How much RAM will you need in 5 years?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- Apple and Microsoft recently bumped their minimum system requirements to 16 gigs of RAM (mostly to accommodate new AI features in Windows and macOS). How much RAM will we need to have in 5 years? Let's look at the RAM usage trajectory of personal computers to figure out what we'll need to have in the near future.
More from The Lunduke Journal:
lunduke.com/
We need more space for ads, telemetry, and surveillance.
"Unused RAM is wasted RAM!"
😂😢
Electron
@@Demopans5990 Yea that's what he said "ads, telemetry, and surveillance" also known as electron. lol
ever wonder where all that extra super speed and bandwidth went when 5G rolled around to no difference o.0
TLDR: developers creating infinite abstractions over abstractions, using thousands of dependencies, using virtualization + containers, refusing to learn more efficient stacks for the work they're doing, never optimizing, never learning better algorithms, forcing features you'll never use; all to make their life easier and their work more productive at your cost, and if you don't like it they tell you "it's your fault for not having the newest hardware anyway". We like to pretend it doesn't matter, but it does. And yes, management requirements do have some fault in that too.
For some recent games, even having the latest hardware is not enough to compensate for the developer's lack of optimisation
@@mathmagician8191 Kof Kof *elden ring* kof kof
so our new generation developers are incompetent and inefficient?
@@serversC13nc3 No, the problem is cost. It cost too much to change it. Cheaper to have the end user upgrade.
Well, yes Java developers are.
React + Electron in every "desktop" application yummmm 😋
🤮
That's why every idiot saying "Unused RAM is wasted RAM", and "What's the harm in another game launcher ransoming us" are just useful idiots.
There are some computers still using yum. 😏
@@JohnCrawford1979 still waiting for the libdnf rewrite huh?
@@bruwyvn - No one's gonna yank my yogurt. 😏
Joplin, a note taking app uses 1.2Gb of ram on my machine. 1.2gb for taking notes. That's insane. And if you mention that to the devs they are like "F you"
"1.2gb for taking notes" Lol. If just need to take notes then use notepad? That app way more complex than "just taking notes". I guess thats basically a webview ( a webbrowser) with incredible amount of features and formatting and everything..
@@jungervin8765 nor really a very good argument since there are other apps with similar features that require much less ram, like Trilium, which uses 200mb.
The gigabyte is the new megabyte
And getting closer to being the new kilobyte. 😏
8 bit to 64 but addressing. Expotential address space = exponentially more addressable ram
@@Pressbutan - and they're already talking about 128 bit when we haven't even come close to reaching the limits of 64 bit.
@@JohnCrawford1979 So you're saying N64 was so far ahead into the future we just couldn't see it?
@@balsalmalberto8086 - Yes it was. No one had the processing powers, etc. in the mid 90's to do all the texturing needed to make realistic graphics. Part of the reason after the N64, Nintendo used 32-bit cpus. Even with reaching the 4 Gb RAM threshold where 64-bit would make a difference, 32-bit was hardly to the limits of its capabilities, and many 32-bit programs would still be adequate today if not for the push of planned obsolescence that demands everything be 64-bit, at least until they're ready to force everything to be 128-bit, possibly in 10 years, maybe even less, despite scratching the surface of 64-bit.
I just feel this jump to 16gb is not a jump that gives us something extra we are gonna need, unlike in the past. I think it's mostly gonna be used for sloppy programming and (so far) not very useful "AI" features. As example: I recently noticed my Dropbox Windows client used 750 mb ram idle. And my Adobe Lightroom / Camera Raw has exploded in ram and gpu ram usage (and requirements) after they added AI features (which I never touch). I'm a .NET developer myself and I noticed that after the Nuget package manager was introduced ram usage has exploded since ever framework now loads it's own dependencies (with sub and sub sub depedencies) almost always in different versions, often results in hundred mb of use just to run simple consoles app.
Exactly the issue. It's not the availability that's the issue. I'm HAPPY that I can easily build a machine with 64GB of RAM. That's great. What I'm not happy about is, as you said, something like dropbox using almost a gig of ram to do... nothing. Software is getting heavier and heavier, but adding nothing of value in the way of features. It's insanity.
I blame Electron
True. Witnessed Teams eat 9GB of ram once.
Web technologies are the worst offenders, but don't fool yourself, everything is in a sorry state... That's why Electron ends up getting used in the first place.
Cross platform development comes with such a heavy baggage that software ends up being developed web first and WE SHOULD THINK WHY.
Everything is so complex when it doesn't need to be.
Software needs to change, it's not acceptable that in 2024 you can't even put a pixel on a screen on multiple platforms without going through unneeded layers of complexity. Just because of Apple, if you want to support Mac you need to use MoltenVK instead of Vulkan even if you're able to work with VK.
Up until Vulkan 1.2 (2020) you couldn't use the same shader language for desktop platforms.
This doesn't happen only with graphics sadly...
@@xDJKeroxFlutter is brilliant for modern dev using sane amounts of system resources.
I hope the other OS vendors contribute to optimizing the experience like Canonical has done.
