Don't need more memory - or do I?

[mechBgon]

At work, my memory usage is rarely over ~350MB peak, but I still enjoy having 1GB and wish I had 1.5GB like I used to. Why is that? Because Win2000 (or WinXP) will use the "excess" RAM to cache stuff I've used. It doesn't have to drag it back out from the hard drive again if I want it later.

Point in case: PhotoImpact 6 is a slow launcher, taking ~4 seconds to launch from a 15000rpm SCSI drive. It launches in under a second from PC3200 RAM after it's been cached, and it will continue to do that until the system is rebooted or Windows is forced to use that RAM for something else. If I had only 384MB of RAM, I would cover my immediate needs but lose this killer re-launch speed.

The more RAM you have, the more apps and data the OS can cache. Those of you with "too much" RAM, look at your "system cache" and I'll bet that if your system has been in use for a day or two without a reboot, Windows is using most of your RAM to cache stuff you might want later.

At work, I used to cache our entire Office2000Pro Disc 1 & 2 installation-file set in RAM on my own system. That's ~940MB of data and I had 1536MB at the time. For the first computer to pull an installation of Office across the network, my system had to get the files off of its hard drives. The subsequent installs were pumped straight from RAM to the NIC with no HDD activity at all :Q Needless to say, I was quite pleased. Now those duties have been split off to a separate computer, which is even better in most ways, but it illustrated why "enough" RAM is still not always optimal.

 

[ardenJ]

Originally posted by: mechBgon
At work, my memory usage is rarely over ~350MB peak, but I still enjoy having 1GB and wish I had 1.5GB like I used to. Why is that? Because Win2000 (or WinXP) will use the "excess" RAM to cache stuff I've used. It doesn't have to drag it back out from the hard drive again if I want it later.

Point in case: PhotoImpact 6 is a slow launcher, taking ~4 seconds to launch from a 15000rpm SCSI drive. It launches in under a second from PC3200 RAM after it's been cached, and it will continue to do that until the system is rebooted or Windows is forced to use that RAM for something else. If I had only 384MB of RAM, I would cover my immediate needs but lose this killer re-launch speed.

The more RAM you have, the more apps and data the OS can cache. Those of you with "too much" RAM, look at your "system cache" and I'll bet that if your system has been in use for a day or two without a reboot, Windows is using most of your RAM to cache stuff you might want later.

At work, I used to cache our entire Office2000Pro Disc 1 & 2 installation-file set in RAM on my own system. That's ~940MB of data and I had 1536MB at the time. For the first computer to pull an installation of Office across the network, my system had to get the files off of its hard drives. The subsequent installs were pumped straight from RAM to the NIC with no HDD activity at all :Q Needless to say, I was quite pleased. Now those duties have been split off to a separate computer, which is even better in most ways, but it illustrated why "enough" RAM is still not always optimal.

I have 512MB of PC800 40ns RDRAM. I will soon be getting 2 more sticks of 256MB, which will put me at 1024mb. So windows will automatically use my excess ram to cache stuff, therefore decreasing hard drive activity? This works in Windows XP Home? Does it just do it automatically or do I have to set some settings? When you stated "At work, I used to cache our entire Office2000Pro Disc 1 & 2 installation-file set in RAM on my own system," how exactly did you cache it?

By the way, since I have 40ns PC800 RDRAM (which is the slower speed), would I see any noticable performance boost if I was to switch to 1024MB of PC1066 RDRAM (it's really expensive, so I doubt I will, but I'm just curious)? How does PC800 RDRAM compare to DDR (2100, 2700, or 3200)?

 

[acebake]

Just to echo what others have said, go for the 512 MB....it'll pay off very much.

If you have the money, go for 1 GB. I had 1.5 GB, and I didn't see a huge difference between the two.

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: ardenJ

Originally posted by: mechBgon
At work, my memory usage is rarely over ~350MB peak, but I still enjoy having 1GB and wish I had 1.5GB like I used to. Why is that? Because Win2000 (or WinXP) will use the "excess" RAM to cache stuff I've used. It doesn't have to drag it back out from the hard drive again if I want it later.

