1, L2, Main Memory bandwidths.
> You could measure the system while there
> was only one stick present with the Memtest.
>
> Then, install two sticks, and see if the bandwidth
> changed by 30% or something. That might be a
> dual channel result.
>
> One of the most sensitive applications is 7Z compression.
> (Or WinRAR compression, for those people who bought
> the program.)
>
> Many other programs really don't care about memory layout
> all that much.
>
> When you have more sticks, you can have more Pages
> open, but this is not a cost-effective way of getting
> more from the CPU. Just as speeding up the RAM and
> paying twice as much for it, isn't all that wonderful.
>
> Channel Channel Dual channel mode
> 32GB 32GB
> 32GB 32GB
>
> With interleaving, as you go up through the memory
> space, you alternate between (horizontal) DIMM pairs.
> The pages stay open on the sticks, so that more
> accesses can be done without opening a page again.
> That buys you, like, 1% or 2% or so (yes, I can
> see you're excited).

Yes I checked the manual, it's definitely dual channel. I used to build computers for a living, I know how they work.

Bandwidth helps for some programs and not others, I found a 0-30% difference. Not 100% unfortunately. Pah, I needed the RAM capacity anyway.