RAM vs SSD

[BO Terry]

I've wondered about this and wanted to put it out there. I have a client shopping for a new laptop this week. One question that has come up (again) during this process is RAM vs SSD. Example, one option has i5 with 12GB RAM and SSD. Another is with i7, 16GB RAM and HDD. Their use is primarily web-based applications for work, web-based email and Office suite.

Thanks

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

I'd lean towards the i5/12 gigs/SSD.

SSD is really that big of a huge increase. Both of those computers have adequate RAM, I have 8 gigs as my minimum, 16 for power users. 12 gigs is pretty good.
Difference in i5 vs i7 likely not apparent in the software they run, especially if the i7 is on a spindle...the i5 with an SSD will run circles around it for average use.

 

[carmen617]

SSD. No question - as long as there is sufficient RAM, an SSD will make the system fly. It doesn't matter how much RAM you put in a computer with a spinner - it won't fly the same way.

 

[nerd2u]

SSD I'd be surprised if their requirements eat up any RAM at all.

Sent from my SM-G870W using Tapatalk

 

[Porthos]

With the 2 examples you gave, The SSD is the one I would choose any day of the week.

There are many junk CPU's out there that no amount of ram or SSD will ever improve the preformance of the computer.

 

[HFultzjr]

SSD, best bang for the buck.

 

[cypress]

Agree with the others, SSD any day over the RAM.

 

[BO Terry]

Thanks all for the confirmation. That was my gut but started wondering (not for the first time) about the balance of ram/processor better/more RAM vs SSD.

 

[fencepost]

For most users they'll never hit 12GB in use (or even 8) unless they keep a ton of tabs open in Chrome since it's more process-heavy (now process-per-site instead of process-per-tab I believe). SSD they'll get the benefit of every time they use the system, and for a laptop it also means no critical moving parts.

 

[Markverhyden]

Yeah, SSD can even make an old geezer fly. My D630 went from a boot time of of close to 3 minutes with a new spinner, and constant thinking, to under 40 seconds to boot and nary a pinwheel.

 

[sapphirescales]

99% of normal users don't need any more than 4GB of memory. Most of the computers that I sell have 4GB to 8GB. The only time I recommend more is for gamers, video editors, CAD designers, etc. Anything past 4GB just isn't used by your average computer user. Same thing with processors. The average user won't see much difference between an i3/i5/i7/i9. That's not to say that the processor or RAM isn't important. They'll DEFINITELY see a difference between a piece of crap Celeron/AMD "quad core" laptop with 2GB of RAM and something decent. My general rule is that the average person is going to see NO perceivable difference in performance between the following system and a $2,500+ computer:

- At least a 2nd (though preferably 3rd) gen i-Series processor (i3/i5/i7)
- 4GB of DDR3 memory
- A decent quality SSD with an appropriate amount of storage for their needs

Where they WILL notice a difference between an older system like this and a newer system is that the newer system will:

- Look nicer
- Be lighter weight
- Have a longer lasting battery
- Support modern features such as Windows Hello
- Have a better integrated WiFi adapter (though you can put in a cheap AC USB WiFi adapter on older laptops if this is an issue)
- Generally run less hot and be quieter

I explain this to my clients and most (I'd say 70%) decide to go with an older laptop because they don't feel like paying 2x to 3x more for a newer laptop when they won't notice any real difference in performance. The other 30% have the money to spend and want a nicer looking, thinner laptop with better battery life and are willing to pay a premium for it.

So to answer your question, unless they're a heavy power user, don't worry about how much RAM it has or whether it has an i5 or an i7 processor. The most important thing is their budget, personal preference, and whether they're willing to pay you to upgrade the other system to an SSD. I do NOT recommend running Windows 10 on a hard drive. I don't care if it's a $2,000 laptop, it will run like CRAP on a hard drive. The exception is if it has an SSHD, but those are pretty inconsistent and tend to slow down a lot after each build update until they learn what to put in the cache again after the update screws around with all the system files.

 

[thecomputerguy]

SSD 200% ... You could go out and buy a $400 POS and drop an SSD in it and it would outperform a $1000 i7 beast machine in terms of responsiveness for regular tasks all day long, and unless I'm gaming on it I'd rather have the $400 computer with an SSD over an i7 without it.

 

[GTP]

I've got 32 GB ram in my game machine. Even with a browser open with a dozen tabs, several explorer windows open, encoding some vids from my phone and playing a game all at the same time, I use no more than 5 GB's...

