Does buying large sums of RAM help speed up your computer?

[Adragontattoo]

Assuming that you have a 64 bit OS to be able to address more than 4GB? Also assuming that you are running programs which will GLADLY use all available RAM? Yes there is an advantage.

I can run more VMs with usable levels of RAM if I have 16GB vs. having only 8GB.

CAD, Photoshop, and many other programs will GLADLY use all of the RAM you will provide.

I have seen EXCEL files (this is back in the XP64 timeframe) that rival DWG files and those were crashing lower power systems (had to open them up on a workstation and split the file up into multiple ones.)

RAMDisk is also another "option" that will gladly utilize everything you provide it.

Ram SPEED is not as noticeable for 99.9% of people (unless you are using benchmarks or LOOKING for it) vs. CPU speed and/or SSD vs. HDD.


Most all of my NON servers have the following specs:

Quad Core CPU (disregard Speed, HT, etc.)
SSD (OS and some programs) + HDD (Data Store and all other programs)
8+Gb Ram (disregard speed, or whether DDR2 or 3)
Win7x64

If I drop to 1gb of Ram, there will be a noticeable and obvious impact on performance.
If I drop to 4gb of Ram, there is a noticeable difference but it is minimal if not absolutely trivial.

Processor wise. Disabling cores results in performance impacts very similar to RAM but even longer in timeframe. THIS is only affected and apparent by programs which are Multithreaded and then only to the point that they are capable of using.

Taken directly from Microsoft:
PCs with multi-core processors:
Windows 7 was designed to work with today's multi-core processors. All 32-bit versions of Windows 7 can support up to 32 processor cores, while 64‑bit versions can support up to 256 processor cores.


PCs with multiple processors (CPUs):
Commercial servers, workstations, and other high-end PCs may have more than one physical processor. Windows 7 Professional, Enterprise, and Ultimate allow for two physical processors, providing the best performance on these computers. Windows 7 Starter, Home Basic, and Home Premium will recognize only one physical processor.


VersionLimit on X86Limit on X64 Windows 8 Enterprise 4 GB
512 GB
Windows 8 Professional 4 GB
512 GB
Windows 8 4 GB
128 GB

Physical Memory Limits: Windows Server 2012

The following table specifies the limits on physical memory for Windows Server 2012. Windows Server 2012 is available only in X64 editions.
VersionLimit on X64 Windows Server 2012 Datacenter 4 TB
Windows Server 2012 Standard 4 TB
Windows Server 2012 Essentials 64 GB
Windows Server 2012 Foundation 32 GB
Windows Storage Server 2012 Workgroup 32 GB
Windows Storage Server 2012 Standard 4 TB
Hyper-V Server 2012 4 TB

Physical Memory Limits: Windows 7

The following table specifies the limits on physical memory for Windows 7.
VersionLimit on X86Limit on X64 Windows 7 Ultimate 4 GB
192 GB
Windows 7 Enterprise 4 GB
192 GB
Windows 7 Professional 4 GB
192 GB
Windows 7 Home Premium 4 GB
16 GB
Windows 7 Home Basic 4 GB
8 GB
Windows 7 Starter 2 GB
N/A


http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa366778(v=vs.85).aspx

 

[greg2601]

4 sticks of RAM od whatever size will run faster on a board that supports Dual-Channel technology. I have 4 sticks of 8gig PC-12800 Ram and if I use 2 sticks the CL timings are not as fast as when I have all 4 in there. Unfortunately, until my new RAM gets here I am stuck with just 2. The others are out of another computer I need for work. The latency actually does go down, so given a choice, I would buy 4-4gig sticks instead of 2-8gig sticks. Hope that helps.

 

[EarthDog]

The timings of the ram have nothing to do with dual channel (channels in general) on the system really. They should run the same CL rating regardless of the number of channels. The timings are in the sticks themselves. So long as the IMC can support it (and it does even with all four DIMM slots filled), it will run its rated timings and not default higher. If it does, adjust them as that is not normal.

 

[Blaylock]

E_D is it me or are we way off subject now?

 

[EarthDog]

It is not you, sir.

My apologies for correcting the misinformation... its in my blood. LOL! But I think that is what did it.

 

[Robert17]

The OP's original question as posted in the title:

Does buying large sums of RAM help speed up your computer?

Answer: NO; you have to put them into the computer. Buying them does nothing but empty your wallet.

Hope that answers your question more directly than all this farting around......

 

[Pierre3400]

Oh lol, I feel no difference between my 4gb machine and my 8gb (which is now 16) both run 1866, one is cl9 other is cl11, and yet i dont feel much difference between them.

 

[caddi daddi]

If I might ask a question please.
I find that here at home 8 gigs of ram is plenty for day to day stuff, but the server rig at the shop with 4 boards and 8 cpus needs vast amouts of ram and 1333 ram at that.
why the vast amounts of slower ram?

 

[Automata]

If a computer runs out of free memory, it is forced to swap data to the disk to prevent the system from crashing. This operation is substantially slower than RAM. For server environments, you likely have a lot of concurrent operations accessing the system, which will require a lot of RAM. I'm not sure if that was part of your question, but I figure I should provide an answer in case.

