Hardware Analysis Community Forums http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/45931/ 2008-09-07T12:32:13-05:00 http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/45931/ http://media.hardwareanalysis.com/halogo.gif text/html 2008-05-04T05:44:24-05:00 FordGT90Concept http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/45931/?l=1#535148 So true. Often, the fault often lands on the OEM that built the computer even though there is no computer issues. I had a major bout with this a week ago where people expect the computer to magically make something work in less than an hour when it doesn't even have the software to do that. Computers themselves often get blamed for user errors and, if the individual is known who assembled the computer, the blame inadvertently ends up on him/her when 90% of the time, it has nothing to do with the hardware/environment in the first place.<br /> <br /> <br /> I also second that comment on using consumer parts in critical situations. The same place that blames me for all their user errors are also using a P4 <a target="_blank" href="/action/r/http://www.dell.com/">Dell</a> system as their server. It's probably off about 1 in 73 days. Nothing is backed up and nothing is redundant. I hope I'm not around when the s**t hits that fan 'cause it's gonna get ugh-al-eee. I'll get the last laugh though for them not heeding my warning. XD text/html 2008-05-04T05:28:51-05:00 john albrich http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/45931/?l=1#535145 FordGT90Concept said: <div class="quote">...Anyway, it ultimately comes down to risk management. On consumer products, the risk is so minuscule that there is no reason to manage it....</div><br /> <br /> Unfortunately, the line between &quot;consumer&quot; tasks and critical tasks has been blurred. The average consumer considers modern computers virtually infallible (yet ironically tends to first blame &quot;the computer&quot; when something goes wrong)<br /> <br /> One concern I have is that people who do not understand the risks, use &quot;consumer&quot; products to perform critical tasks. The temptation to do so increases substantially when they are forced to keep costs down.<br /> <br /> So, we see &quot;consumer&quot; level products used to provide prescription management, financial transaction management, vote tabulation, etc. All places where single-bit errors can make a huge (and sometimes fatal) difference.<br /> text/html 2008-05-04T04:42:32-05:00 FordGT90Concept http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/45931/?l=1#535134 It only takes one random electron flicking a bit that contains critical information in a memory module to cause, potentially, catastrophic system failure. The lower the density of memory, the less likely for a random electron to trigger such an event. My guess is that improved materials are keeping pace with consumer demands so that ECC is segregated to the server markets; however, I don't know because I haven't seen any recent data on the subject. I would be nervous putting more than 4 GiB memory in a computer that is non-ECC unless some studies have come out suggesting the ~3 GiB risk/benefit scale has shifted.<br /> <br /> Also, since FB-DIMM looks to be the way of the future, the on-silicon chip can do a lot of the ECC work without involving the memory controller which means minimal loss of performance.<br /> <br /> Anyway, it ultimately comes down to risk management. On consumer products, the risk is so minuscule that there is no reason to manage it. So, if you want 8 GiB memory, pick up 4 x 2 GiB sticks of memory and hope for the best. Otherwise, look at 4 or 8 DIMM ECC-enabled servers. They aren't as quick but the odds of those rare memory mishaps are almost non-existent.<br /> <br /> <br /> Update: After doing some quick Googling, all I can come up with is dumbed down definitions of ECC. I'm not finding any recent studies on high density memory. text/html 2008-05-04T04:17:37-05:00 Gerritt http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/45931/?l=1#535123 ECC memory serves a specific function, in a specific product and user catagory.<br /> The specific product/user catagory is any system that must be running 24/7/365 running long term analysis or threads that can not be interupted...over a period of days/weeks or months.<br /> Financial and weather modeling comes to mind, as well as any other simulation that requires multi day/week or month continuity in memory transactions.