On Tuesday, September 03, 2013 18:15:50 Chris wrote:
> If you had the choice between:
> 
> - 4 GB DDR3 SDRAM at 1600MHz - 1 X 4 GB
> - 8 GB Dual Channel DDR3 SDRAM at 1600MHz - 2 X 4GB ( + $49.00 )
> 
> Is it worth the extra money or is the increase in performance not worth mentioning? Any experience with that.
> 
> The processor
> 
> 4th Generation Intel® Core™ i7-4700MQ Processor ( 2.4 GHz 6MB L3 Cache - 4 Cores plus Hyperthreading )

Only $49 difference? I'd definitely go for the more memory. Of course, I always go for high performance over price unless the difference is really pricey, and I wouldn't want as little memory as 8 GB either. I always use the maximum memory that my motherboard will support. And memory is cheap these days, so out of all the things that you could do to improve your computer, it's not particularly expensive. But I guess that it all depends on how mch you're willing to spend.

- Jonathan M Davis

On 2013-09-03 23:10, Chris wrote:

> The machine I was looking at is this one:
>
> https://www.system76.com/laptops/model/gazp9#

A laptop! Buy parts a build your own desktop :)

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Wednesday, 4 September 2013 at 05:04:00 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

> Only $49 difference? I'd definitely go for the more memory. Of course, I always
> go for high performance over price unless the difference is really pricey, and
> I wouldn't want as little memory as 8 GB either. I always use the maximum
> memory that my motherboard will support. And memory is cheap these days, so
> out of all the things that you could do to improve your computer, it's not
> particularly expensive. But I guess that it all depends on how mch you're
> willing to spend.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

You are right of course. I prefer to spend a little bit more money and have a better machine. I was only wondering, if there is a real difference between the two. If there is a real difference, I would even go for the 16 GB Dual Channel DDR3 SDRAM at 1600MHz - 2 X 8 GB ( + $139.00 ), but that would break the bank. Also I wonder if I could get it cheaper somewhere else and add it afterwards.

The SSD, yes, I'd love to have one but they are still so darn expensive.

On Wednesday, 4 September 2013 at 06:47:15 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2013-09-03 23:10, Chris wrote:
>
>> The machine I was looking at is this one:
>>
>> https://www.system76.com/laptops/model/gazp9#
>
> A laptop! Buy parts a build your own desktop :)

You are actually right. I should look into that possibility too, given the pricing policy most companies have. Thanks for the comment. Do you have any tips or useful links?

PS First I started to write my own programs, now I'll build my own machines! :-)

On Wednesday, 4 September 2013 at 08:43:53 UTC, Chris wrote:
> On Wednesday, 4 September 2013 at 05:04:00 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>
>> Only $49 difference? I'd definitely go for the more memory. Of course, I always
>> go for high performance over price unless the difference is really pricey, and
>> I wouldn't want as little memory as 8 GB either. I always use the maximum
>> memory that my motherboard will support. And memory is cheap these days, so
>> out of all the things that you could do to improve your computer, it's not
>> particularly expensive. But I guess that it all depends on how mch you're
>> willing to spend.
>>
>> - Jonathan M Davis
>
> You are right of course. I prefer to spend a little bit more money and have a better machine. I was only wondering, if there is a real difference between the two. If there is a real difference, I would even go for the 16 GB Dual Channel DDR3 SDRAM at 1600MHz - 2 X 8 GB ( + $139.00 ), but that would break the bank. Also I wonder if I could get it cheaper somewhere else and add it afterwards.

Honestly, 4 is "usually enough", but a bit more never hurts. 8 is "*more* than enough".

Getting anything more than 8 is really just wasted money, unless you have a *very specific* use case that requires it: Specifically, the only one I can think of is having a VM farm server. Or maybe some *super*heavy* image processing or video editing.

Other than that, no, I would not cough up an extra +90$ for the +8 Gigs (I suppose +139$ is compared to the base 4 Gigs?).

Especially when you can get a 128 Gig SSD at that price.

BTW: About the "hybrid" drives. AFAIK, they used to be "better than not hybrid, I guess but still leaps and bounds inferior to an SSD". That said, their algorithms get better every day, so I don't know. I think the real choice depends on what kind of storage volume you *need*. I'd *default* back to a hybrid, if having a single SSD didn't fit my volume needs. But even then, external 2.5" drives are dirt cheap nowadays, so...

