Yet another myth on this thread gets busted: all those budget estimates with "mandatory" 16GB of RAM for APU builds vs. 8GB of RAM for dGPU builds turn out to be pure smoke.
I would agree. Being limited to 8GB even for light gaming use cases is not something I would recommend. dGPU or not.The performance was never the question.
IMO the only discussion piece was if the 8GB is sufficient in the first place, on modern standards.
Especially when the GPU takes x amount of DRAM from that already tiny amount.
For example on my system, the DRAM usage is 6.04GB at idle with just Skype, AV and Firefox with two tabs open.
That is only one game, plus I would assume no background tasks. Other games, and with multitasking, could be different. One could probably get by with 8gb of ram, but I have a 4 year old off the shelf low end system, and it came with 8gb of ram. When playing some games, W3 I think, with a discrete card, ram utilization is close to 75%. Personally, I think it would be very foolish to build a new system with only 8gb of ram these days, whether using either an APU or a discrete card. It is not that there is not enough ram for the APU, but you have a very thin margin for any kind of multitasking or future needs. Just look at your own screen shot, even with the lowest amount of ram allocated to the gpu, only 2.5 gb of ram is available, and that probably is on a clean install with a minimum of other programs installed.Yet another myth on this thread gets busted: all those budget estimates with "mandatory" 16GB of RAM for APU builds vs. 8GB of RAM for dGPU builds turn out to be pure smoke.
What?The performance was never the question.
IMO the only discussion piece was if the 8GB is sufficient in the first place, on modern standards.
Especially when the GPU takes x amount of DRAM from that already tiny amount.
For example on my system, the DRAM usage is 6.04GB at idle with just Skype, AV and Firefox with two tabs open.
What?
If performance is not the question, then why in the world would it matter for anyone to argue that 8GB is no good?
Good thing is usage really means nothing. Limit the ram to 4GB and replicate this scenario again. You'd be surprised.The performance was never the question.
IMO the only discussion piece was if the 8GB is sufficient in the first place, on modern standards.
Especially when the GPU takes x amount of DRAM from that already tiny amount.
For example on my system, the DRAM usage is 6.04GB at idle with just Skype, AV and Firefox with two tabs open.
You would have to very frugal with 8GB of system RAM when it comes to background tasks, browsers etc. It's doable, but 16GB is definitely ideal for a gaming system in 2018.
Because Semi-Custom business is to some degree separate from Graphics, CPU and GPU businesses in AMD.Its impossible to get proof for this issue, one way or the other.
But let me ask you something, why Vega was delayed this much?
Why Amd has for the first time expended a year whiout a high end dgpu? You are sure it had nothing to do with ps4 pro and its "4k gaming" ? because im not so sure.
Look the original contract with Sony and MS was signed when AMD was in a very bad shape, we cant know exactly what it includes, AMD could had accepted petty much everything, and you had to admit what happened to Vega was strange AMD had nothing to counter 1070 and 1080 for a long, long time, right at the moment the PS4 PRO with 4K was coming out...
And now this whole deal with Intel, the KBL-G, to me it looks like an attempt to work around something.
Maybe it will be like Vega, and that APU you are talking about will launch, once is not a threat to consoles profit.
I don't agree, I'd say 8 GB is perfectly usable. I write this from an A10-6800K with 512MB selected for integrated GPU framebuffer in BIOS (so 7.5 GB for system), Windows 10 64. Current usage for some explorer windows, HexChat, Winamp, Apache OpenOffice Writer and Calc one window each (I never got around to try LibreOffice), Avast running AV check, Notepad++ with ~30-40 files open, Firefox with three tabs: 3.8 GB used (5.2 GB commit size), 3.5 GB free.
Firefox generally doesn't eat as much RAM as Chrome, you can open 40 tabs and it still won't grow that much (2 GB or therebouts IIRC, definitely doesn't trigger out of RAM events). Maybe you guys have it rougher because of Chrome?
Last year I briefly ran with only one module, so 3.5 GB RAM, and only then RAM started to be an issue, I noticed getting slowdowns due to swapping when multiple programs were used at once. That was wit HDD tho, with SSD you would likely not spot the slowdown, looking at how surprisingly usable 2GB Windows tablets (32bit W10) are - and those merely have eMMC storage.