We had a 3dsmax plugin with 4kb ON DISK size written in C++, it got an electron "app" that is one of its screens, because it was "faster this way to do". They wanted to add a completely different electron app for a different screen because.... compatibility.... imagine that: just a plugin for an already huge program had full fledged two browsers for two of its gui windows...
Thank God I could unify at least the two so there is only one... Still with that the plugin became like 200 megs up from 4kb and with nearly same functionality.
@@hashtag9990 No, electron in and on itseld is already a "fából vaskarika" bad idea in itself - and why the web is like it is now is exactly a series of similar decisions to be honest.
Years ago programmers had no issues doing their work in a simple text editor. Modern code-monkeys won't write a "Hello, world!" without an IDE which links some "very necessary" multimegabate libraries by default. Ah, and the best way to make cross-platform software nowadays is to use Electron, i.e. to include an entire browser in every piece of s.
We should be pushing towards better cross-platform development. It is so sad that the ecosystem is so f'd up that someone ended up "solving the issue" in this way.
Web technology is horrendous to me, I've been praying for WASM to take over the web but it honestly talks about the failure of the ecosystem when it ended up being like this.
@@xDJKerox Web tech is amazing, it is just a skill issue. I am using a 6 years old, slow (max 2ghz core clock), 8gb ram notebook, never had problem with complex web apps or electron apps.
@@jungervin8765 Please don't shill HTML and JavaScript for the love of god...
Yeah using Electron to be cross platform is like shipping a Windows VM with your software claiming to be cross platform. Actually, I know some linux software that did that with a Linux VM. Your software is not cross platform if the platform is runs on is as big as an operating system.
@@username7763 Stop it. You all have no clue about tech. Please stop.
Maybe it's just an age thing, but I have a completely opposite opinion here. It seems wild to me, we are still seriously talking about 16 or even 32 GB of ram on a personal working machine. 64 should be a bare minimum, as it's not about "how much RAM do I need?" but about "how much RAM can I use?". The answer is - all of it. If I have more resources, I would find more ways to utilize them to make myself more productive. I don't need to have 3 different Linux distros, and a Windows running in a distrobox container at the same time, but If I can they are pretty useful to separate home/work/gaming systems. I don't need to have multiple workspaces with dozens of Firefox instances opened on them, but if I can, it would be useful. I don't need to have several personal ML models running on my machine at the same time, but if I have an option, I would find a way to use it to my advantage.
Yes. This. All of it.
Yeah I can't complain that RAM is cheap enough to have a hard drive from 10 years ago worth of it hanging off your CPU. I bought 64GB of DDR4-ECC for less than $80 the other day.
I installed 64GB of RAM in my friend's laptop for him and it blew his mind. He didn't expect it to do anything, but never needing to hit the pagefile and Windows just caching everything really keeps the system responsive. RAM is so cheap now that it's incredible, I remember paying around $100 for 8GB of DDR3 back in the day. These days you can get 32GB of DDR5 for $100, sometimes less, and that's even with the massive amount of inflation we've had since the 2000s.
if you have to use a desktop like a mainframe that only says how bad are operating systems failing at their task
@@luizmonad777 Why shouldn't you use a desktop like a mainframe? RAM and CPU cores are both incredibly cheap now compared to 10-15 years ago.
Running multiple virtual machines and having 200 tabs open is nothing when you can get 64GB of RAM for under $200 and Intel is selling 14 core CPUs for under $300.
I can't even imagine how much less efficient apps could even get, I think we've already reached peak inefficiency with Electron - but I'm sure that as available RAM continues to increase, the developers of the future will find ways to fill it (without making things any faster)
Ah, well then you should learn about microservices. You take your application, and split it into multiple web servers that talk to each other. That way a simple function call will take way longer. Then you add security and resiliency to that. You'll find you need a bunch of different computers to run it on because it takes up too many resources running on one. After running on a cluster, you'll find you need a larger cluster because the overhead of the communication is taking up too many resources. You'll need lots of retry logic and extra complexity to ensure the system doesn't go down now that you've multiplied the ways things can break. Now, your software sorta runs ok but is so complicated no one know if it really is or not. But that's ok because you use continuous integration to push out code before it is ready.
@@username7763 That's a great point. We definitely need to harness this slowness and inefficiency on the desktop.
I wonder how long it will take the node.js folks to reinvent COM, except 1000x slower and hungrier for resources.
There's a lot going here... We've been trading memory usage for IO and/or CPU for the duration of the computer industry. I remember CRC-16 lookup tables on the C64: they were coo- to-haves at 300-600 baud, but they were necessary at 2400: the 6502 just couldn't keep up with the serial line if it had to do the full regime of bit-shifts with every byte. But then Z-modem came along with the PC, and it was using CRC-32! The C64 didn't have enough ram for that lookup table.
Where are we now? Harddrives are getting bigger, but they're not really getting faster. Industry moved from RAID5 to RAID6 because of it. Its not like you got away from that for free because you're on a desktop. Your computer is caching fonts, images, libraries, configs and databases. Computers take a few minutes to boot compared to the seconds that a home-computer used to.