 

[fencepost]

I'm running around 12GB in use right now, but that's because I tend to leave a ton of tabs open and I haven't taken the time to go back through and save what I wanted from them. I'd call 4GB the bare minimum but 8 is preferred - I could easily see users hitting 4GB if they use a lot of browser-based apps which are less memory efficient (also: Chrome is a pig. 55 processes, 3.4GB combined RAM) but 8GB would be a reach.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

I'm running around 12GB in use right now, but that's because I tend to leave a ton of tabs open and I haven't taken the time to go back through and save what I wanted from them.

Yeah I'm roughly tween 8-12 gigs myself...just doing a looksie now, I'm at 9.1 gigs right now and don't have all 4 monitors full of windows. 2x Chrome sessions ..1 with 7 or 8 tabs, another with 2 tabs. Quickbooks '18, Outlook '16, Notepad, Skype, OneDrive4Biz, DattoDrive, and a Glish console to a Unifi cloud controller running an upgrade.

I definitely feel a performance drop on systems with 4 gigs, I can easily swamp that with minimal work. 8 gigs is a pretty happy medium for average use, typical users can get 'tween 4-6 gigs of usage. And for heavier users, 16 gigs gives us the breathing room (as you and I note with our usage).

I don't think I've swamped a 16 gig rig myself, it takes some specialized x64 software to really use extra RAM to push usage past 16 gigs. Some design software is an example when they open up huge drawings.

 

[nonchalant]

I've got 32 GB ram in my game machine. Even with a browser open with a dozen tabs, several explorer windows open, encoding some vids from my phone and playing a game all at the same time, I use no more than 5 GB's...

This ^^.

Essentially the i5 setup with the SSD would smack the i7 setup. Mechanical hard drives are still the bottle neck in many systems today with their oh so slow spin up times. Additionally, there's lots of manufacturers and retailers pushing 16GB ram setups (big numbers that mean little for most users) while they compromise the CPU & HDD.

As Barcelona has stated, Windows rarely uses more than 5GB of RAM (in fact it tops out at about 6GB).

 

[brandonkick]

My first gen i7 system had 3x2GB (6GB total) and towards the end of it's life (2010-2016ish) I could swamp it without really trying. Running a single virtual machine with 2GB of memory allocated to it was enough to push me into "close quarters" with memory. If I had outlook open and a chrome window with a half dozen tabs or more... I was barking on being out of memory.

My R7 machine has 16GB of ram and even with 3 virtual machines going each allotted 2 gigs, outlook open, and chrome with 10 to 12 tabs I still usually have at least 6 if not 8 GB free. I could live with 8 if i had to do so. I'd only be able to run 1 of the 3 VM's I normally run and watch the chrome tab count. It wouldn't leave a lot of room, but it would be passable.

So yeah, in either case that is plenty of ram for the question at hand. Go with the setup that has the SSD. SSD's are the biggest bang for your buck upgrade unless the CPU is just painfully slow and old. I've run into one or two systems that just couldn't be saved, even with an SSD. Like single core, low clock speed processors..... just awful. No SSD in the world is going to help that. Not having enough ram can cripple a system as well, but that is no issue here.

 

[ComputerRepairTech]

99% of normal users don't need any more than 4GB of memory.

Those days are coming to an end very quickly.

 

[Porthos]

Those days are coming to an end very quickly.

What I call a "normal" user is web surfing, email, banking, facebook, photos etc. Possible Office documents.

4 gigs will "get them by" as long as they do not do all of the above all at once.

I always spec computers with 8 gig, I5's and now a SSD.
I just picked a ThinkCentre with an I7- 4770 and all of the above for $150 I will be replacing the 180 gig ssd with a lager one depending on the customer I sell it too. I could slap a 512 gig in for $69.99. I will probably sell it for $400.00 easily. Of course more for data transfer (more than 40 gigs) .

 

[sapphirescales]

What I call a "normal" user is web surfing, email, banking, facebook, photos etc. Possible Office documents.

4 gigs will "get them by" as long as they do not do all of the above all at once.

Exactly. You can even have up to 20 tabs open in Chrome with only 4GB of RAM so long as you don't have a video open in each tab. 4GB will even do gaming decently. More RAM does nothing but allow you to have more things open at the same time. If they're sticking to one heavier application (like a game or Photoshop) or multiple small applications (like Word and Chrome) open at a time then they'll be fine with 4GB of memory.