I agree that 16 GB is better/ideal. But only for high-performance gaming system, not for these budget setups where pennies count. Else you blow too much on the RAM. In the current situation, cheap gaming systems pretty much have to be specced with 2x4 GB (you should really buy a 4-dimm motherboard though, so that you don't have to throw the modules out on upgrade). It probably means you should only set 512 MB as the permanent framebuffer on Ryzen APUs, though. Carving out 2 GB permanently is a bit too much IMHO, and the gain is not that big, IIRC?
Suggesting that an APU system competing with 8GB RAM discrete system needs to have 16 GB (so 14 GB outside of the GPU?) is rubbish IMHO. Reminds me... I saw one dude (a notorious AMD hater in our comment section...) actually suggest to compare a Raven Ridge system with APU against a PC with Pentium G4560 + 4 GB DDR4 + GeForce. I mean, that sounds just stupid , but 8 GB should be fine.
What?
If performance is not the question, then why in the world would it matter for anyone to argue that 8GB is no good?
If you will ran out of Video Card Memory, the swap will go to RAM. Which usually is slower than Video Card Memory.Well Windows will use more memory the more RAM you have - that's how memory management works. Budget gaming is a compromise - and the worst compromise you'll have to do with 8GB is occasionally the game will slow down streaming assets inside the level and/or some additional loading time in and out of cut-scenes. For most budget gamers, that is an acceptable compromise.
Actually in systems with limited RAM, the assets stored in the video memory(in this case the RAM itself) isn't the problem. That data doesn't change much once you're loaded in to the game. The game itself may cause trouble if it feels like it doesn't have access to enough physical memory.If you will ran out of Video Card Memory, the swap will go to RAM. Which usually is slower than Video Card Memory.
In Raven Ridge APUs - the SWAP, and Video Card Memory is RAM. So there is, and there will be no difference in performance if you will run out of Video RAM. Because the memory bandwidth is the same as RAM.
Never happened to me. So I cannot relate to this. And I have right now system with 512 MB of GDDR5.Actually in systems with limited RAM, the assets stored in the video memory(in this case the RAM itself) isn't the problem. That data doesn't change much once you're loaded in to the game. The game itself may cause trouble if it feels like it doesn't have access to enough physical memory.
Performance in games won't be affected whether you have 8 GB of total RAM vs 16 GB.What?
If performance is not the question, then why in the world would it matter for anyone to argue that 8GB is no good?
7 Chrome tabs isn’t very much, and Chrome is a huge memory hog... by design.Just opened 24 .Dwg files, 7 Chrome tabs, Outlook, Excel, Primavera P6, Adobe Reader, Skype and the worst, Calculator. It's on 6,39GB of RAM used.
You guys are masters of "storm on a glass of water" stuff...
DRAM prices have decreased slightly since the peak (9.62$ per generic 2133MHz 8Gb IC) in November, however the BOM for a 16GB kit is still insane (~154$, 9.26$ per 8Gb and two PCBs).
Can't really see them decreasing as much as needed, not until the manufacturers have their new modern fabs running at full capacity. Most of the current stuff is still 18 - 21nm.
The whole thing started when someone was cutting corners to try and devalue the 2200/2400. The value is obviously there for many people, they are buying them up. And I don't see anyone who wouldn't want them, being happy with an i3 and 1030 w/8G of crappy RAM either. Which is what the counter argument is.What?
If performance is not the question, then why in the world would it matter for anyone to argue that 8GB is no good?
Well I for one do see the value in both of these APUs for many people, but not for me. However If I was building a new rig today I would consider the 2400G due to high GPU prices.The whole thing started when someone was cutting corners to try and devalue the 2200/2400. The value is obviously there for many people, they are buying them up. And I don't see anyone who wouldn't want them, being happy with an i3 and 1030 w/8G of crappy RAM either. Which is what the counter argument is.
BCLK or multiplier? Afaik, its multiplier is locked.
Thats just an excuse to keep the cartel agreements in place. Pretty much every price inflation in drams recent history was a confirmed cartel agreement between big players. Can't see how is it any different now.