4GB to 8GB - Worth it?

[SlowSpyder]

My computer is a general use/gaming machine. Right now I have 2x2GB of A-Data Vitesta memory installed (rated at 4-4-4-12).

Since memory is still pretty cheap, would there be any benefit in picking up another 4GB? I didn't see too many gaming benches out there that show 8GB vs. 4GB, I wasn't sure how worth while that would be, if at all.

Right now I'm running a Phenom 9850, but I'll probably jump on a PhII when they become available... again, not sure if the higher performing CPU would benefit from more memory.

The PC is a gernal use machine and I game a lot on it. I run F@H on it as well. I doubt I'd see any change in my general use stuff, but wasn't sure if there would be a benefit to gaming as I mentioned or if only Photoshop type programs really use that kind of memory.

Any thoughts would be nice, thanks.

 

[Cogman]

First, you should realize that almost all games are 32bit. That means that any game you throw at it will pretty much be limited to 3.5 gb of memory (unless it does some stuff with threading). Since gaming is a pretty immersive thing, I doubt you will have much more going on besides the game. If you like to encode video, or do some other stuff while you game, then it might we worth it.

Also, Vistas superfetch might benefit from it. It depends on how they implemented the algorithm

 

[Eeqmcsq]

My first post. Woohoo! Anyway, I read somewhere about how Vista will use as much of your free RAM as possible to do some sort of prefetch thing to make your apps load faster, so that's where the extra 4 GB could be useful. I've also read about people having difficult times getting 4 sticks of RAM to run on some motherboards at DDR1066, because it puts a strain on the memory controller. But since you're running DDR 800, I think you should be OK. But unless you are running out of your 4 GB and using swap in your normal activities, I don't think you'll notice TOO much of a benefit. Then again, since it's so cheap, I'd say go for it for the bragging rights.

 

[TLW]

Vista x64 uses about 40-50% of my 4GB while the computer is idle

during the final battle scene in Crysis64 the game took up 2.3GB just by itself and my total usage went up to 95%

TBH unless you have lots of things going on while you're gaming you probably won't notice a leap in performance, but it's about the cheapest way to wave your epenis around, so i'll probably end up getting another 4GB soon

 

[Blain]

40-50% @ idle???? :shocked:

I'm guessing you love eye candy in your OS?

 

[TLW]

Originally posted by: Blain
40-50% @ idle???? :shocked:

I'm guessing you love eye candy in your OS?

idle for me includes firefox munching 3-400MB, so it's relative i guess

explorer.exe uses ~300MB idle

but then you don't buy a ferrari to drive to the shops

 

[TemjinGold]

Hey guys, I currently have 4gigs on Vista 64 as well. Would it be worth it to go to 8 if I wanted to turn off my pagefile or do you think 4 is enough for that?

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: Blain
40-50% @ idle???? :shocked:

I'm guessing you love eye candy in your OS?

Its called super fetch. Ubuntu eventually does the exact same thing. The ram isn't gobbled up, it is pre-cached to allow for faster application execution time, if some application requests more ram, the stuff that has been superfetched is given to it at no performance penalty. (so the swap isn't accessed until all superfetch data is gone)

Vista itself takes something like 300-400 MB of ram. Really not that much considering XP as 200-300.

So please, stop bashing vista for its ram consumption, it is doing something useful and gives it up the moment you request for more. If you give it 8gb of ram, I have little doubt that it will fill half of it again for the exact same reason. even 16 or 32 gb of ram (if you have that amount of applications) will probably be halfway filled.

 

[TLW]

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: Blain
40-50% @ idle???? :shocked:

I'm guessing you love eye candy in your OS?

Its called super fetch. Ubuntu eventually does the exact same thing. The ram isn't gobbled up, it is pre-cached to allow for faster application execution time, if some application requests more ram, the stuff that has been superfetched is given to it at no performance penalty. (so the swap isn't accessed until all superfetch data is gone)

Vista itself takes something like 300-400 MB of ram. Really not that much considering XP as 200-300.

So please, stop bashing vista for its ram consumption, it is doing something useful and gives it up the moment you request for more. If you give it 8gb of ram, I have little doubt that it will fill half of it again for the exact same reason. even 16 or 32 gb of ram (if you have that amount of applications) will probably be halfway filled.

all very true

and even if it did consume half my ram, that would still leave 2GB free for other things, 2GB is twice what my last computer had in total

 

[SlowSpyder]

Generally when I game I may leave an IE window or two open in the back ground (I often need to Alt+Tab to Gamefaqs to figure things out ). Other then that I may have a bit torrent program running in the background, though I really rarely use that. Probably not enough stuff going on to benefit me, but damn memory is cheap.