On Tuesday, 3 September 2013 at 16:15:51 UTC, Chris wrote:
> If you had the choice between:
>
> - 4 GB DDR3 SDRAM at 1600MHz - 1 X 4 GB
> - 8 GB Dual Channel DDR3 SDRAM at 1600MHz - 2 X 4GB ( + $49.00 )
>
> Is it worth the extra money or is the increase in performance not worth mentioning? Any experience with that.
>
> The processor
>
> 4th Generation Intel® Core™ i7-4700MQ Processor ( 2.4 GHz 6MB L3 Cache - 4 Cores plus Hyperthreading )
>
> Thanks.

Adding memory normally does not improve performance. Lack of one harms it though.
My simple rule of a thumb is "Am I using more than 2/3 of existing RAM in typical working scenario? Then buy more." (I only needed 8 GB because of virtual machines and tmpfs abuse)

On Wednesday, 4 September 2013 at 09:09:49 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:

> BTW: About the "hybrid" drives. AFAIK, they used to be "better than not hybrid, I guess but still leaps and bounds inferior to an SSD". That said, their algorithms get better every day, so I don't know. I think the real choice depends on what kind of storage volume you *need*. I'd *default* back to a hybrid, if having a single SSD didn't fit my volume needs. But even then, external 2.5" drives are dirt cheap nowadays, so...

SSDs:
Well, memory needs are medium to high in my case. Recording and editing music eats up a lot of space, and GBs keep accumulating as I keep old versions of projects, original versions of images alongside the edited versions, download programs, libraries and plugins, maybe the odd VirtualBox installation (and I lack the discipline to transfer old files every X weeks to an external drive, just as I hate doing the dishes). I agree that 128-250GB are loads and it takes a while to run out of space, however, it happens faster than you think these days, because more and more stuff is stored on computers (music libraries, pictures, movies and whatnot). So I'm not sure about SSDs. They are still a bit too expensive (price / storage), in my opinion.

But maybe if I build my own desktop, I could find a good compromise. A good solution would be a SSD for running programs and a SATA drive next to it to store the data. (Which is admittedly not too far from the external drive solution :)

On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 11:40:41 +0200
"Chris" <wendlec@tcd.ie> wrote:
> 
> I agree that 128-250GB are loads and it takes a while to run out of space, however, it happens faster than you think these days,

Heh, yea. Personally, I'd find 128-250GB unbearably small unless it was
in addition to a beefier secondary HDD. My current system (a laptop) is
320GB and I find that very tight. It wouldn't even be good enough
for me if I wasn't using my prior computer (a desktop) as a 2.5 TB (or
so) file server.

Maybe I'm just weird (well, I know I am ;) ), but what I lack in
processor needs I tend to make up for in storage needs.

OTOH, my server is only a few gigs HDD, and that's been fine so far. *shrug*

On Wednesday, 4 September 2013 at 10:36:14 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 11:40:41 +0200
> "Chris" <wendlec@tcd.ie> wrote:
>> 
>> I agree that 128-250GB are loads and it takes a while to run out of space, however, it happens faster than you think these days,
>
> Heh, yea. Personally, I'd find 128-250GB unbearably small unless it was
> in addition to a beefier secondary HDD. My current system (a laptop) is
> 320GB and I find that very tight. It wouldn't even be good enough
> for me if I wasn't using my prior computer (a desktop) as a 2.5 TB (or
> so) file server.
>
> Maybe I'm just weird (well, I know I am ;) ), but what I lack in
> processor needs I tend to make up for in storage needs.
>
> OTOH, my server is only a few gigs HDD, and that's been fine so far.
> *shrug*

I ended up installing a ZFS based NAS at home. I got 4TB of data, snapshotted hourly, and replicated on secondary backup.

I use it as my centralized storage solution. Regardless which computer I'm on (Home PC/Home laptop/ work laptop, wife's laptop, TV server, tablet), my files are there with me, with no need for data transfer.

All of these have about <120 Gigs of local storage, except for the home laptop, which is 250 (useful for taking stuff when not at home). In any case, I don't believe in having local storage anymore.

You don't need to go hardcore with a server or anything, but I think external storage is a superior solution. They make 2TB 2.5" external drives nowadays. All they need is a USB port and they are good to go.

On 2013-09-04 10:48, Chris wrote:

> You are actually right. I should look into that possibility too, given
> the pricing policy most companies have. Thanks for the comment. Do you
> have any tips or useful links?

I usually look at sites that compare prices. These usually give an idea of what's available on the market. Then just go through each component you need and find a price/performance ratio you're satisfied with. Then find where those components are cheapest and you think you can trust that company/site selling them.

Also read about the components of the vendor's site.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg