2GB of RAM . . . overkill?

[XMan]

I'm looking at a 3.0C/D875PBZ setup and I'm seriously considering getting 4 512MB DIMMs . . . those little suckers are just so cheap right now!

Question is, will I notice any difference day-to-day, or is it something that might only effect apps like Photoshop? The disk subsystem is going to be dual SATA Raptors in RAID0, so no bottleneck there . . . I have 1GB now, using Windows 2000, and it did make a difference going from 512-->1024, but not as much as 256-->512, of course.

Thoughts?

 

[nick1985]

give me some money

 

[MasterHoss]

:Q 2GB???!!??

 

[BahbRF]

I have a simlar setup to what you are planning. I have a 3.0C and 4 sticks of 512 MB Corsair XMS. Lemme tell ya, this system flys! But realistically, unless you do video editing (which I do) 2 GB is a little bit overkill.

 

[Budman]

Originally posted by: MasterHoss
:Q 2GB???!!??

Microsoft will find a way to use it,longhorn is coming...

 

[mechBgon]

The longer you leave the system inbetween reboots, the more difference 2Gb is likely to make, because Win2000 and WinXP will cache apps in RAM for instant relaunch. Look at your "system cache" in Task Manager When I'm running 1.5Gb of RAM on my work rig, and a couple of systems have pulled Office2000 Disc 1 and Disc 2 installations from my administrative installation point, system cache ends up well over 1Gb, and the next system that wants Office2000 gets it direct from RAM... no disk activity required.

<--- mechBgon's face when he doesn't have to fight for HDD priority

I disagree with a RAID0 of two WD360GD's eliminating the hard drives as a bottleneck. They're still waaaaaay slower than the rest of your hardware, not counting your optical drives.

 

[ElFenix]

why don't you look at the task manager for how much memory you're using. if you're using less than 1 GiB you're not going to get any benefit going from 1 GiB to 2 GiB.

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
why don't you look at the task manager for how much memory you're using. if you're using less than 1 GiB you're not going to get any benefit going from 1 GiB to 2 GiB.

Not necessarily... see the situation I described above. Total memory usage usually doesn't top 300Mb at any time, but without the other 1200Mb in there, I couldn't do zero-disk-activity Office2000 installs.

 

[GaryShandling]

Theres no such thing as overkill in the computer industry, it doesnt take alot of intelligence to realise that. Time eventually will make your system obsolete, but having better products in your comp will mean it will take less time and give you better performance at the later stages.

 

[T3C]

You can never have to much ram. Or a processor that is to fast. or a hard drive that s to big!

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Originally posted by: ElFenix
why don't you look at the task manager for how much memory you're using. if you're using less than 1 GiB you're not going to get any benefit going from 1 GiB to 2 GiB.

Not necessarily... see the situation I described above. Total memory usage usually doesn't top 300Mb at any time, but without the other 1200Mb in there, I couldn't do zero-disk-activity Office2000 installs.

really you haven't said anything thats contradicting what i've said, though you're contradicting yourself saying total memory usage isn't over 300MiB when its actually using another 1200MiB.

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Originally posted by: ElFenix
why don't you look at the task manager for how much memory you're using. if you're using less than 1 GiB you're not going to get any benefit going from 1 GiB to 2 GiB.

Not necessarily... see the situation I described above. Total memory usage usually doesn't top 300Mb at any time, but without the other 1200Mb in there, I couldn't do zero-disk-activity Office2000 installs.

really you haven't said anything thats contradicting what i've said, though you're contradicting yourself saying total memory usage isn't over 300MiB when its actually using another 1200MiB.

I'm not contradicting myself Look in your own Task Manager and compare your peak commit charge to your system cache. The more memory you have, the more apps your computer can cache in RAM for disk-free relaunches later.


edit: I do see what your point is so my point is simply this: with 2Gb of RAM available, he could do some Photoshop or whatever, then fire up BF1942, play, exit BF1942, and Photoshop would probably still be able to re-launch straight from RAM, not from disk. Gotta like that "whammo!" effect when an app re-launches from RAM

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: nick1985
give me some money

 

[sharkeeper]

I find that 4GB is not enough.

2GB is hardly overkill. It's all in what you use your system for. If you're just surfin' and postin' and doin' a little 3DMarkin', then it's akin to renting a 24' Ryder truck to return a handful of library books...

-DAK-

 

[rhawk79]

i think even 1gb is overkill. but to those who have it, question:

if I monitor my ram usasge in the task manager, and I normally use 200-250 at most, then theoritcally i would have no reason to upgrade from 512 to 1024 correct?

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: rhawk79
i think even 1gb is overkill. but to those who have it, question:

if I monitor my ram usasge in the task manager, and I normally use 200-250 at most, then theoritcally i would have no reason to upgrade from 512 to 1024 correct?

Nope, see my example a couple posts up. Although the extra RAM won't all be used at once, Windows2000 or WinXP will use it to cache your apps or data so it doesn't have to drag them out from the hard drive again later.

For a simple example: on my work system, it takes about four seconds to launch PhotoImpact 6 from the hard drive after I've booted up the system (and that's a 15000rpm SCSI drive, mind you). If I close PhotoImpact 6 and then re-open it, it re-opens in 1.5 seconds, direct from RAM. If my system only had enough RAM to meet my peak commit charge, it couldn't do that and would be dragging PhotoImpact 6 from the hard drive every time.

 

[rhawk79]

that's interesting...but is there anyway to monitor this usage? cause the task manager never shows this...

 

[rhawk79]

ok i read your posst but where is system cache in the task manager?

edit: nevermind, found it...thanks for the tip !!!

 

[GaryShandling]

Originally posted by: rhawk79
i think even 1gb is overkill. but to those who have it, question:

if I monitor my ram usasge in the task manager, and I normally use 200-250 at most, then theoritcally i would have no reason to upgrade from 512 to 1024 correct?

No, because you dont know what applications will affect your ram while your running them..such as if you play unreal then bring up task manager and see you have 50% free usage, then stick in bf1942 and bring up task manager it will change dramatically. Thats why you have to decide how much ram to get depending on usage of applications.

 

[Harabecw]

is there a way to disable this auto-caching?

 

[Budman]

Originally posted by: Harabecw
is there a way to disable this auto-caching?

Install Win98.

 

[Eug]

Sim City 4?

 

[billandopus]

Originally posted by: MasterHoss
:Q 2GB???!!??

Originally posted by: nick 1985
give me some money

 

[Vonkhan]

Originally posted by: Eug
Sim City 4?

there u go!

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: cybpnk
You can never have to much ram. Or a processor that is to fast. or a hard drive that s to big!

I believe you meant:

You can never have too much ram. Or a processor that is too fast. or a hard drive that's too big![/b]