I wouldn't even consider using MSI Afterburner for anything like that.Silly me. I thought you might be running something like MSI Afterburner or Task Manager Performance in the background and monitoring your computer system to see the max speeds and usages of the various PC components. Thereby determining that you were using close to the maximum RAM usage and could benefit from either faster or more RAM capacity. Instead you are just flying by the seat of your pants which is not what I would expect from a tech site. .
I think people say 16GB is the "sweet spot" for gaming/basic desktop use. Most people I see giving advice on these forums for how much RAM to get add a caveat that you may benefit from more if you're doing media production/content creation. Which is basically in line with this article (except for the bit about wanting two ranks per channel, but that doesn't necessarily require 32GB).We keep saying 16GB is the “sweet spot,” of memory capacity. So why aren’t we all using it?
I have more screenshots that show less than 70% use with 16GB under the same scenario as the 32GB screenshot. And the difference is that fewer things are cached to DRAM. In fact, I believe one thing we didn't hit on in enough detail is that certain browsers will cache fewer files in an attempt NOT to dip into virtual memory.I have 16 GB at work and my Task Manager is always showing 15 GB in use. In addition to the normal Outlook and handful of applications running, I have 3 browsers open with about 25 tabs each. If I try to open both Visual Studio and SQL Server, my system will grind to a halt, if not crash. I definitely need to upgrade to 32 GB RAM.
However, Linux may have better memory management than Windows (and LibreOffice v MS Office applications) as I only have 8 GB on my 10 year old computer at home and usually don't run out of memory. I do only have 2 browsers open there with maybe 15 tabs each and not keeping so many applications running as I'm only using that computer maybe an hour or so a day v. 8 hours at work. But since memory is cheap these days, so when I replace/upgrade that computer, I'll definitely go for 32 GB. Memory is much more important than processor speed in my opinion. When you run out of memory, the computer will grind to a halt and/or crash, but a slower processor (and slower memory and slower bus) just means things take a bit longer to open, compile/process...
If you're doing software dev work, I'd go 64gb if you can... Even from 32gb it's been a night and day difference for me recently. I'm using Linux on the system in question and usually have multiple databases and backemd services running.... If I try to open both Visual Studio and SQL Server, my system will grind to a halt, if not crash. I definitely need to upgrade to 32 GB RAM.
... Memory is much more important than processor speed in my opinion. When you run out of memory, the computer will grind to a halt and/or crash, but a slower processor (and slower memory and slower bus) just means things take a bit longer to open, compile/process...
No. You can get better gaming performance from 32GB of DDR4-2800 C14 than from 16GB of DDR4-3600 C18, which our article compared like that so that the ratio of frequency to latency would be constant.It appears to come down to 'Do you want more TIME for running 50 programs at once by buying cheap 32GB of ram' or 'Do you want more FPS by buying expensive 16GB very nice timing 14 or 15 CAS 3000MHz+ ram?'
It really1 depends on what you do with your machine.
Why would I want to do that when, for the $60 price difference, I can run all of those processes at once? It's not like I'm starved for CPU or storage resourcesDear The Article Writer,
If you need 32 GB - 64 GB for what you describe in your article then please take this advice.
This is a constructive criticism.
Learn to optimize your computer processes -> Task Manager.
Focus and launch ONLY what you need.
You can achieve this ONLY at 16 GB with Windows 10 1909.
I hope that helps you and thanks for sharing your article with us.