As to why they run 1333? It is cheaper. ECC fully buffered memory is already expensive on its own. If you need to add a lot of RAM, that is going to be quite spendy, as well. To have FDIMMs with a lot of space and that are fast would be incredibly expensive. I paid less than $95 per 1333 MHz 16 GB stick of FDIMMs for my servers and that was a good deal.

Stability is another consideration. I'd wager that keeping a 1333 MHz chip stable for years is going to be more probably than a 2133 MHz chip. Remember that these servers are running many sticks (usually more than 8), which increases the chance of hitting fatal memory problems. Adding more speed will not make the server more reliable.

In addition to that, you have power draw and heat output to consider. Running the memory faster will draw more power and require more heat to be dissipated. It may not seem like memory puts out a lot of heat, but if you have 16+ sticks in a server, it adds up awfully quick. Once the heat it dissipated out of the server, there is likely a HVAC system that cools the room the servers are in. The more heat the servers put out, the more power it takes to cool the room.

For desktop environments, this isn't a factor at all. Heat output is negligible and errors a lot more tolerable. Desktop components are also likely to get replaced before hardware starts exhibiting issues, unlike a server.

 

[Culbrelai]

I disabled Superfetch on my computer and my RAM useage at idle (startup) went down at least 1.5 GB.

It's silly because Superfetch isn't so super. It precaches big things like games, and that isn't right when it really should be caching browsers, explorer.exe... etc.

 

[Automata]

It caches files you use commonly. Don't disable it.

Even if it pulls the wrong thing in memory, how is that going to hurt performance? It just dumps cache when it needs memory, which is extremely quick.

 

[Culbrelai]

It caches files you use commonly. Don't disable it.

Even if it pulls the wrong thing in memory, how is that going to hurt performance? It just dumps cache when it needs memory, which is extremely quick.

Which is largely stupid because I play games a lot and those files are huge so it uses up a ton of RAM. It's a bad judge at what you use most commonly. I think the RAM should be allocated as you need it, if you want to speed up your system get an SSD... lol.

 

[EarthDog]

You are not reading or understanding... it INSTANTLY removes those files that are cached. There is only performance to gain here, not to lose.

 

[petteyg359]

Thread subject: "Does buying large sums of RAM help speed up your computer?"

There is one definitive answer to this, and that answer is "No." You've got to install that RAM for it to do any good

With 16 GB, I usually see at least 4 GB cached (in Windows 7). In Linux, it hangs around 8 GB.

Which is largely stupid because I play games a lot and those files are huge so it uses up a ton of RAM. It's a bad judge at what you use most commonly. I think the RAM should be allocated as you need it, if you want to speed up your system get an SSD... lol.

It is allocated as you need it. Loading potentially useful things in advance when it takes nanoseconds to unload if necessary is the exact opposite of stupid. Do you go to the grocery store thirty times per day and purchase and take home a single portion of a single ingredient each time?

 

[Automata]

Which is largely stupid because I play games a lot and those files are huge so it uses up a ton of RAM. It's a bad judge at what you use most commonly. I think the RAM should be allocated as you need it, if you want to speed up your system get an SSD... lol.

This is a good article that explains Superfetch. It only uses free RAM and gives up space when it needs to. Why would you disable it?

 

[Charr]

Which is largely stupid because I play games a lot and those files are huge so it uses up a ton of RAM. It's a bad judge at what you use most commonly. I think the RAM should be allocated as you need it, if you want to speed up your system get an SSD... lol.

The algorithm likely isn't just using what you used most often, its probably weighing in the total size of what you're loading and inferring what is going to save the most time. Even if the total amount of time saved from loading the web browser frequently compared to loading that game infrequently is higher it is never going to figure that out unless it is logging its activity and tracking statistics somewhere .

 

[Pierre3400]

Why would you disable it?

He disables it, simply because nVidia didnt make it.

 

[Culbrelai]

He disables it, simply because nVidia didnt make it

LOL

day = made

My pilosophy is that XP did not have Superfetch and outperforms Windows 7 in a benchmarks, plus anecdotally (to me) it feels faster than 7 (or 8 for that matter) and I want every OS after XP to act as closely to its awesome predecessor as possible =P

Plus, XP's idle ram usage was freakin crazy low like 1GB

To OP:

I think the general consensus is that after 8 GB (or even 4GB for certain users) RAM only gets used by specialty programs and the OS/normal desktop programs won't notice nor some won't even be able to use more than 4GB.

Usually productivity programs can use more than 8GB, like Premiere Pro, Photoshop, etc.

 

[petteyg359]

Plus, XP's idle ram usage was freakin crazy low like 1GB

Yep. That's because its caching algorithms were absolutely awful. High "idle" RAM usage is a Good Thing™.

Also, please show me any instance where XP outperforms (or even performs at all, in the case of large (> 4 GB) memory requirements) Windows 7 in real usage.

 

[MadInsane]

8gb > 16gb was a HUUUUUUGE difference for me. Cheapest upgrade I have ever made. DO IT!