I don't remember the source, but I recall a study from the mid-90s that concluded that more the half of all computer upgrades were faster CPUs but that should have been more RAM.
Most of our software these days is still single-threaded. Computers do as much as they do because they can pre-compute and cache.
I'd be interested to see how this graph correlates with recommended hard drive space and average disk and Internet bandwidth. I'd hazard that at least some (but certainly not all) of these RAM increases come from the amount of data we're expecting our computers to process every day, probably mostly from video streaming.
If you don't need 16 gigs, how can they charge more for their machines?
That, and lazy programmers
This really started with games. You started to want 16GB, then some games suggested that as a requirement. If RAM is available then it will be used. Now you can be less efficient.
The system I am using now, Lenovo P520, is configured with 128GB of RAM, soon to be 256GB.
Recenty, I was able to install the newest Debian 12 on my "vintage" PC, which only has 256 megs of RAM and a Pentium II CPU. Granted, it is only in text mode, and no interesting services are loaded, but the system after boot takes only around 26 MB of RAM.
For the PC the graph would look a bit different. Early 00's (Pentium 4 and the AMD equivalant) 256/512 MB of RAM was standard, 8 GB was standard as from 2009 (first Core-CPU from Intel). Around 2015 (DDR got introduced in 2014)16 GB was standard and currently it only got bumped up to 32 GB because of DDR5, 16 GB is the minimum on one stick and you want dual channel RAM (performance) so you end up with 32 GB.
There is also the platform requirements to run the firmware. On mac it's a bit different, but on x86, uefi requires many 90's pcs just to run. Oh, and there are the hw drivers the OS has to load... It's impressive, to say the least.
12:45 This video had major "Old man yells at clouds" vibes... but now you have my attention sir.
Nowadays you cannot even work with 16GB of RAM on Windows 11 any more.
Why people so dumb? My work machine have 8 GB RAM. it is totally fine..I used win 10 with 4 GB ram at work! 4 GB! Even with that works kinda well with an SSD.
@@jungervin8765 yeah maybe your machine is not bloated with both most of the windows bloatware and corporate bloatware.
I feel similar looking back how much RAM my computers had in the past. But when I finally upgraded to 16gig a year ago, I was actually surprised that it came so late. And of course, this is just a personal experience, but this was, that I had 8 gigs since at least 10 years in my computers and it was totally fine and only upgraded basically cause I needed RAM and the 16gig were so cheap. So my personal RAM size graph does not look like it is still increasing exponentially as it was in the 90s and 2000s. I am still hopeful, that RAM will cap at around 64gigs.
But hell yeah, the amount of memory a browser needs...but also how people use browsers. It seems people are under the impression, that they constantly have to have at least 10 to 15 tabs open and then maybe more at times. I think my average is maybe 3 tabs open at the same time, because I close tabs, that I do not use atm.
Roughly 20 years ago we discussed the same. It was just Megabytes instead of Gigabytes back then. This is just how technology works - but it will surely plateau at some point.
i was using 12GB of ram 14 years ago, 16 does not seem that bad. With that said, I hate javascript
I am a grown man and power user, yet I never used more than about 1.4GB RAM. The exception was when about 40 tabs in Firefox ate 7.8GB. I often only use about 700MB RAM, developing financial models and doing financial engineering. People waste their lives and too much resources on non-essentials.
think how much power that will use on a global scale.
We can fit a couple decades old machine's whole storage drive into RAM now. To be fair, AI bs being the "minimum" is a thing we'll have to see being accepted by the market first. If you're not into that, 8 is still fine for low-end stuff.
I remember a clear case of corporate ruse, it was a one of the older Call of Duty games. People noticed that all of a sudden 4 GB of ram was't enough to play the new game, which looked pretty much like the old one but instead required a minimum of 6 GB of ram. It turned out that they injected a 2 GB of blank ram space with no information in it... to combat hacking and pirating they claimed.
If you look at a modern browser, they've pretty much become an entire system within your OS. They run multiple services and multiple instances for god knows what reason. Also, having few tabs open eats your ram like nobody's buisnes. They made them so big and complex but in the end you're using it to lookup text-based information most of the time. In all honesty, why do we even need a GUI for a chatbot? Insanity!
16 GB of RAM became barely enough 10 years ago. These days, the 32GB is barely enough (mainly for content consumption and other basic tasks), to comfortably do general tasks, 64GB is decent, and 128GB is awesome. One challenge now is getting DRAM companies to offer good timings with higher capacity modules, as at the moment even having as little as 128GB of DDR5, carries a large latency penalty, which is bad especially when we start to need 256GB soon, which will need higher capacity modules.
When I came to Uni back in 1992 the CS department had a server with 128 Gb of ram. That was an unfathomable amount of ram for me back then. Today my refrigerator has more memory than that.
You clearly meant MB, not GB.