<br /> <br /> ECC memory serves the function of being able to recover from cosmic ray impingement, something that is very rare, but can happen over a period of time. If the expenditure in time is high enough, there is more than enough rationale to getting ECC memory, but only on the Server level, these types of processes do not run on workstations...typically.<br /> <br /> Gerritt text/html 2008-05-04T04:05:43-05:00 Admiral Cokehead http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/45931/?l=1#535121 I googled '8GB RAM' to see if there was any empirical data to support my thought of having 8GB of RAM instead of my currently planned 4.<br /> <br /> You really had a bad tone, Paul. I didn't really appreciate it to be honest with you.<br /> <br /> You seemed to be way too serious when talking about something relatively simple. You had some very valid information and plenty of links to back yourself up, but your tone was horribly mocking. Not sure who you were expecting to read your stuff when you were making them all seem to be idiots.<br /> <br /> Just relax. It's the internet, you're on a forum. If you disagree, you make your points, debate a little, and when you've felt you won/lost/are bored of it, you leave and the topic stays with the topic. With the tone you were using, it seemed like you were just asking everyone to assume you were a pompous prick with every post you made.<br /> <br /> Just my thougths. Back to the internet.<br /> <br /> *wave* text/html 2008-05-03T04:21:13-05:00 john albrich http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/45931/?l=1#535060 FordGT90Concept said: <div class="quote">...Server-class (ECC) memory costs on average twice as much as consumer stuff. $50 will get you a 2 GiB non-ECC stick while that same $50 will only get you a 1 GiB ECC stick....</div> Yeah...there's really no reason for ECC mem to be that much more expensive. Of course in a business where a 1GB stick price is increased to $80 in the days before Christmas, and $20 a few days after, any kind of gouging is possible.<br /> text/html 2008-05-03T03:01:53-05:00 FordGT90Concept http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/45931/?l=1#535056 The last bit I read on that was 3 GiB being the limit. More than that, the rate of corruption is too high to not use ECC memory. This article was like two-four years ago when I read it and I suspect it was written long before that so, I don't know. Personally, I wouldn't go higher than 4 GiB non-ECC.<br /> <br /> Edit: Server-class (ECC) memory costs on average twice as much as consumer stuff. $50 will get you a 2 GiB non-ECC stick while that same $50 will only get you a 1 GiB ECC stick.<br /> <br /> Maybe the answer to those random electrons is in in memory stick shielding rather than ECC--at least for consumer parts. text/html 2008-05-03T02:17:47-05:00 john albrich http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/45931/?l=1#535053 Vista is now requiring a huge amount of RAM for optimal functionality, and 8GB will be on its way to becoming the &quot;norm&quot;. Windows7 may just do the trick.<br /> <br /> Has anyone looked into how the increased density of RAM, faster speeds, and larger amount of installed RAM increases the probability of data errors? (I would hypothesize it's a non-linear function)<br /> <br /> I would expect that at least some of the currently unexplained system freezes, BSODs, etc. could be attributed to RAM bit errors.<br /> <br /> It would seem to me that ECC with multi-bit correction is soon going to be a <b>requirement</b> for acceptably reliable computing even on home systems. text/html 2008-05-02T23:28:25-05:00 Dave Kinghorn http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/45931/?l=1#535045 <img src="http://media.hardwareanalysis.com/smilies/smile11.gif" width="14" height="14" border="0" alt=":cool:" title=":cool:"> 8GB+ is RECOMMENDED for a few CAD systems when you run them in &quot;Large Assembly Mode.&quot; For example, SolidWorks makes this recommendation. I imagine ProEngineer, AutoCAD, ProMechanica, and all the simulators like Ansys, HFSS all make this same recommendation. CAD systems are RAM &amp; CPU Hungry programs, but their video is quite rudimentary and can use the simplest video cards, little mobile cards that will crash Tiberium Wars, or Chronicals of Riddick, easily support hardcore CAD programs. But ALL these CAD programs begin to choke &amp; gag with low amounts of system RAM when the item you are working on becomes too big &amp; detailed for the amount of system RAM you have. For example a V8 engine, including all nuts, bolts, hoses, belts.. everything... has hundreds of individual parts, each one of which in turn has hundreds of details... and the program must keep