8 oder 16 gb ram 






=>  http://trannetviczmen.nnmcloud.ru/d?s=YToyOntzOjc6InJlZmVyZXIiO3M6MjE6Imh0dHA6Ly9iaXRiaW4uaXQyX2RsLyI7czozOiJrZXkiO3M6MTY6Ijggb2RlciAxNiBnYiByYW0iO30=




































I'd just check the supported memory list on the Motherboard manufacturer's web site to make sure I'm buying something compatible with it, and I'd read though user feedback for the product I'm buying to see if others had any issues with it. But then again, my principal uses are Office multiple document types open at the same time , browsing with at least 2-3 tabs open and sometimes I may have a desktop version of a program also running. Basic Intel Integrated Graphics are poor.
For our tests we assumed that normal browsing behavior included the use of multiple browser tabs, with no additional measures taken to cut down on data usage; meaning no ad blockers, no special permissions for media, and no other data-saving measures. If you are keeping 128, go with 8. Once you have 'enough' memory for all your applications to run, having more memory won't increase performance any further.
The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Condé Nast. With the quad core i7 I feel it would last longer too without the processor becoming such a big bottleneck. The impact won't be huge but it exists. We opened all of our office files, maxing out the least demanding test we ran. Part of our ThrowbackThursday initiative.
8 or 16GB RAM? - I was hoping to somewhat future proof it with this but I could use this one and upgrade to the inevitable Surface Book 2 in 1.
If your mobo will support higher go for it. Though as Barry said, I doubt I would notice 4 additional gb if I had a dbl channel mobo. For benchmarks that look at memory speed as part of the test, sure. Here's one example of an article testing different types of memory: Here's another: Here's another article with lots of tests using Sandy Bridge chipsets: Gotta love some of the conclusion page. I'd just check the supported memory list on the Motherboard manufacturer's web site to make sure I'm buying something compatible with it, and I'd read though user feedback for the product I'm buying to see if others had any issues with it. But, Windows should also use most of the available memory for Disk Cache purposes. You can of course turn your swap file off which I've done for my desktop. Some ideas: It is possible to change the Windows setting to reduce the swap file size, correct. RedFox88 wrote: reid thaler wrote: I'm building a new system. 8 oder 16 gb ram can of course turn your swap file off which I've done for my desktop. No one else does In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane. Well up to a point my board takes up to 32Gb or ram in 8Gb x 4 sticks. But that's pretty expensive to deck that out at the max ram wise. To be honest yes ram is cheap so no reason to skimp for the sake of a modest outlay 16Gb is pretty cheap to do in 4Gb modules that is I can't say I noticed a difference with 8Gb though. Well up to a point my board takes up to 32Gb or ram in 8Gb x 4 sticks. But that's pretty expensive to deck that out at the max ram wise. To be honest yes ram is cheap so no reason to skimp for the sake of a modest outlay 16Gb is pretty cheap to do in 4Gb modules that is 8 oder 16 gb ram can't say I noticed a difference with 8Gb though. I can't see any reason to even think about 32Gb though even for very demanding users I agree. The two 4gig chips currently in it will go to another mobo that has room for 4 chips currently holding 2gig chips. I will add 2 more 4gig chips to it and have both systems running with 16gig perfect for running Lightroom 4.