“Greetings, I am a time traveller from 2050! My computer has 2 TB of RAM, but Windows is still running slow!” 🤣
I've been running 16GB since 2015, and 64GB in my Laptop since 2022. I don't _need_ that memory for word processing! I _want_ that memory because I can afford it and it still speeds up the system. I'm running Linux on my Laptop and it idles (full desktop with background apps) at
Thanks for finally some senseful commentary on the prevailing horrendous state of software industry!
I remember when having 32MB of ram meant you had a main frame computer. My Exisy Sorcerer came with 32kb on board and I had to spend a fortune to get to 56k with an S100 expansion bus the size of a desktop computer.
I was using 8 gigs back in 2010 and 16 gigs around 2016 now it is 2024 I haver 32 gigs and using half of it regularly. I'm unsure of how much ram we will need in 5 years but ultimately the world is heading for persistent ram to be used as storage and a boot device to further reduce load times.
Just buy OEM shares and trust that developers' incompetence will connive with planned obsolescence and AI bloat to give you good returns.
My office desktop is at 128GB since a year... 16GB was great in 2015. There's no hope in OS or Devs managing things well, you can just put in your upgrades early in your systems life cycle so you have the benefits as long as possible.
For the record, the office box is a e5 xeon i imported some chinese seller in 2014, back then with 32 or 64gb. Back then it was the "everything" server/vm host. Just wanna drive the point home that you dont need to throw a system out of the window if you plan for it. Apple world/gaming desktops are a bit harder 😢
But mostly RAM is what decides!
Before refreshing this webpage, Vivaldi was telling me that it was using up 2 GB of RAM.
In many workplaces you need to keep open and switch between: a dozen browser tabs, a word processor, a spreadsheet editor, some chat/meeting client and maybe some specific company software. Many companies haven't upgraded from 8GB and it been slow, unstable and painful for like 4 years now. People are struggling and I blame the software companies and their awful practices. No one cares about optimizing anything anymore.
Spaghetti coding is the Kessler syndrome of our day.
The devs don't care building efficient software these's days. I often see collegues working with Windows11, only Edge, Teams and Word open. Uses almost the 16Gb of ram entierely.
I noticed this increase at the start of 2024 and just decided to get 128GB. My 2 servers have 128. Might as well match it.
In my main system I have 32GB of DDR4 3200Mhz RAM, and I'm thinking about going to 64GB of DDR4 3200Mhz RAM soon as I catch a deal on it. So I have no doubt at some point in the future 128GB to 256GB will be the minimum 🤯
8gb was enough 10 years ago. Having 8gb nowdays means you are going to use your SSD as cache with isn't the ideal. In 5 years from now 16gb will still be enough for basic tasks (meaning minimal recommended) but 32gb is good if you want to be on the safe size.
Why we use so much ram nowdays? Because we can. Web browsers are basically a second operating system, and majority of apps are made from it with isn't the ideal but is good to make it compatible with other systems like Windows.
I remember getting a computer with 32 MiB and thinking I'd gotten a beast! And my very first computer only had 1KiB. I think that this is best plotted on a log grah. I bet it's a largely straight line there.
it's interesting to think about a computer with only 1KiB of memory. only being able to know about 1024 on or off states at once. certainly there's not much that could be represented with that. not even most small text files could fit in there
@@shallex5744 - This doesn't invalidate anything you've said, but 1KiB is 8192 on/off states. :-)
But, yes.. though honestly, you could do a fair amount with it. It had basic, and compressed programs by tokenizing them before storing them in memory.
@@Omnifarious0 yes you're right, silly me
Technically 16GB is the future, as they will still support 8GB for at least 5 years.
In my Dell laptop I bought 2011 I had 8 GB of DDR3 1300 Mhz RAM. That is till today good enough for basic office like things. That's 13 years later.
However my Adrenalin software of my RX 6600 on my desktop from 2022 shows that I am using right now with several browsers and tabs open around 8.3 GB of system RAM from the 24 GB I have installed. So it hovers still around 8 GB of RAM but it is not for gaming anymore. At gaming Adrenalin shows up to 12 GB of RAM usage.
Wow, when did Wil Wheaton become a tech youtuber?? these are certainly great times we live in
"I've got a bar graph" that's a line graph...
When will they not be able to add any more ram?
With the large AI models I think this time we will not see a doubling, but rather one of the larger jumps. I think this time will be a quadrupling jump, if manufacturers or service providers go for edge AI rather than core AI, which costs them lots of money and comes with severe privacy concerns. Also, some want to sell hardware as their main business model and it is in their interest to set their sights on edge AI and sell hardware around that. Apple does that, as they are primarily hardware manufacturers while Microsoft, as a cloud service provider or saas provider, will go for core AI and charge money for that.
I have to buy a new computer this year or early next year, as my Windows desktop reaches 13 years and my MacBook comes up to 11 years. I think I will go for 64GB at least, as I plan to keep my computer for another 10 years, if possible.
🎯 Key points for quick navigation:
00:00 *💻 The increasing RAM requirements in modern systems*
- Recent AI advancements by Apple and Microsoft necessitate at least 16GB of RAM,
- Historical perspective on RAM requirements in Mac OS 9 and Windows 3.11.
