this post was submitted on 25 Feb 2026
269 points (99.6% liked)

PC Gaming

14009 readers
962 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
  10. Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] qupada@fedia.io 23 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

35% is the kind of numbers I used to have on servers at work, which often feature >2TB of RAM.

(another similar percentage being the CPUs, 128 cores per socket doesn't come cheap)

Seeing those numbers for desktop hardware, "holy fuck" is about right.

[–] Gladaed@feddit.org 5 points 17 hours ago

Yeah. Scientific and high performance compute are really eating it on ram prices right now.

And using less memory is much harder than just opening fewer browser tabs.

Software is designed to eat memory for it was very cheap in the past. Well, comparatively.

For data center shit, it’s probably up in the 70-80% range (unless you’re also running shitloads of H100s or A100s or whatever top of the line is these days)