live track of all of them in system RAM. If you have only 4GB system RAM, it will take FOREVER to do ANYTHING to this model, but you will not notice any slowdown with 8GB. Now, build the rest of the car around the engine, and now you have a really large assembly, and you'll need 16-32 GB to avoid choking. These delays can take 5 minutes or more. Games on the other hand are VIDEO RAM &amp; Processor hungry, and dont particularly care much about the system RAM. Going from 2GB up to 8 GB system RAM will most likely be unnoticable. Going from 128MB Video RAM up to 512MB Video RAM will make the difference between new games crashing or running. But I think the hardcore gamers now are all testing out this new dual video card technology &quot;SLI.&quot; Seems the brand new DirectX 10 games are real Video Processor &amp; RAM glutons... No doubt my 7 year old will demand an <a target="_blank" href="/action/r/http://www.alienware.com/">Alienware</a> rig soon... <img src="http://media.hardwareanalysis.com/smilies/smile16.gif" width="14" height="14" border="0" alt=":/" title=":/"> text/html 2008-02-04T07:23:14-05:00 John Doe http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/45931/?l=1#527827 With $50/2gb ddr2 667mhz, hell I can affort 8gb and not breaking my bank account. Doing so also keep everyone in the memory business happy, of course I am happy too with that price. Who knows, may be the computer industry will bring more incentives when their cash flow starts drizzling down. Say an offer for a new 128 bits operating system that requires minimum of 8gb of ddr4. The money train is constantly in motion. Just a speculation, mind you. text/html 2008-01-29T18:18:19-05:00 daniel ortiz http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/45931/?l=1#527208 i use 8gb of ram on my current computer no biggie it was less than $200 text/html 2007-06-20T18:18:44-05:00 Paul Martinez http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/45931/?l=1#498102 Since last contributing to this thread, I started working for Microsoft in Redmond. The developers all have machines with 8gb of RAM (64-bit OS obviously). At this point, they are still &quot;considered&quot; by Microsoft to be expensive and high-end, so they are all hosted at a central location and everyone works via Remote Desktop (on a low-end 1 or 2gb machine). But there's a ton of 'em. And no, they aren't partitioned with Terminal Server or Virtual Server or some kind of hypervisor, everyone gets their own 8gb machine. text/html 2007-06-20T15:39:01-05:00 Lou Bot http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/45931/?l=1#498088 I remember this post. The original poster was posting other topics of extremely high-end hardware or components that he can purchase. I wonder if he ever got around buying the stuff.<br /> text/html 2007-06-20T03:18:47-05:00 FordGT90Concept http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/45931/?l=1#498043 Games don't push computers beyond what AMD and NVIDIA produce which is quite miniscule when you consider how a single eight-way processor can easily cost over $2000 each with banks of memory and hard drives costing several tens of thousands of dollars.<br /> <br /> Scientific needs push the envelope the most for computers (facilitate the need for super computers). Databases push the need for more processors, memory, hard drives, and throughput. CAD pushes the envelope for graphics. Games take CAD and simplify it making it capable of being rendered on the fly--software is mostly to thank for that.<br /> <br /> Developers don't push the need for better hardware--they use what they have to the best of their ability. The need to handle more data faster drives the need for better hardware. Consider how we got here from the first computers. It wasn't because Microsoft said I need this much hardware to run. MS-DOS ran one what it could. It was driven by people wanting to have the biggest, the best, and the fastest so they don't have to wait a life time just to get the answer for 1+1.<br /> <br /> Put simply, if you didn't spend over $50,000 USD on your computer, you are most likely using technology based on such computers for commercial/industrial needs. text/html 2007-06-20T02:24:49-05:00 b p http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/45931/?l=1#498038 Good thing I never said that it was going to be used for gaming than eh!<br /> <br /> If you read my post youd clearly see that I was saying that gaming is just going to keep on getting more and more demanding and so with that will the amount of RAM you need. <br /> <br /> <br /> Needs more reading comprehension!