02:14 *📈 Memory requirements evolution over the decades*
- Comparison of RAM in 1984 Macintosh (128KB) to modern requirements,
- Rapid increase in RAM from 1984 to 1999, highlighting significant jumps.
06:08 *🖥️ Doubling of RAM every five years*
- Notable memory increases every five years from 1989 to 2019,
- Projection of future RAM requirements doubling every five years.
08:31 *🚀 Future RAM requirements projections*
- Estimation of needing 32GB by 2029 and 64GB by 2034,
- Expected 128GB requirement by 2039 based on historical doubling patterns.
11:13 *🧐 Concerns about RAM bloat and efficiency*
- Reflections on the efficient use of RAM in the 1990s versus today,
- Current software inefficiencies causing higher RAM demands.
13:02 *🎥 Historical context: Babylon 5 and RAM usage*
- Comparison of 1990s 3D modeling on minimal RAM with today's requirements,
- Example of Babylon 5's special effects created on an 8MB RAM machine.
15:11 *🧠 RAM usage in modern systems and future outlook*
- Personal reflections on current and future RAM needs,
- Skepticism about the necessity of such high RAM requirements in the future.
Made with HARPA AI
But how much RAM did you use?
@@GreenStorm01 eleventeen 😉
(1) I remember when I brought a budget machine in 2002
(2) Windows 98 and 32mb of ram
(3) I did not upgrade till 2011
(4) Keep in mind we did not get fibre in my country till 2016
(5) So what were people doing with all this new power?
(6) Looking back in hindsight video editing and editors started becoming easy...
(7) I'm talking easy for the average user
(8) Not saying you could not edit videos on a 98 machine but...
(9) Editing video appearently takes up alot of ram...
(10) So that a big jump from (just reading online text) aka frog find for today.
(11) If it makes you feel better I have a celeron 2840 6 watt machine.
(12) I running Linux Mint mate on it
(13) I have 2gb of ram...
(14) I can make it do a few cool tricks
(15) I make 1080 videos (slideshows) on it at 3fps 🤔😂
(16) All depends on how you use it.
(17) Linux can breathe live back into older hardware
(18) You just have to give up the games.
Chrome reports more than 50mb usage for one of the open tabs. The address for that page reads about:blank. This is crazy
i'm betting that it will be a TB of ram.
why?
cause servers have it.
i expect a continued trickle down of server specs for normal computers.
if devs were better, we could have had 16 GB (4 giga longs) as the peak of the 32 bit era. instead of a byte which is 8 bits, a 32 bit computer should only have addressed 32 bit amounts. if you have legacy code from the 8 bit and 16 bit era, that is fine, but it would use an internal "virtual" address space, not the full system memory.
instead they kept the centering on bytes, and so the amount of utilization and bloat has droped and increased respectively. the best value for computing would be roughly pi or e or 3. and the closest binary equivalent is a pair of bits. so called nibbles are the next best, and bytes are only the third best. every time you increase the amount of complexity by one bit, you double the amount of information stored and reduce the usefulness of the information by half.
neither you nor i NEED a 64 bit machine. there is very little that can't be solved with a 32 bit machine. specifically there is 2^-32 of all problems which can't be solved with a 32 bit machine. or for every 4 billion problems there is 1 which can't be solved- not a billion, just one.
the defference between a 32 bit machine and a 64 bit machine is basicly the number of cycles. a 32 bit machine needs roughly double the number of cycles to get the same answer, but you can also pipeline multiple 32 bit processors so that instead of having a 64bit processor, you have multiple in line 32 bit processors per cycle. and by extension, you get the same amount of work done per cycle. and again, this only even matters when you are actually missing the capacity to do the operation with one cycle.
here is an example. lets say you want to add 2 64 bit numbers. with a 64 bit machine it is simple, you just add them. in a 32 bit machine, you add the lower two values, take the overflow flag as whether to increment an upper value and then add the upper two values. if you want lots and lots of adds, the same way they can have a sum of 4 values per cycle, you can go up to 8 or 16, just with more pipelineing. this will be more dense, and hotter, but also you wont be using 31 bits of "memory" (register) when incrementing a value.
so going up to the higher base is largely unnecessary. it would have been better to fully embrace the old standard than to try replacing it. once we decided to have virtual memory, and to have page lookup tables, we should have decided to have 'books' which go beyond a page, and represent a segregated memory space. you can look up a byte within a page, but the overall information system should have basicly had multidimensional arrays based on the 'size' of the values the computer was expected to work on.
more abstractly, we should have shifted from bytes, at least to quad bytes, and preferably to cachelines and page tables. why are we in a data rich environment and still talking about single bytes in a scalar way? why aren't we talking about KB per cycle? why are we talkign about cachline misses instead of debranching qualities? why are we talking about about how many MB in the cache instead of the cost of a cache miss?
the programing tools haven't really kept up to how the world is. javascript and python are inferior versions to C, and C is pretty wildly out of date. SQL is okay, but not really strongly supported and the internet itself is basicly a bloating corpse.
Even with 16GB you'll barely have enough to load both your apps and a relatively small 8B parameter LLM.