 

[TLW]

i might upgrade simply for the fact that DDR2 is cheap now, but in a couple of years when i want more DDR3 may be the standard and DDR2 will be as expensive as regular DDR is now

 

[aka1nas]

I routinely hit 5.5GB+ commit charge on Vista 64 when I have many things going on. Superfetch will happily use the rest as well. I would do 16GB if my chipset supported it.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: TemjinGold
Hey guys, I currently have 4gigs on Vista 64 as well. Would it be worth it to go to 8 if I wanted to turn off my pagefile or do you think 4 is enough for that?

Don't turn off your pagefile.

 

[skulkingghost]

I just did an upgrade from 4 gb to 8gb of
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16820220227

I noticed the change immediately, but I run photshop cs4 64 bit and lightroom 2.2 64 bit alot. Also crysis warhead and crysis wars run a lot smoother.

Complete System:
E6850 @ 3ghz
Nvidia Gtx 260
8GB Patriot Performance Ram
2.5 TB storage over 5 drives
Windows Vista 64 Ultimate
28" Hannspree HF289H

 

[Fallengod]

All I have to say is, vista 64 must run horrible to notice an improvement from 4gb to 8gb. I do all kinds of crazy intensive applications on my xp 32bit, and I recently upgraded from 2gb to 4gb, and I dont even notice a difference.... Probably the main reason I will never run vista 64

 

[Golgatha]

Only time I ever notice a difference is when I run WinXP 32bit in VMware ironically enough. I have 2GB of memory dedicated to that virtual OS install, so it shoots my total usage over 4GB. I have had the odd occasion when I'm encoding video and gaming at the same time, which having both Quad core and over 4GB of RAM have come in handy.

 

[Blain]

Originally posted by: Fallengod
All I have to say is, vista 64 must run horrible to notice an improvement from 4gb to 8gb. I do all kinds of crazy intensive applications on my xp 32bit, and I recently upgraded from 2gb to 4gb, and I dont even notice a difference.... Probably the main reason I will never run vista 64

No Vista "bashing" is allowed in this thread... Sorry

 

[TLW]

Originally posted by: Fallengod
All I have to say is, vista 64 must run horrible to notice an improvement from 4gb to 8gb. I do all kinds of crazy intensive applications on my xp 32bit, and I recently upgraded from 2gb to 4gb, and I dont even notice a difference.... Probably the main reason I will never run vista 64

Vista x64 runs just fine, as anyone who actually uses it and isn't jumping on the "omg vista is teh ghey" bandwagon that crashed about the time SP1 came out will tell you

saying vista must be crap because you notice an improvement when upgrading a component is like saying games are all crap because you notice an improvement when upgrading your video card

just because vista is capable of utilising large amounts of ram where XP can't for things like superfetch doesn't mean it demands such vast quantities, it shows that it's capable of improving performance as hardware improves

 

[gizbug]

I run 4gb (4x1gb) ddr2 800mhz. Thought about going 8 gig, but really see no reason at all.

 

[Denithor]

Originally posted by: TLW

Originally posted by: Fallengod
All I have to say is, vista 64 must run horrible to notice an improvement from 4gb to 8gb. I do all kinds of crazy intensive applications on my xp 32bit, and I recently upgraded from 2gb to 4gb, and I dont even notice a difference.... Probably the main reason I will never run vista 64

Vista x64 runs just fine, as anyone who actually uses it and isn't jumping on the "omg vista is teh ghey" bandwagon that crashed about the time SP1 came out will tell you

saying vista must be crap because you notice an improvement when upgrading a component is like saying games are all crap because you notice an improvement when upgrading your video card

just because vista is capable of utilising large amounts of ram where XP can't for things like superfetch doesn't mean it demands such vast quantities, it shows that it's capable of improving performance as hardware improves

The reason you didn't see any change going from 2GB -> 4GB is probably because you aren't doing anything on your system that requires >2GB of memory. If you never exceed 2GB in use the new 2GB just sits there doing nothing (unlike in Vista where it will be put to use for Superfetch).

 

[TLW]

well, i made good on my threat and bought another 4GB - just installed and started up and apart from my windows experience going from 5.5 to 5.9 not much was different, restarted and now firefox starts instantly, and i mean instantly, under a second to clicking the quick launch icon to having google.co.uk fully loaded

currently sitting at 21% in use, will report back once it's settled in

 

[soccerballtux]

Interesting TLW thanks for the report. I've been debating weather to install Vista-64Bit. Going to go do that now.

 

[Peter Trend]

I wasnt able to play GTA IV when I had 2GB of RAM, 1.8GB were used up. When I plugged in 8GB, I can play GTA IV and it uses 3.5GB of my RAM, with superfetch disabled.

If you like I could take 2 of the 2GB sticks of DDR2 out and see how much RAM GTA IV uses and if it runs as well.

 

[ArizonaSteve]

I went for 8GB... simply because I could, and memory was (is) cheap.

 

[TLW]

Update: Hit >50% usage playing Fallout 3 yesterday, loading times are definintely improved, especially the time it takes from clicking the desktop shortcut to programs actually starting