Anyone notice a difference with 4gb over 2gb in Vista 64?

[gizbug]

Anyone notice any significant improvements?

 

[bsobel]

It comes down to what your normal memory footprint is. If your at the point where your swapping it will make a huge difference, if you are not, it wont. It will give you more headroom to run more programs at the same time (I can at least leave SC running in the background and take care of a few things, where as with 2gig I really coudnt...)

 

[gizbug]

Thanks

 

[jkresh]

Just ordered more ram yesterday (4gigs, so if it plays well with my current 2 I will have 6), I will let you know how much of an improvement it makes when I get it. I would say like going from dual core to quad core the benefits will relate to how many programs you have running at once and how memory intensive each task is.

 

[Shadow Conception]

Christ, 6GB of RAM. o__o

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: jkresh
Just ordered more ram yesterday (4gigs, so if it plays well with my current 2 I will have 6), I will let you know how much of an improvement it makes when I get it. I would say like going from dual core to quad core the benefits will relate to how many programs you have running at once and how memory intensive each task is.

so your new memory is 2x 2GB sticks? If so I would be surprised if it worked well given that you are overclocking. They may not play well, but I haven't seen any reports on them other than they don't go past their stock voltage and speed very well. So assuming you stay under their rated, you'll be good.

If I may ask, what do you use that required 6GB?

 

[bigi]

I've used 8 gigs with 64-bit ultimate. It pretty much depends on what you mainly do with your box.
Cool thing is that I am able to oc my e4300 and run it @339Mhz = 3.05Ghz with all 4 banks.
Anyway, I process huge graphics files so I need as much memory as I can get.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: bigi
I've used 8 gigs with 64-bit ultimate. It pretty much depends on what you mainly do with your box.
Cool thing is that I am able to oc my e4300 and run it @339Mhz = 3.05Ghz with all 4 banks.
Anyway, I process huge graphics files so I need as much memory as I can get.

Like photoshop files with multiple layers etc?

I've seen some in my line of work that you needed 2GB of memory just to load or it would give you some message about not having the available memory.

 

[nanaki333]

upgrading to 4GB of ram in vista is the best thing i've ever done! firefox loads instantly and so does AIM! [/sarcasm]

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: bigi
I've used 8 gigs with 64-bit ultimate. It pretty much depends on what you mainly do with your box.
Cool thing is that I am able to oc my e4300 and run it @339Mhz = 3.05Ghz with all 4 banks.
Anyway, I process huge graphics files so I need as much memory as I can get.

Yep. I have two Conroe workstations running with 8GB each under Vista x64. Smooth as butter.

With RAM prices so cheap now, I say load your boards as full as they'll go.

 

[gizbug]

Thanks

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: Shadow Conception
Christ, 6GB of RAM. o__o

Im running 32gig. We are going to see what is considered a normal 'base' amount of memory quickly grow now that we are finally starting the real transition to 64bit computing...

 

[n7]

Though Superfetch isn't perfect, it certainly helps.

So yes, i've found 4 GB to be a bit faster than 2 GB, even though i don't run applications that are utilizing more than 2 GB.

Basically, w/ Vista, the more RAM & Readyboost storage, the merrier.

So therefore, the only reason to not run more RAM w/ Vista is money.

 

[rothchilds]

would another 2 gigs eliminate the program lag/loading times I am experiencing currently?

I went from this:
opteron 165 @2.7, 2x1gb corsair 2.5-2-2-6@230, 80gb WD IDe hard drive, X1800XT 512mb, XPsp2

to this:
E4300@3.0 (330 fsb), 2x1 gb Corsair PC6400 5-5-5-15@840, WD 250gb SATA drive, 8800 GTS 320mb, Vista Ultimate 64bit.

My load times into games/windows has gone up considerably. As example, loading bf2 64 player map with the AMD setup I would be 1st/2nd player loaded. Now I'm looking at loading in around 12th-15th. I have a feeling it's the 64bit causing some issues, but if I can correct it with more ram, hell it's cheap right now.

 

[jkresh]

The extra 4gigs helped and didn't impact my overclocking (though I have been underclocking the memory because of multiplier issues, so the rams only running at 755mhz (as the next step would be closer to 1ghz and likely to much for either set of ram). As to why I need 6, i dont but i needed at least 4 and figured that I might as well go to six since I got a good deal (memory was $225).

 

[aka1nas]

Going from 2GB to 4GB made things a bit faster. I have a few games that were taking me right around 2GB commit charge. With 4GB installed, I sometimes hit 3GB+ commit charge in Oblivion.

 

[rothchilds]

I now highly recommend the 4gb route if using 64 bit xp. with 2 gigs, I was HD caching left and right, and chugging to load a game in a decent time. 4 gigs came today, man it's lightning fast, the way it should be. Ram is cheap, invest heavily.

 

[videopho]

Originally posted by: rothchilds
I now highly recommend the 4gb route if using 64 bit xp. with 2 gigs, I was HD caching left and right, and chugging to load a game in a decent time. 4 gigs came today, man it's lightning fast, the way it should be. Ram is cheap, invest heavily.

Umm...
Just ordered 2gb for new Vista 64 build and now it sounds like 2 more is imminent.

 

[pcslookout]

Originally posted by: bsobel
It comes down to what your normal memory footprint is. If your at the point where your swapping it will make a huge difference, if you are not, it wont. It will give you more headroom to run more programs at the same time (I can at least leave SC running in the background and take care of a few things, where as with 2gig I really coudnt...)

SC ?

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: pcslookout

Originally posted by: bsobel
It comes down to what your normal memory footprint is. If your at the point where your swapping it will make a huge difference, if you are not, it wont. It will give you more headroom to run more programs at the same time (I can at least leave SC running in the background and take care of a few things, where as with 2gig I really coudnt...)

SC ?

Supreme Commander, a game.

 

[pcslookout]

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Originally posted by: pcslookout

Originally posted by: bsobel
It comes down to what your normal memory footprint is. If your at the point where your swapping it will make a huge difference, if you are not, it wont. It will give you more headroom to run more programs at the same time (I can at least leave SC running in the background and take care of a few things, where as with 2gig I really coudnt...)

SC ?

Supreme Commander, a game.

I know it was a game but it could of stand for Simcity as well. Simcity 4 takes a lot of ram as well. As much as Supreme Commander if you have a large city. EA Games is known for having ram hogging games.

 

[pcslookout]

Originally posted by: n7
Though Superfetch isn't perfect, it certainly helps.

So yes, i've found 4 GB to be a bit faster than 2 GB, even though i don't run applications that are utilizing more than 2 GB.

Basically, w/ Vista, the more RAM & Readyboost storage, the merrier.

So therefore, the only reason to not run more RAM w/ Vista is money.

Here as well. Vista may use 1 GB of ram instead of only 700 MB of ram but it is a lot snappier . Having a WD Raptor 150 gig as well with the OS, applications, and games on it as well helps a lot as well. Both these together make a great combination for speed.