Maybe the challenges of C and Assembler weren‘t to bad after all 🤔🤫
Shifting one binary digit to the left results in an exponential function. What is so surprising here? 😇
graph should have been log2
Honestly the average office worker already needs 32gb to manage the stuff they have open at once, and that's just a few apps, bunch of tabs and a video meeting.
Watch Apple call 16 GB the minimum (or soon 32 GB), while continuing to sell an 8 GB base model and charge $500 - $1000 to upgrade the soldered-in memory.
Many graphics cards today are more powerful than Deep Blue, and Stockfish, who can beat both Deep Blue and any GM doesn't even use GPUs. You can find many supercomputers of years past weaker than the smartphone in your pocket. In fact here's a video idea, take the most powerful smartphone today and see how far back you need to go to find a supercomputer it can beat.
Can't wait till I need 2tb to run Duolingo.
Don't think in the absolute size; think in the price. Today's 16GB RAM is probably cheaper than 16MB RAM in the late 1990's. Consumers are not spending more money on RAM, so what's the problem?
Neither using Macos nor Windows, in 5 years ahead I will probably continue with the same hardware with 16gb.
RAM hasn't been growing for way too long. We need to accelerate
No, we don't. If anything, software devs need to optimize their applications as much as possible so we can use them with the least amount of memory
@user-li2yv5je5e3.5 GB of RAM gone out of the window with just that.
I have 96GB of ram in my framework laptop so I should be good for the next 15 years
Considering how much Apple charges for its wonderful soldered on RAM now. Can you imagine the cost of a RAM upgrade from the base in five years.
Wake me up if we are in the PB age. I can't wait for it. :-)
You provide remarkable little insight into technology.
Go back to zx81 that worked with 1kb of ram... Happier with my 64gb 😂
Uhhh, I'll just download more then?
looking forward in 15 years if this will have came true...
Using Linux, and gaming on it. I see no reason for the foreseeable future going above 16GB of Ram.
Reminded of the Megaman X intro where a computer boots up to 8192 terabytes of ram and 32768 terabytes of 'avail' ram. Copyright 2114.
Why does a browser tab use 300MB? I would understand if there's a video buffered, but we're talking text and images. I swear webdevs are ruining the world. Anybody wanna calculate the wasted watts from bad code?
Meanwhile today ROBOCOP ROGUE CITY. 16GB RAM. GTX 1070 8GB VRAM needs an AI Upscaler for 1080P XD I can't even run native 1080P. What a world we live in.
In 60 years we will move decimal point and go form 0.128 mb ram to 128000 mb ram.. and Chrome will still need more ram !
If we assume a starting point of 256KB RAM minimum in 1984 and 16GB RAM minimum in 2024, then on a linear curve the RAM requirement doubles every 2.5 years.
if we ignore elephant in the room
@@fontenbleau I don't see any elephants in the room. It's a fairly straightforward observation that's not that far off from Moore's law.
@@jeandutoit1413 ok, keep ignoring.
@@fontenbleau Congratulations! You win the 2024 award for most obtuse comment on UA-cam!
There was a reason for that, given the technologies we have right now. It won increase that much in the future, suppose you don't use some other new technology, like AI.
Running everything through an individual variant of chrome probably doesn't help.
I've been using 64GB of ram for 2 years and it has been enough so far
I'm expecting that there will be some plateau happening I would guess at 32GB because you can't make program for text writing even with AI baked in take like 10GB ram at point it's just stupid and non realistic
And it does makes sense that we are doubling in size every 5 years or so but considering that chip manufacturers are at the limit of how small they can make cells for ram my guess about plateau will come true
have you even seen any LLM locally? I think never, because you really believe that text gen just don't need memory, so why does your brain for text gen takes all available space+even more by notorius trick of wrinkles (folded structure, squeezed)? Ai takes storage space+the same amount in RAM because sdd would wear out right away. Llamafile containers by Mozilla is the way to try your 64 gigs, it's the easiest way without launchers and tuning.
Given Apple, somewhere below 8Gb as Apple Intelligence will find a way to make Apple 4Gb equivalent to 128Gb!
512 GB - You also went from 16 bit to 32 bit and then 64 bit processors.
128 GB Clippy, thanks for the nightmares
Five years later, 2TB Clippy, no difference just hungrier.
One day aliens will visit our planet completely depleted of energy and resources, use advanced technology to find out what went wrong it turned out to be chatbots and electron apps
@@s1nistr433 That's one way AI will use Humans against each other; transitioned from Humans using AI to use Humans against each other.
I blame javascript devs
fax
I miss flash
Yeah they really need to suck_less
very valid
I blame them every time I open youtube. It is the epitome of JS hell. I can wait 2 secs to fetch some data.
This graph desperately needs a logarithmic Y scale
Yeah, the jump from 128K ram to 4 MB looks tiny, but it’s actually a 3100% increase I think? No different than going from 128mb to 4 gigs.
Yes this.
The increase doesnt ramp up. It slows down.
