Usually it's 2.5h when you're gaming. 2.5h when you're browsing the internet is a deal breaker, even at this discounted price. It's just not practical as a laptop.

Quote from: Neenyah on April 18, 2024, 14:49:37

Quote from: TruthIsThere on April 18, 2024, 14:35:05Reddit?!... that makes it official then! SMH! 🙄

Reddit also have discussions about aliens from another galaxy living among us on Earth. We definitely need to believe that too. 😏

Ok, is Adobe more relevant then? 👉 Phtoshop only use 100GB of my Ram

QuoteFirst of all, Photoshop will reserve that memory within seconds, leaving nothing for other applications and processes. Setting that allocation doesn't mean Photoshop can use that memory - it means Photoshop will use that memory! That will slow down your whole system and push other things into disk paging. And once taken, the memory is not released again until the application is closed out. Instead, it gets recycled and reused as you work.

What few people know, is that even plugins like Camera Raw run outside Photoshop's address space and require their own memory in addition to what Photoshop uses.

Secondly, Photoshop doesn't really need all that memory. RAM is just a cache for the scratch disk, which is where the real heavy lifting is. There is no such thing as "enough RAM", no matter how much you have. Everything is written to scratch disk at all times. It is much more important that you have enough scratch disk space, than vast amounts of RAM. That situation was a bit different in the old days when we had slow and sluggish hard drives - but today, with ultra-fast NVMe drives, the speed difference is insignificant. The scratch disk is for all practical purposes as fast as RAM.

If you have 96 GB of RAM, allocate 80 GB to Photoshop and IT WILL USE IT, all 80.

*sighs*

Like a wiseman has once stated - "people are their biggest problems!"

Quote from: TruthIsThere on April 18, 2024, 14:35:05Reddit?!... that makes it official then! SMH! 🙄

Reddit also have discussions about aliens from another galaxy living among us on Earth. We definitely need to believe that too. 😏

Ok, is Adobe more relevant then? 👉 Phtoshop only use 100GB of my Ram

QuoteFirst of all, Photoshop will reserve that memory within seconds, leaving nothing for other applications and processes. Setting that allocation doesn't mean Photoshop can use that memory - it means Photoshop will use that memory! That will slow down your whole system and push other things into disk paging. And once taken, the memory is not released again until the application is closed out. Instead, it gets recycled and reused as you work.

What few people know, is that even plugins like Camera Raw run outside Photoshop's address space and require their own memory in addition to what Photoshop uses.

Secondly, Photoshop doesn't really need all that memory. RAM is just a cache for the scratch disk, which is where the real heavy lifting is. There is no such thing as "enough RAM", no matter how much you have. Everything is written to scratch disk at all times. It is much more important that you have enough scratch disk space, than vast amounts of RAM. That situation was a bit different in the old days when we had slow and sluggish hard drives - but today, with ultra-fast NVMe drives, the speed difference is insignificant. The scratch disk is for all practical purposes as fast as RAM.

If you have 96 GB of RAM, allocate 80 GB to Photoshop and IT WILL USE IT, all 80.

Quote from: RobertJasiek on April 18, 2024, 13:29:511) I have not said that it is accurate. For me, it is good enough if it roughly indicates when the RAM is about to be full.

2) If I choose to almost-fill the RAM, this is not my fault but it is my choice. Of course, usually I avoid this and stop when RAM usage is around 95% when the computer is still fluent.

3) Why is it an anomaly if almost-filled RAM dramatically slows down the computer? I have never oberserved anything else on any computer but have only heard this kind of behaviour then.

4) Where is your explanation about how to watch allocated RAM?

Just simply... FIX... YOUR... RIG!

Quote from: Neenyah on April 18, 2024, 13:37:04I agree with your comment in general but about this here:

Quote from: TruthIsThere on April 18, 2024, 08:46:32we will never... ever see anything that would fully utilize 64GB+ RAM! EVER!

Photoshop would like to have a word with you 😬 Quick Google search for "Photoshop 64 GB RAM": https://imgur.com/uAL39MU

And that was eight years ago. Link on the Reddit post with that image: https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/4zzbip/and_this_is_exactly_why_i_need_128gb_of_ram/,

No matter how much you have you can fill, allocate and utilise all of it unless you cap it inside of Photoshop settings (you can limit it even to 500 MB on a 196 GB machine if you want). I was able to easily push it well over 100 GB OF USED RAM on a 128 GB desktop when I was working on A1-sized 300 DPI project. Photoshop alone can temp/page 64-400 GB while working on one single large-sized multi-layer file with many smart objects and how much it likes to swap/scratch has nothing to do with RAM because that thing is always hungry for more and more RAM.

Reddit?!... that makes it official then! SMH! 🙄

Reddit also have discussions about aliens from another galaxy living among us on Earth. We definitely need to believe that too. 😏

I agree with your comment in general but about this here:

Quote from: TruthIsThere on April 18, 2024, 08:46:32we will never... ever see anything that would fully utilize 64GB+ RAM! EVER!

