is 8GB a lot?
8Gb install file? No. 8gb log file? Can be. 8Gb of customer PII dumped from your database? Absolutely
this post was submitted on 22 May 2025
516 points (97.4% liked)
memes
15328 readers
4074 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
thanks Nvidia, maybe 4gb VRAM is next
8gb of system ram is enough for a low end system (especially with Linux) and 8gb of vram is enough for 1080p gaming.
Same with 8 GB of L1 cache.
Like a MacBook
The reason why people didnt like 8gb of ram on MacBooks is because they charged premium prices for laptops with 8gb. Especially since you cant upgrade the ram. My Thinkpad has 8gb of ram but if I wanted I could upgrade to 16gb.
I know lol, I was taking a pot shot at apple for exactly that reason, no excuse for the insane pricing with such a restriction on it, not to mention it's soldered in ram lol.
RAM on phones is ok, though.
What does 1GB of cache look like?
That’s a lot of cache! For a new battery :P
CPU or SSD cache?
CPU
Still god tier. Plus, it's static RAM, which is faster than the dynamic RAM used in regular RAM sticks.
Pretty sure the system would actually be FAR slower with 1GB L1 cache, the latency times would be insane. There’s a reason they are normally an order of magnitude less.
What about downloaded RAM?
I always thought it would be funny running an os from an usb stick.
Never would I have thought that there would be storage in the size of a stick exceeding the default configuration of a desktop pc.
2 TB in one small nvme drive?! Wtf. Amazing but also crazy.
Something I was able to do with my old OnePlus 3 phone, was use it as a Linux USB. It was a pretty neat trick!
It was really convenient to just snag a work laptop and boot it into Puppy Linux (which lives entirely in RAM) to browse around and such without my job looking too closely and being creepy about it.
Disclaimer
IT departments are various kinds of chill, scrutinizing, lazy, or pathologically psycho, YMMV greatly. Try at your own risk. LolI have an 8GB Ubuntu flash drive, so it's certainly possible
You should check out Linux live USBs from nearly 2 decades ago then.
When my dad first saw an nvme drive he had to triple check what he was looking at BC in his old 70s computer brain there's no fucking way something so small and unmoving can hold so much data, read/write it so fast, and all for a relatively cheap price.
8GB of Atari 2600 games
Generally there’s a reverse relationship between size and speed. A 8gb cache would also be super slow thus defeating the purpose of the cache. If it were so easy every cpu would have a huge cache
Not really, if you're putting that size on the physical chip it will be fast because it's close by. It's just that we can't fit that much on a chip now.
Unfortunately that’s not how it works. This is coming from someone who studied computer hardware and software in university.
Cache sizes are a trade off. Small cache means quick access speeds but higher chance of a cache miss. Larger caches have a lower access speed but a lower chance for a cache miss.
This is why we have different levels of cache on a computer actually. It allows us to harness the benefits of the different sizes of caches without impacting the speed as much. With multiple layers we can have small caches that are super fast and then larger caches that are slower and so and so forth. This way we can have both speed and size.
There's nothing about being larger that makes access speed inherently slower. We just have to use cheaper technologies to improve density. CPU cache is usually SRAM, which is less dense than DRAM, but faster. 1GB of SRAM would be god tier. Even the Ryzen X3D chips only have 96MB of L3 cache, all SRAM, and those are sick.
For one, I'm just happy to see a hardware stat that isn't rapidly and constantly enlarging for no other reason than being incrementally released to pressure constant sales.
I mean it's a small thing, but neat! I did wonder why cache sizes tended to stay small even between generations.
The first hard drive I got had 20MB and it was glorious.
Mine was 500 GB but that was in 2010.
My first was 500MB. I remember Stonekeep seemed enormous at 80MB.
My first computer didn't have a hard drive at all (Apple IIe).
I had a conspiracy theory that it's trying to communicate with me using morse code, but I was too lazy to learn it
The first one I used was 5MB. The OS on the machine (a CP/M version) didn't know how to handle it, so it was partitioned as lots and lots of floppies. Not very useful.
How about the other way around?
Doesn't shit like this happen because Japan or some other country requires physical media back ups on floppy?
So I can boot up without a disk now?
8GB of (internet) bandwidth.
8GB/s, or 8GB per month.
/s of course, hence bandwidth, not allowed traffic per month.
I have 3gb of VRAM.
I'm on 2 lol