Originally Posted by roleki
Same coin, one could say it's not very logical to have a quad-core processor with hyperthreading enabled, because there's no game that will ever consume that many ops. But I get what you're saying.
Thing is, the argument AGAINST large amounts of RAM is just weird, to me. I'm not saying it is baseless or flawed, it just seems odd that people who pride themselves on getting their PCs to do ONE thing 5% faster than stock would be appalled or baffled by the notion that there are people who could be happy doing hundreds of things "only" 3% faster than stock.
I guess, even though we're all performance enthusiasts here, we all have something different that compels us to be hardware nerds. Myself, I'm just as happy downloading off VMware's virtual appliance store as I am off Steam. Yeah, I may not bang maximum fps out of BF3, but I get decent fps for MY tastes, and just happen to have a functioning virtual domain running in the background. And maybe a couple dozen instances of Chrome.
That's why I don't run HT. For me, it provides zero benefit but increases power/heat.
There's no major argument against more RAM... it is a question of how people justify it. (I see people's actions in terms of incentive and cost-benefit due to an economics background)
Originally Posted by Mjolnir
RAM is so cheap, why not get 16? I have 8 myself, but I can see dropping a measly 30 bucks to double my ram.
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
Economic costs. $30 is not $0.
So should you spend money to get more memory which may provide zero benefit? That's the question. The answer is subjective but not many are realizing this point. You don't have to do everything just because it is cheap (not free).