For the average consumer, would you rather have 2x RAM, or 2x CPU? It’s interesting how the answer changes over the decades. 1975: RAM, no question. Anyone with an Altair wanted to run 8K BASIC, 4k BASIC was super stripped (no string variables!)…AND slow. 1985: Also RAM. Apple released the Fat Mac (512k) which was just the OG Mac with 4x the memory and the same CPU, pretty telling. 1990: CPU! (arguably). Ordinary DOS had an annoying memory ceiling, so you might lust over a 386 or 486 if you had a 286. 2005: RAM. Lot’s of XP boxes only had 512MB, or (gasp!) 256MB. Doubling made a pretty big difference (until you hit 32-bit addressing limits, 64bit still pretty niche). 2010: Tricky. There was a fairly common “4GB is enough” sentiment in this era. Then again, the *average* consumer probably wouldn’t feel a huge difference going from an i3->i7 either. 2025: CPU. Yeah, maybe you won’t believe me, but keep in mind I’m talking about average consumers. The best way to think about this (imo) is mobile devices. Even top-end phones get by with surprisingly little. If your phone’s cpu was 2x faster…you’d (probably) notice. 2x more ram on mobile? Ehhhh. More background applications I guess? Not going to be a wild difference. I’d argue this concept even extends to laptops + desktops at this point. Look at how popular the Neo is with a paltry 8GB!