Putting more ram into computers only enables developers to be less efficient
bingo
I bet you watched it in 144p after first downloading it to a hard drive without anything else running in the background
And it sells computers to normies who would ask too many questions if their new system has the same oversized amount of RAM as their system from 5 years ago. But yes.
The problem is, that same methodology applies to the operating system itself! When you ultimately think about it, what can, for example, a modern word processor do that a word processor from 25 years ago can not do? But the ram requirements have gotten nuts.
@@slaapliedje In the case of modern MS Word, quite a lot. But MS Word is overkill for 95% of people.
I'm old enough to remember when Visual Studio not only didn't take a full minute (or more) to load a medium size project, but when it did, it even worked properly.
Nvme + 32gb ram = VS IS FAST
@@alexeysamokhin9629 even this is a stretch in my experience. I just tried Visual Studio on my 64GB ram machine, all top hardware and it still took a solid 20 seconds just to launch the program, forget about opening a project. Also it spat out some weird errors and crashed when I tried to just open a json file. vscode and vim had no such issues (LOL)
Yes. And now think about all the features you would miss. If we would develop with an old VS Version from 2005 or older. No thanks. And i dont think anybody really remembers how big the difference is now.
@@moritzbecker131 such as...
@@moritzbecker131 Name 5 things you use in 2022 that weren't present in 2005.
The thing is, programming is fucked up right now. Like Jonathan Blow says, everything is more complicated for no sensible gain.
You can't even put a pixel on the screen without going through N layers of cruft...
Hardware has evolved a lot, but software did in fact degraded and we're not doing enough to stop it.
Yep. Crappy developers don't know how to write clean, efficient code.
@@rhone733 It's not the developers fault to be honest, its all the ecosystem... This means, mostly companies, which are the ones that end up pushing technologies.
But this includes Hardware manufacturers, Operating Systems, Programming Languages and everything that gets build up on top of this.
I definitely get a feeling that a lot of programming has no engineering mindset. Code is simply a tool to reach a goal, not an ends to a mean.
Really the last place where performance truly exists as a culture is embedded systems, and even that is being invaded by the per kloc programmer who writes their AbstractBuilderFactory classes.
@@monkev1199 Thankfully there's *some* kind of awareness about these issues, and that's why I'm interested in the subject.
I started my programming journey formally around 2014, with some bumps on the road and the pandemic but I never stopped learning and doing my own stuff (mostly through a overscoped game development project so I don't have much to show for it hah)
I had been aware of the issue for some time and recently I got interested in actually going lower level, but I'm not sure where should I put my efforts into.
This year I toyed a bit with Rust but recently I've been considering C, Zig, and C++. On the other side I've been learning about Cyber Security too.
@@monkev1199 Damn, youtube disappeared my comment.
I said something along the lines of: Thankfully there's *some* awareness of the issue. I started my formal coding journey around 2014 and some stuff happened.
I first saw J.B. talking about this a few years ago and I recently decided to try and go lower level. I did played and contributed to OSS with some Rust this year for about a month.
And I'm currently looking where to put my efforts in, I'm considering C, Zig, C++. And also learning about CyberSecurity.
Your daily reminder that building Hello World in Electron produces gigabytes of binary artifacts.
16mb for win3.1? Lunduke you gotta be young. I used to run 3.1 just fine with 1mb ram on my 80286 machine while 384kb of that 1mb was reserved as graphics memory. 16mb was over the top even for win95/98.
yeah win 95/98 ran at like 4mb smoothly iirc (been awhile since i touched a win98 pc). Hell i think the first pc i got after i moved to japan, a Dell running XP was only like 1gb of ram
9x needed 8mb to really be usable. 4mb was the listed minimum but even MS internally admitted that was borderline.
Nah I ran Win 3.1 on a 386SX with 8MB of RAM and it made a huge difference going to 16MB. Similar to going from 8GB to 16GB today.
I specifically remember purchasing a new 386 PC a few months prior to the release of Windows 3.0. 1 MB of memory was sufficient to run the upcoming Windows 3.0, but I splurged and upgraded to 2 MB.
@@pilotamurorei no way... for 9x you needed 8mb
Yes, that's crazy, but do you know what's crazy? You can still take these old machines and write your texts on them and I think very few people do that. You don't have to buy a new machine to do something like that. I have computers here that are 40 years old and older and still work and are still an option when it comes to just writing text.
Most people do more things than just writing text. Did you watch the video? I'd like to see a computer with 128 kb of ram run a youtube video at 1080p.
@@MegaLokopo Yes, I watched the whole video and only referred to the text section. But yes, you can do it with a trick via Raspi hardware, that you build a module for a C64 that even conjures up such a UA-cam video on your CRT. And we all know that the resolution is not everything, especially with an analog device like an old CRT that I have here just like my C64s. So technically you can do it with old hardware and a module. And the whole thing is omly 64kb for display this, postprocessing with the a little help of a cheap Raspi.
George R. R. Martin still uses WordStar 4.0 for MS-DOS.
You are cherry-picking contexts. Of course you can write text with an old machine, and you need heavy power for high-res video.