Point in case: PhotoImpact 6 is a slow launcher, taking ~4 seconds to launch from a 15000rpm SCSI drive. It launches in under a second from PC3200 RAM after it's been cached, and it will continue to do that until the system is rebooted or Windows is forced to use that RAM for something else. If I had only 384MB of RAM, I would cover my immediate needs but lose this killer re-launch speed.

The more RAM you have, the more apps and data the OS can cache. Those of you with "too much" RAM, look at your "system cache" and I'll bet that if your system has been in use for a day or two without a reboot, Windows is using most of your RAM to cache stuff you might want later.

At work, I used to cache our entire Office2000Pro Disc 1 & 2 installation-file set in RAM on my own system. That's ~940MB of data and I had 1536MB at the time. For the first computer to pull an installation of Office across the network, my system had to get the files off of its hard drives. The subsequent installs were pumped straight from RAM to the NIC with no HDD activity at all :Q Needless to say, I was quite pleased. Now those duties have been split off to a separate computer, which is even better in most ways, but it illustrated why "enough" RAM is still not always optimal.

I have 512MB of PC800 45ns RDRAM. I will soon be getting 2 more sticks of 256MB, which will put me at 1024mb. So windows will automatically use my excess ram to cache stuff, therefore decreasing hard drive activity? This works in Windows XP Home? Does it just do it automatically or do I have to set some settings? When you stated "At work, I used to cache our entire Office2000Pro Disc 1 & 2 installation-file set in RAM on my own system," how exactly did you cache it?

By the way, since I have 45ns PC800 RDRAM (which is the slower speed), would I see any noticable performance boost if I was to switch to 1024MB of PC1066 RDRAM (it's really expensive, so I doubt I will, but I'm just curious)? How does PC800 RDRAM compare to DDR (2100, 2700, or 3200)?

The data is automagically cached by Windows when it's used. Windows goes

Windows2000

~ heh, this fool equipped me with... 1536MB of RAM?! Dang, a fool and his money... yeah. Oh well, since I have it on hand, I might as well stash data in the excess RAM until I need the RAM for something else.

And so when the first PC pulls an Office installation, the system has to draw the AIP data (about 20000 files totaling around 940MB) from the hard drive, and it keeps a copy in the RAM. When the next PC comes along looking for an Office installation, BLAMMO! :Q The data is already in RAM, so Windows just hammers it out the NIC as fast as the network will carry it. No special settings or adjustments on my part. I'm sure WinXP Home will do likewise. The key is to not shut down, because (duh) that clears the RAM of the cached stuff.

Try it yourself. Put just 128MB of RAM into your system and open & close your slowest-launching app repeatedly, something ponderous like Photoshop or whatever. You're going to get HDD activity every launch, and it's probably not going to get much faster. Now put in "too much" RAM, launch the program once, then close it and launch it again. You should see the second launch is much faster and has a notable lack of HDD activity. At work, I judge whether a system has enough RAM by its ability (or lack of ability) to comfortably cache all its apps for insta-launch.

For home users, the re-launch thing may not be as big of a deal as I'm making it out to be. You can decide for yourself. Now about the RDRAM, if your system is built for PC800 then you might as well stick with that. RDRAM is still the fastest technology available for the Pentium4 in at least one particular benchmark I'm aware of (no one has ever beaten jbond04's P4 2.53GHz / PC1066 benchmark in my WinZip/UT benchie, not even with dual-channel PC3200). But it's costly and limits you to the older 533MHz-based and 400MHz-based P4's at best, plus it requires chipsets that you won't easily find anymore. Think Beta VCRs here It might be a good time to consider moving to a more-modern platform unless you do a lot of WinZip If you have more questions, drop me a PM and I will gladly help further.

 

[Bovinicus]

I don't put less than 512MB in any 2K/XP machine that I assisst in designing or build myself. I go for 1GB if necessary, but it often is unecessary and the budget is tight. I recently had to upgrade form 512MB to 756MB to get decent performance out of the latest game I purchased, Savage: The Battle for Neuwirth. My maximum commit charge was 600+ MB with some various programs opened in the background at the resolution I use.

