4 ms·
I'd guess at one point you simply can't buy anything cheaper than 10MHz? I'm updating my laptop; it'd probably be fully sufficient to have just 16GB DDR4 (I ha
by cnst 7y ago
I'd guess at one point you simply can't buy anything cheaper than 10MHz?
I'm updating my laptop; it'd probably be fully sufficient to have just 16GB DDR4 (I have just 4GB right now, and it ain't that bad), but I can get a 32GB stick for only like 110 USD, so, I might as well go for 32GB to max out the slot and not have to worry about it later on. If the price for 32GB sticks was more like $500, I'd probably not bother (although it'd arguably still be a good investment in our profession here, it's just a little more hard to justify when you know the price will come down relatively soon, and you don't quite need that much RAM in the immediate future anyways).
- duxup 7y agoThat's kinda what I'm assuming. As a chip maker one chip that covers like X use cases might be more powerful than a lot of them need, but it covers all those use cases.
- Palomides 7y agothe cheapest MCU I'm aware of, Padauk PMS150C, $0.03, runs up to 8MHz. Spending a few cents more can get you a lot more speed and features, of course.
- vardump 7y agoI guess – if you don't mind halving your memory bandwidth. Most laptops have two memory channels, so if both are not populated with same size memory module, at least part of the memory range will provide only 50% bandwidth. For memory bandwidth sensitive tasks it can halve performance, although I guess for most workloads the effect is way less, perhaps just 15-20% slowdown.