But the point you are deliberately dodging was the problem with in-between. You cannot get modern daily tasks done with mere old word processor, but you shouldn't need high-res-video hardware for any of them.
For example, reading news and weather forecasts, booking train tickets, doing online shopping, and basically *all* other basic daily tasks, none of them is functionally any more demanding than they were in 90s, yet due to unprofessional implementation, they *all* are now requiring GHz processor and GB of RAM, which they shouldn't need.
Actually, text processing is a prime example - nowadays all text files you get from "out of your house" - despite being pure text - are in docx format, which needs a modern word processor, which tends to be unnecessarily bloated.
Sure there are "niche ways" to do some of these, but they are too difficult for those most fond keeping old systems in use, and fundamentally no today's bloat should be tolerated on modern hardware either - new hardware is bought explicitly to run heavy payloads, not the useless overhead code which represents majority of the resource usage with today's bloatware on these functionally simple basic tasks (and often even on more advanced, resource-intensive uses), and this should be explicitly a concern for those who buy modern high-performance hardware, as it causes a lion's portion of the bought resources to be bought in vain.
Imagine having a passenger car with body weighing a thousand metric tonnes. You wouldn't tolerate it no matter how cheap, powerful, and efficient semi-tractor engine you could have on it. And especially not if you want a high-performance one.
Instead, the more advancement we have with car engines, and especially the more performant one you want, the lighter weight have also the car bodies been designed and wanted. The same should be the case with computers and software.
This data should be displayed logarithmically.
Log scales are for quitters who can't find enough paper to make their point PROPERLY.
Win 11 uses almost 8gb of ram just sitting idle.
"""idle"""
is that really so? good heavens. i know windows 10 uses 2gb, which is already horrendous. though i'm sure it also depends on how much ram is in your system
@@shallex5744 If you run Linux with KDE and uninstall PIM nonsense, it needs like 1.6GB idle. 2GB are barely enough to run even openbox once you launch either firefox or chrome based browser.
@@pluffcrock3438 it’s busy sending telemetry data needs a lot of ram for that
@@shallex5744 2? my windows 10 sits comfortably at 4.5GB when it's doing nothing...
For the case of Apple, I have a sinking feeling they are doing this just to force their users to buy all new equipment. Every single iPhone except for the top end of the latest was instantly obsoleted. The base model of almost every Mac sold up to now was 8GB at most, so Apple not only has obsoleted all of their past Intel Macs, they now have taken out the base of all of their own silicon Macs sold. I think for iPhones the Apple minimum will be 8GB, but how long will that hold before they obsolete all of the 8GB models once they have higher ends ones with more memory, so that Apple can go for phones that eventually will sell for thousands of dollars.
Within the last few months, Chrome has changed its algorithm for loading the last session's tabs at startup. It's much more efficient now, so RAM usage will go back down to where it was when people used bookmarks, and then start to grow from there.
I saw someone on Reddit asking how they can recover 7000 tabs that didn't get restored. Unfortunately for them, they found a way.
i had 32 gigs of ram in 2014 its only just become the new optimal. Things have really slowed down. My gtx 1080 and 5820k from the same time period can still run every new game playable at 60 fps as well. Remember the days that a cutting edge pc would only last 2 years before it needed an upgrade or likely a whole new pc to keep up.
And people will still be augmenting that with a 64GB swap partition 💪
because i have 64 gigs of ram i have accidentally allowed distros im installing to automatically make 64 gig swaps.
Noswap masterrace right here.
It would only make sense if you hibernate
look into zram swap, by which you store compressed swap pages in ram, compressed at approximately a 4:1 efficiency ratio. it's like downloading more ram, but real. assuming a 4:1 compression ratio, if you had, say 8 GB of ram, you could dedicate 4 GB of it to zram-based swap, which would give you 4 GB of regular memory, and effectively 16 GB of swap, giving you an effective 20 gb of ram with only 8 GB of actual ram. but unlike a partition, this swap space is only filled as it's needed, so until you start swapping, you'll have access to 8 GB of ram like normal, only using up swap ram as it gets filled
It's cute of you to assume swap under windows works like the old ways and doesn't already demand a coefficient based on the installed memory just to duplicate everything to disk. Try setting up some windows vms with small emulated disks, and try to daily drive them without issues, ill wait. youre lucky if those devenv vm images work
@10:31 LOL! I love that _"...minimum viable operating system where you can actually do word processing"_ line.
Good job, Byran Lunduke.
All of the ram. Just... all of it.
That's kind of the point. You need system resources for the convenience of devs who don't care about efficiency and for the benefit of companies that want to abuse those resources, not your actual necessity.
I've had 16GB in my main computer since 2009. I've had 16GB in all my laptops since 2018. This is not a revolutionary amount of RAM in any realm except for Apple's reality extortion field, where RAM costs 8X what it costs on any other computer.
No matter how cheap the steel and semi-tractor engines are, I definitely wouldn't want my passenger car body to weigh a thousand metric tonnes. Any apologism for such is nothing but foolish.
It's not revolutionary, it's disrevolutionary.