Do I REALLY need more memory?

[Lcarvone]

I am running WinXP Home on a ECS K7S5A mobo with a AMD 1900+ cpu. I have 256 megs of DDR memory installed (running on 266 bus). The most "intense" programs that are run are more than likely the following:

D2OL
DVD encoding/decrypting/burning software
Picture editing
Video capture (albeit with a hardware device - Hauppage PVR)

I have a program called Freemeter running which displays CPU/memory/page file usage. The display works on the "stop light" color scheme and only rarely does it ever get in the yellow and it has never been in the red for memory. The page file always is green and changes slightly in total usage (shouldn't it always be near zero if there is available main memory????).

Anyway, I read all over how memory will "speed up your system" and many people (here and elsewhere) are running 1 gig of memory or more. But based upon my setup would there be any benefit? If not my guess is there are gobs of people with usage patterns just like mine who have much more than they need.....an example that prompted my post is a buddy who has a HP computer running Windows ME with a Celeron 800. He currently has 256 of SDRAM and wants to go to 512. His usage pattern is even less intense than mine but he is convinced (against my objections) that more memory will give him a big boost in performance !?!?!

Any comments are appreciated

 

[GasX]

those programs would definitely benefit from more memory.

 

[Sideswipe001]

Yeah, I'd agree. What your reasoning that 512 WON'T help based on?

From everything I've seen, 512 is the minimum I'd reccommend. I've had that much ever since I passed the 1 ghz mark on my processor.

 

[Anubis]

yes you would see great improvements in going to 512 or 1 gig

hell i noticed the diff between 512 and 1 gig when i had to take out one of my sticks and send it in for warrenty, im going to 1.5 gigs this week,

 

[Lcarvone]

I guess my reasoning is that the Freemeter program (nor task Manager for that matter) never shows full 256k memory usage, even when running multiple programs. If that amount isn't being maxed out then what is the point?? Am I missing something obvious?

 

[Sideswipe001]

Well, first off I never trust 3rd party apps. You can check the windows reported usage, and see how much it reports - but I *think* windows changes it's behavior depending on the amount of RAM.

Hit CTRL-ALT-DEL and look at the "performance" tab on the task manager (after opening up/working on whatever you are doing). Check the "Commit Charge (K)" and compare the 'peak' to your 'limit'. If Peak is bigger, or even close, then you need more RAM.

 

[JackBurton]

For the love of God man, get crazy and throw in another 256MB AT LEAST in that machine. If you want to see how much memory your machine is using while running your most intensive task, pull up task manager and see how much memory your using. If it is anywhere close to 256 or more, you'll benefit from more memory.

Just an FYI, I have the same board and have 1GB of memory. 512MB should be your MINIMUM for XP. 256MB is good if you just like to sit there and just watch your OS.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Sideswipe001
Well, first off I never trust 3rd party apps. You can check the windows reported usage, and see how much it reports - but I *think* windows changes it's behavior depending on the amount of RAM.

Hit CTRL-ALT-DEL and look at the "performance" tab on the task manager (after opening up/working on whatever you are doing). Check the "Commit Charge (K)" and compare the 'peak' to your 'limit'. If Peak is bigger, or even close, then you need more RAM.

Bear in mind that the Commit Charge Limit includes the pagefile.
Also check the Physical Memory section in the same window. Try to check this when you've got a normal load of apps open, like maybe a picture to edit, while it's working on something else in the DVD software, with a few internet browser windows open. That's normal for me anyway. Then see how much memory you've got available. I don't think it's going to be very much.
If I open just a few high res images in GIMP, my 1GB of RAM doesn't sustain GIMP for long - and once you make a single operation in the program, the memory usage goes up to retain the Undo information.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: Sideswipe001
Well, first off I never trust 3rd party apps. You can check the windows reported usage, and see how much it reports - but I *think* windows changes it's behavior depending on the amount of RAM.