 

[magomago]

I noticed no difference going from 512 to 1 gig (rarely game- if i do its CS)


It was so little of a difference I returned the ram to my friend because I couldn't justify the 40 bucks I spent on 512pc2100

 

[ardenJ]

Originally posted by: mechBgonThe data is automagically cached by Windows when it's used. Windows goes

Windows2000

~ heh, this fool equipped me with... 1536MB of RAM?! Dang, a fool and his money... yeah. Oh well, since I have it on hand, I might as well stash data in the excess RAM until I need the RAM for something else.

And so when the first PC pulls an Office installation, the system has to draw the AIP data (about 20000 files totaling around 940MB) from the hard drive, and it keeps a copy in the RAM. When the next PC comes along looking for an Office installation, BLAMMO! :Q The data is already in RAM, so Windows just hammers it out the NIC as fast as the network will carry it. No special settings or adjustments on my part. I'm sure WinXP Home will do likewise. The key is to not shut down, because (duh) that clears the RAM of the cached stuff.

Try it yourself. Put just 128MB of RAM into your system and open & close your slowest-launching app repeatedly, something ponderous like Photoshop or whatever. You're going to get HDD activity every launch, and it's probably not going to get much faster. Now put in "too much" RAM, launch the program once, then close it and launch it again. You should see the second launch is much faster and has a notable lack of HDD activity. At work, I judge whether a system has enough RAM by its ability (or lack of ability) to comfortably cache all its apps for insta-launch.

For home users, the re-launch thing may not be as big of a deal as I'm making it out to be. You can decide for yourself. Now about the RDRAM, if your system is built for PC800 then you might as well stick with that. RDRAM is still the fastest technology available for the Pentium4 in at least one particular benchmark I'm aware of (no one has ever beaten jbond04's P4 2.53GHz / PC1066 benchmark in my WinZip/UT benchie, not even with dual-channel PC3200). But it's costly and limits you to the older 533MHz-based and 400MHz-based P4's at best, plus it requires chipsets that you won't easily find anymore. Think Beta VCRs here It might be a good time to consider moving to a more-modern platform unless you do a lot of WinZip If you have more questions, drop me a PM and I will gladly help further.

Well, that answered my questions. Thanks for your help mechBgon. About the RDRAM, well, I could use PC1066 (I have an Intel D850EMV2, so it was just a bios flash away). I originally got PC800 becuase they only had 128MB sticks of PC1066, and I didn't want to use up all 4 slots, just to have 512MB. But I guess your right about RDRAM being a little outdated and costly. So I think, I will just keep my 512MB (soon to be 1024MB) of PC800 until I build a new computer based on the next generation chipsets that support PCI Express, DDR2, etc.

Anyways, back to the main subject. Dbarton, since you just use your PC for e-mails and a few apps, 256MB may be good enough. With 512MB, you will most likely notice a boost in multi-tasking and certain apps would load faster. If you had DDR ram or even SDRAM, I would definitely reccomend you get another stick of 256MB, since it wouldn't be too expensive. However, like you said, you have PC1066 RDRAM and it would cost you about $100-120 just to upgrade. I think you should just keep your current 256MB if it suits you fine. If you aren't having any problems with apps loading slow or lag during multitasking, then your fine with your current 256MB. However, if you think your apps are running too slow or if you find a good deal on some sticks of RDRAM, then you should upgrade. By the way, you might want to watch this auction.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: magomago
I noticed no difference going from 512 to 1 gig (rarely game- if i do its CS)


It was so little of a difference I returned the ram to my friend because I couldn't justify the 40 bucks I spent on 512pc2100

Considering CS was designed with 64mbs of RAM in mind....

 

[Acanthus]

Let me clarify, by "gaming" i was implying 3d games. And by 3d games im implying games that came out in the last 2 years.

"You dont need 1GB for starcraft" type comments dont belong here

 

[thorin]

Why don't u purchase another 256 locally and try it. If it's sweet keep it, if you don't see the difference after a day or two return it.

Thorin