Jump to content

Asus Stuffs 12 GB of RAM into Gaming Laptop


digip
 Share

Recommended Posts

nice specs on that shit. i dont really see any need for 12 gigs of ram just yet though. i mean i have two laptops with 4 gigs each and i never even use more than half at any given point. with the exception of a couple apps. but that is nice for bragging rights. i know some of the dell xps notebooks ive been looking at want 600+ dollars for the 8gig ram uprade so i dont imagine that this thing stuffed with 12 gigs of ddr3 is gonna be less than 4-5k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really not impressive, given that 4GB DIMMs are becoming more cost effective and intels new platforms are making use of tri-channel memory this was as likely to happen as it will be dark tonight.

What was impressive was samsung recently announcing that they have made a breakthrough with memory chips and will be soon making 8Gb individual chips.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well slap me side ways, a single stick of 8gb of ram. Damn now that would be awesome for bragging rights and erect a massive e-penis stiffy!

No, 8Gb chips, now count the number of chips on your DIMMs. It should allow for single DIMMs to carry up to 32GB of memory. Then allow that most computers have >=4 DIMM slots and you can do the final calculation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh whoopsy I mis-read your posting, my bad.

But fuck chips even better.

One question what the hell would one do with 32gb of memory..... wait let me rephrase that, what can't you do with 32gb's of memory. =P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those who think that you would never need 12 gb of Ram two words.. Bill Gates

" Who in their right mind would ever need more than 640k of RAM?"

or

"640k should be more than enough for anybody."

Quote Depends on Source...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those who think that you would never need 12 gb of Ram two words.. Bill Gates

" Who in their right mind would ever need more than 640k of RAM?"

or

"640k should be more than enough for anybody."

Quote Depends on Source...

The amount of RAM required by the average computer user hasn't changed in a long time, memory usage will level out for most people (assuming no radical developments that require lots of memory).

Given the fact that most people don't even come close to using 2GB properly, the only reason why computers are shipping with more is because people think more is always getter and so will pay for it, even if they won't use it, its also one of the areas that has a high-mark up for the computer builder.

Its even looking like digital cameras number of pixels is leveling off, because they've realized that people don't need more than 12MP really, given that photo correction is the the biggest use of memory in a normal system, if the number of pixels don't go up, not much need for more memory. Also providing the fact that most people just click the buttons for brightness and red-eye reduction.

Before anyone needs any more memory, both the OS managing it and the applications using it need to be away for the large memory footprint available, current they have no idea what they are doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Doe and Joe Shmo may not need more than 2GB of RAM or a 12MP digicam, but I do. But i'm not a normal user. Normal users were happy with 35mm film cameras where as I preffered large format cameras with negatives the size of most peoples actual prints. Nowadays I use stiching to make 400 megapixel images. I use tons of RAM because i like having multiple VM's and applications open.

Vista/2008 is pretty good at managing large amounts of RAM, Windows 7 seems better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my expirence it is better to have more RAM and a less capable CPU than to have a shit hot CPU backed by a small amount of RAM. I have an E6750, which is an OK processor but certainly not amazing anymore, but with 8GB of RAM it is quite happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'll notice performance problems from lack of memory way before lack of cpu power.

I ran a Ahtlon 800MHz for about 4 years perfectly fine, because it had 768MB of memory, which was about 3 times as much as most computers at the time,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well tbh, i said that about:

64mb w/win95

256mb w/win98

512mb w/winme

1 gig w/xp

3 gig w/vista..

all of which I was wrong (yah you see where this is going... i learned now)

I now side with the likes of vako and stingwray... Buy all the memory you can cause it will make ALL the differece..

Funny thing about all this is 7 is the only microsoft os you dont have to upgrade to actually properly upgrade to for maximum performance.....

lol, when I used to be not so computer savvy (well savvy but not like now around the win95/win98/me days) i used to think that microsoft would purposely mess with the the performance of the next windows system to make it run poor on older hardware so you would have to upgrade.. (hmm.. could be true?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, they just add new features which require more resources to run. For example, fully indexing the contents of your hard drive allows you to search for files far more easily than previously, but at the cost of maintaining that index. Same with Areo or Compiz, it uses more resources and power to produce a better result, and if your computer can handle this then it is indeed awesome, if it can't it sucks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it seems good but for the price it will be a waste especially if you just want to game, no game uses that much memory and by the time they do need that much memory, the system would be obsolete

My pc only has 2GB memory running windows xp, I can run photoshop cs3, image ready, Maya 3d, adobe bridge and second life and things will still run smoothly

these tools are needed when your making sculpted objects with animated textures in second life.

I can also run crysis maxed out with no lag

while i will still benefit from moving to 4GB which i wont do until I get a new cpu, motherboard and ram, it runs pretty well

PS gamers don't like to run a million + 1 programs while gaming because background processes don't just eat up memory, they eat up memory bandwidth and cpu cycles and if the windows are styled or use a theme, they also eat up video memory and will often force your card to accelerate both opengl and d3d at the same time which introduces a large performance hit

a system with those specs is more suited to a person who doesn't game but runs a crap load of apps (in which case, they can go with a 8600m, and lower end hardware for the gaming related parts and focus more on cpu speed and memory bandwidth )

thats why you will notice that if you disable all useless windows services and startup items that you don't need, you can get a few hundred extra points on your 3dmark score, or increase your memory bandwidth benchmark by almost 600MB/s to 1GB/s and get a lower average cpu usage. (these effects are noticed even on the most high end systems )

cant multitask as much with vista and benchmarks are lower (so more ram and a faster cpu is needed for me to get to the current performance of my windows xp install and to run the same programs, i hate when people talk about all of the improvements of vista and things about memory management and other crap, it doesn't mean much if it is still slower than the old os and does the same thing )

reqqdn2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those scary looking numbers you have completely fail to take into account the 7 years between XP's RTM and Vistas RTM. Plus, they are crap. The HD space is largely stuff like caching, page file difference and hibination files, the memory requirements are crap because while XP will kinda run on 64mb of RAM, in practice anything less than 512mb is useless with XP and a 233MHz processor is outpaced by my phone and has been for a few years now. Yes, Vista required a new machine and was not suitable for upgrades, but your mashing the numbers to make them look far worse than they actually are. Get a decent machine made in the last year and Vista will be fine. You remind me so much of the people who claimed XP was a resource hog and they would never use it.

Lastly, second life isn't a game, its a furry sex simulator. Its always run like a dog on every bit of hardware i've seen it on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...