Photoshop would like to have a word with you 😬 Quick Google search for "Photoshop 64 GB RAM": https://imgur.com/uAL39MU

And that was eight years ago. Link on the Reddit post with that image: https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/4zzbip/and_this_is_exactly_why_i_need_128gb_of_ram/,

No matter how much you have you can fill, allocate and utilise all of it unless you cap it inside of Photoshop settings (you can limit it even to 500 MB on a 196 GB machine if you want). I was able to easily push it well over 100 GB OF USED RAM on a 128 GB desktop when I was working on A1-sized 300 DPI project. Photoshop alone can temp/page 64-400 GB while working on one single large-sized multi-layer file with many smart objects and how much it likes to swap/scratch has nothing to do with RAM because that thing is always hungry for more and more RAM.

1) I have not said that it is accurate. For me, it is good enough if it roughly indicates when the RAM is about to be full.

2) If I choose to almost-fill the RAM, this is not my fault but it is my choice. Of course, usually I avoid this and stop when RAM usage is around 95% when the computer is still fluent.

3) Why is it an anomaly if almost-filled RAM dramatically slows down the computer? I have never oberserved anything else on any computer but have only heard this kind of behaviour then.

4) Where is your explanation about how to watch allocated RAM?

Quote from: RobertJasiek on April 18, 2024, 11:58:17I use a hardware monitoring software

Yeah, 'cause **third-party** software are known to be always accurate right? 🙄

And your computer performance tanking definitely sounds like a YOU issue than just a RAM issues.

That says a lot right there about your irregular anomalies.

I use a hardware monitoring software and, if it tells me 99.9% RAM 100% swap file being used (and the computer behaves like molasses), these are the values I have to believe. If you can tell us how to watch allocated memory more specifically, let us know!

Quote from: RobertJasiek on April 18, 2024, 10:40:20On the desktop with RTX 4070 Desktop, it takes 2.5h to fill 64 GB RAM.

Yeah, you have drunk the kool-aid, alright.

Don't get confused with, and falsely confirm, that USAGE (false fill-up mess) and... wait for it... ALLOCATION is the same. SMH! 🙄

On the desktop with RTX 4070 Desktop, it takes 2.5h to fill 64 GB RAM. Since the GPU is the bottleneck, it does not depend on RAM details. Therefore, in a notebook with RTX 4080 Laptop, it should also take roughly 2.5h to fill 64 GB RAM so my usage would be the same and I do need those 64 GB while 32 GB for would insufficient for every demanding AI query and 48 GB would insufficient for every second demanding AI query. Therefore, I will never buy a notebook for AI without at least 64 GB RAM.

With 32 GB, I could only do non-demanding AI queries. These amount to ca. 95% while only ca. 5% are demanding AI queries. However, for my study purpose, I do need the full view including the demanding AI queries. Otherwise, there would be serious gaps in understanding the study field whenever things become particularly interesting.

***

When somebody says he needs 64 GB for RAW photo editing or advanced video editing, I believe him. It would not be my need because my media editing needs are only ordinary and partially even basic. 64 GB is for advanced endusers with advanced needs but we do exist and have such needs, regardless of much clown downtalk you spend.

Quote from: RobertJasiek on April 18, 2024, 08:13:43Or have the manufacturers produce notebooks flexible enough to accommodate 64 GB for those choosing and needing such. If they don't, they don't sell to them.

Notebooks will never be flexible enough (well, not within the next 10-years or so)... mainly due to thermals. Unless you just like throwing around numbers, we will never... ever see anything that would fully utilize 64GB+ RAM! EVER! Not even the resource hog Ai enhancement stuff (even processing up to ~8K+) that's just **poorly optimize** but these RAM clowns will swear by the opposite of my statement just for them to push more RAM at the unwise. 48GB - 24GB x 2  (MAX!!!!) - is the sweet spot for any demanding tasks today, and for the foreseeable future, regardless of what the RAM clowns states and their shills and with their fake news benchmark mess.

Or have the manufacturers produce notebooks flexible enough to accommodate 64 GB for those choosing and needing such. If they don't, they don't sell to them.

Quote from: RobertJasiek on April 18, 2024, 06:30:51

Quote from: TruthIsThere on April 18, 2024, 05:44:5332GB is more than enough for any today's gaming on a notebook and for many system's destroyers creative software e.g. AutoCad, Fusion Studio, ect.

And insufficient for others like me.

If we're still talking about a notebook and it's task(s), yes it is **efficient ** if you are just gaming or processing ~1080p-ish on the timeline or just use proxies. You don't need to render 1440p/4k+ on a timeline to deliver 4K+ workloads/projects regardless of what these RAM clowns, and their shills, claim. If you do, again... IF we are still referring to a notebook tasks/workloads (not what's designed to be used on a FULL spec'd out powerful desktop computer), uhm... change your habits/rig. 🙄

Quote from: TruthIsThere on April 18, 2024, 05:44:5332GB is more than enough for any today's gaming on a notebook and for many system's destroyers creative software e.g. AutoCad, Fusion Studio, ect.

And insufficient for others like me.