Hit CTRL-ALT-DEL and look at the "performance" tab on the task manager (after opening up/working on whatever you are doing). Check the "Commit Charge (K)" and compare the 'peak' to your 'limit'. If Peak is bigger, or even close, then you need more RAM.

Bear in mind that the Commit Charge Limit includes the pagefile.
Also check the Physical Memory section in the same window. Try to check this when you've got a normal load of apps open, like maybe a picture to edit, while it's working on something else in the DVD software, with a few internet browser windows open. That's normal for me anyway. Then see how much memory you've got available. I don't think it's going to be very much.
If I open just a few high res images in GIMP, my 1GB of RAM doesn't sustain GIMP for long - and once you make a single operation in the program, the memory usage goes up to retain the Undo information.

same thing happens in Photoshop, which is why it will write a 19GB temp fle to my swap drive

 

[loic2003]

yeah go for an extra 256...

Image editing is one of the most memory intensive type of program there are; commonly using far more memory than even the latest games (hence computers for design often have several *gigs* of memory). 256 is OK, and I do understand your point that it shouldn't really require much more, but I do believe that an extra 256 will smooth things out. Plus that amount of RAM really isn't too expensive these days.

Do me a favour and tell your buddy to think about upgrading to a machine that can cope with windows XP as ME is dire to say the least. Having said that, if he wants to stick with that arcane OS, then bear in mind that ME consumes less RAM than XP. This is mainly because most programs will crash and hence not use any memory, but also because the OS is generally smaller.

 

[dullard]

Most people here highly overestimate their memory needs. They are often enthusiasts who are willing to spend hundreds of dollars to get a 5% speed boost.

Win XP and many programs run just fine with 128 MB. Sure it can be faster with more, but if it does what you need it to do, you don't have to spend any money on an upgrade. I think 384 MB is the sweet spot for Win XP for most users (except for the latest and greatest gamers and professionals). My reason is that 384 is cheap and won't have a serious memory shortage in most situations. Of course no one here ever thinks of 384 MB and skips right to 512 MB. The best way to tell though is with the Window's task manager as others said above. If your peak memory usage approaches or crosses your total physical memory, you'd get a significant boost with more memory.

I think you will get a noticible speed boost at 512 MB. But again, if you are doing fine with what you have, then no you don't really NEED more memory.

My advice to your buddy is not to spend too much money on his machine. He'd get a much better boost with a newer CPU and probably newer hard drive. But if he is going to do all that, he's better of with a new $300 computer which would blow his current one away.

 

[Blain]

" Do I REALLY need more memory?"

Heck no. Looks like you've got too much now!

 

[Tiamat]

Depends on what you do. For me, I need at least a gig. Whever I play HL2, my ram usage exceeds 800MB. With Steam, Trillian, Winamp, running in the background, im at 240MB used.

 

[airfoil]

You be the one who makes that decision - do you feel like your rig is throttling back on you? based on your usage, it does look like you'll benefit from the addition of an extra 256 stick.

Then again, if you're going to be upgrading your rig in the near future, you'd probably want to hold off until then.

 

[Nick5324]

I agree, you could benenfit from an additional 256MB or even 512MB. Besides, black friday is in a few days, there is bound to be a decent deal on some memory.

 

[stevty2889]

You would likely notice a pretty big performance increase going to 512mb of memory. Windows XP practicly uses 256mb on it's own. If you don't think it makes much differance, try going back to 128mb, that will show you how much of a differance it can make. I've seen nothing worse than serverly handicapped Dell systems running windows xp with 128mb of ram.

 

[thirdlegstump]

IF you want it to run ANYWHERE NEAR the BLISTERING speed of an even older Apple Macintosh, you'll need it. Tons more.

 

[KBtn]

Definately need more memory!! 512Mb sould be ok but anything over 1GB is a waste

 

[w00t]

get another 256mb. i wouldnt go with one gig, one gig is for hardcore gamers, video editors, and servers.