How much RAM is really useful?

[Dawgdoc]

How much RAM is useful, and how much is overkill and not necessary with regards to DDR2? This is for a gaming specific rig.

System specs:
OS = XP x64

EVGA 750i FTW

Either Q6600 G0, X3220 G0, or E8400 (Im switching them out regularly to determine which I want to use long term).

8800 GTS G92 512 in SLI

Corsair HX620W

Custom CM690 case with all watercooling.

I currently am using 2 X 1gb Mushkin PC8500 Extreme Performance 5-5-4-12

I am going to add more ram, but will I see any REAL WORLD performance increases between 4gb and 8gb?

Is it just overkill to run 8gb for a gaming rig? Im not interested in benchmark performance, only real world/noticable performance gains.

TY!

[jiggamanjb]

Since you are using XP I'd say you'd see no difference getting more RAM. If going to Vista I'd say 4GB is the sweet spot.

[Dawgdoc]

Thank you for the input.

I think you missed the fact that I am running XP x64........

XP x64 can support as much ram as Vista x64. Its not a question of what the OS can handle, its more a question of how much will it affect real world performance.....

[Robbman]

If you have 32-bit LMA aware programs (i.e, programs that you could use the /3Gb switch in 32-bit XP), then you will benefit with more than 4gb of RAM in a 64-bit OS, as that 32-bit LMA program can address the entire 4Gb allocation.

[jokers_greg]

edit: sorry just noticed you're running XP-x64. Yeah the more RAM the merrier, I'll probably go 8GB with my system, but if gaming is all you do, then 4gb is enough.

[jokers_greg]

to be clearer. In gaming and gaming only (especially in the present time) no you wont. But why not go 8GB anyway. It's pretty cheap now, and sooner or later games will require that amount of RAM

[jiggamanjb]

Thank you for the input.

I think you missed the fact that I am running XP x64........

XP x64 can support as much ram as Vista x64. Its not a question of what the OS can handle, its more a question of how much will it affect real world performance.....

Actually I didn't ;) XP runs nice with 2GB and Vista likes 4GB. 32bit and 64bit didn't even factor into my equation.

[Shiggity]

2x2GB for vista is pretty sexy

my 2 cents

[meionm]

Since you got xp64, 4gb might be enough

[ou_phidelt]

I agree with jiggamanjb. For XP two gigs is plenty. For vista 4GB is the sweet spot. Basically take what you have in XP and double it to get a rough equivalent in Vista. Unless you using programs that need the extra ram(i.e. photoshop, not gaming) 4GB in XP is overkill just like 8GB is in Vista.

[Charr]

I have run 2GB and 4GB in Vista x64, and it made little difference. With 4GB, the maximum amount of RAM that used was 58%, and that was under Crysis with maxed detail.

[Moto7451]

The FEAR expansion packs have frame shuttering issues with 2GB of RAM in my experience. For Perseus Mandate, thats mostly because it leaks memory like a broken water main. Moving to 3GB made everything happy. Some games like Oblivion and Crysis also seem to like as much memory as you can give them.

[jokers_greg]

if you really want to exceed 4GB and go to about 8, you can experience some awesome performance benefits from other apps not just games. Tom's has an interesting article about it, involving turning off window's pagefile system. here's a linky: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/vista-workshop,1775.html

[Dawgdoc]

if you really want to exceed 4GB and go to about 8, you can experience some awesome performance benefits from other apps not just games. Tom's has an interesting article about it, involving turning off window's pagefile system. here's a linky: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/vista-workshop,1775.html

Great article and TY for the link, but Im not using Vista.

[jokers_greg]

yeah, but it applies to both vista and XP, since they both use the pagefile system.

np btw :)

[Gunlance]

Ive got 8gb and notice no difference from when I had 4. WIth ram prices so cheap now, why not get the upgrade?

[jokers_greg]

Ive got 8gb and notice no difference from when I had 4. WIth ram prices so cheap now, why not get the upgrade?

read that article I linked earlier.

[doublejack]

yeah, but it applies to both vista and XP, since they both use the pagefile system.

np btw :)

There's a massive difference between Vista and XP when it comes to memory. To put it succinctly, Vista eats memory. Gobs and gobs of it. XP does not, it's a much lighter OS (and I thought I'd never refer to XP as "light"). So your link does not apply to XP.

To wit, it is not unreasonable to run XP on a machine with 128mb of ram (64mb is the bare, absolute minimum). Sure, it's not going to be blazing fast but it works just fine for web browsing and office type apps. Gaming would be very limited. Jump up to 256mb and it runs much smoother & quicker, and there are more games you can run. At 512mb there are many, many games you can play in XP and office applications reach near peak performance. Jump up to 1gb and you're playing any and all games reasonably, and at 2gb you've basically maxed out gaming performance. Going above 2gb yields next to no additional performance, in anything.

Vista is totally different. You need 512mb just to run the OS, but it runs like a dog unless you have 1gb. At 2gb it picks up steam but it continues to speed up through the 3-4gb range.


I think the sweet spot is 2gb for XP and 4gb for Vista, even though there are modest gains to be had in certain apps. above that point.

[terran2k]

4Gb of memory was plenty, I had memory free in vista even when gaming. granted not as much as XP, but it was enough. Im about to put 8gigs in my vmware machine when I get home.

[-Blue-]

you can't compare those kind of things like how much they need to run minimum.. by that i could say the best is windows 3.1 or something like that.. you need to compare it on how it ran on a system a year after launch.. what was the common system then and what is the most common system now and compare each.. you can't really compare a system that was made for computers 6+ years ago running on a system now.. it's bound to fly..

you need to check what was the min amount of ram a system had back then and now.. the min now is basicaly what was max back then... things move accordingly to how things go.. try running photoshop cs3 on a computer 6 years ago, you can probably start it and go take a shower come back and it might not even have opened...

on how much ram is useful.. it really depends on what you do.. games only.. word and the likes.. 4 should be more than enough... if you video edit, photshop, 3D stuff, renders and all that.. grab as much as you can..

[jokers_greg]

There's a massive difference between Vista and XP when it comes to memory. To put it succinctly, Vista eats memory. Gobs and gobs of it. XP does not, it's a much lighter OS (and I thought I'd never refer to XP as "light"). So your link does not apply to XP.

To wit, it is not unreasonable to run XP on a machine with 128mb of ram (64mb is the bare, absolute minimum). Sure, it's not going to be blazing fast but it works just fine for web browsing and office type apps. Gaming would be very limited. Jump up to 256mb and it runs much smoother & quicker, and there are more games you can run. At 512mb there are many, many games you can play in XP and office applications reach near peak performance. Jump up to 1gb and you're playing any and all games reasonably, and at 2gb you've basically maxed out gaming performance. Going above 2gb yields next to no additional performance, in anything.

Vista is totally different. You need 512mb just to run the OS, but it runs like a dog unless you have 1gb. At 2gb it picks up steam but it continues to speed up through the 3-4gb range.


I think the sweet spot is 2gb for XP and 4gb for Vista, even though there are modest gains to be had in certain apps. above that point.

thats not my point, or the point of the article. The article's focal point is eliminating the hard drives pagefile system. And it is THE SAME system whether you're in XP OR in Vista.

Ofcourse vista is more power-hungry, but the big gains come from 64-bit applications; REGARDLESS if its on vista or XP. (you also get gains in everyday applications/games-- but just read the article to see what i mean)

Keep in mind the article is focused on 64-bit systems because they are the only ones that have memory remapping (giving them the ability to use more than 3.8 GB of RAM or something like that). there's a 64-bit windows XP and a 64-bit windows Vista..

[myststix]

I am curious, how about that new thumbdrive speedup vista is supposed to have? isn't that just a page file on a ram stick?

[gangaskan]

I am curious, how about that new thumbdrive speedup vista is supposed to have? isn't that just a page file on a ram stick?


essentally that all it is, it takes the lighter memory usage programs i think, or it dynamically assigns whatever and whomever it needs too.


and isnt not running a page file bad in a sense? sure, you have 8 gigs of ram, but when you exceed that dosent it pop a blue screen on you or something to that effect?

[jjw0782]

I use Vista x64 for gaming 2 gigs is really all you need.

[jokers_greg]

essentally that all it is, it takes the lighter memory usage programs i think, or it dynamically assigns whatever and whomever it needs too.


and isnt not running a page file bad in a sense? sure, you have 8 gigs of ram, but when you exceed that dosent it pop a blue screen on you or something to that effect?

yes but this is the beauty of having more than 4GB of RAM, no 32-bit application can get close to 8GB. If you do go over though, yeah windows will crash on ya. It's just an alternative, that I admit isn't perfect at the time being, but when our motherboard manufacturers let us hit 16-32G, i think pagefiles will be useless .

[jokers_greg]

essentally that all it is, it takes the lighter memory usage programs i think, or it dynamically assigns whatever and whomever it needs too.


and isnt not running a page file bad in a sense? sure, you have 8 gigs of ram, but when you exceed that dosent it pop a blue screen on you or something to that effect?

I use Vista x64 for gaming 2 gigs is really all you need.

so did I when i ran vista, (32-bit though), and i had to go to 4gb. 2 is just enough to keep vista happy imo, nevermind games and whatnot

[gangaskan]

yes but this is the beauty of having more than 4GB of RAM, no 32-bit application can get close to 8GB. If you do go over though, yeah windows will crash on ya. It's just an alternative, that I admit isn't perfect at the time being, but when our motherboard manufacturers let us hit 16-32G, i think pagefiles will be useless .


quite possible :) but then again, i'd rather be safe then sorry

[jokers_greg]

yeah :) but its easy to see why people would like it, just like raid 0 compared to ummm the other one that stores duplicated files on the second drive (dont remember anything about HDDs lol).

I wanna try it myself as a daily thing with the pagefile system off. I did it with 4 gbs on my older computer on some small apps, and WOW that was faaaast

[mangyrat]

just get 8 GB and don't look back.

how many time have we all heard this same thing over the years 1meg, 1 GB, 2 GB, 4 GB is plenty for gaming or every day use.

in the next year im sure a game or a every day use application will take advantage of more then 4 GB of ram so why not get it over with now and go with 8 GB its cheap now will it be cheap next year?

i stopped upgrading my computer every few months and try to look ahead for at least a year so to me 8 GB made perfect sense.