How much RAM is enough?

ninjazed

Senior member
Nov 29, 2000
278
0
76
I am getting ready to revamp my system and am going to replace my existing generic RAM with some good stuff. Mosel Vitalic, Crucial or Mushkin, I'm not sure but.....how much should I get to make my Win98SE system rock with all the latest games? Does anybody have hard data on just how much RAM is enough without going into overkill? :confused:
 

Zucchini

Banned
Dec 10, 1999
4,601
0
0
I just bought 384mb of mushkin value ram, $49 128mb pc 133, cas 3. Its on tidy black pcb with infineon 7.5ns chips, mine runs perfectly stable at cas 2:) 384 seems a reasonable amount.
 

ninjazed

Senior member
Nov 29, 2000
278
0
76
Did I mention that I'm not really looking to overclock? I just want RAM to kick butt without monkeying with the specs. Is CAS2 really better than CAS3?
 

goldboyd

Golden Member
Oct 12, 1999
1,932
0
0
256 is nice in a 98box, less works but 256 is nice to have if you can justify the dough. well cas 2 is theoretically faster, but i've never seen an actual differnce but with prices so cheap, i think its worth the extra $5 or so for cas2
 

Seeko

Senior member
Mar 7, 2000
392
0
0
I just got a 256mb stick of Infineon RAM and I'm running it at CAS2 on 142Mhz FSB. 256mb for Win98 is plenty. More than that is overkill IMO.
 

urbantechie

Banned
Jun 28, 2000
5,082
1
0
Just don't go over 256MB in any 9x system. Use NT for anything more. The 9x kernal just can't handle it.
 

Snooper

Senior member
Oct 10, 1999
465
1
76
urbantechie "Just don't go over 256MB in any 9x system. Use NT for anything more. The 9x kernal just can't handle it."

That is an old, old wives tale. I still can't believe it is still around. Win9x runs fine with more than 256megs. It can, and will use the memory. Does it use it as well as NT? No. Does it use it ok? Yes.

Perhaps the important question is how much memory does Win9x need to run smoothly with current and soon to be expected games? My experience says that 256meg is the current sweet spot. Going form 128 to 256 didn't make a whole lot of differnce in how MOST games played, but it did GREATELY decrease load times for certain games (MW3:pirates moon dropped from over 1 minute to less than 10 seconds when I went from 128 to 256). Once you go beyond 256meg, you don't really get that much more for your money. I currently have 512meg in my system. I had 256 before I upgraded and I can't really say that I saw a great increase (or much of any increase actually) when I doubled that. Of course, for less than $100 bucks, I didn't care! If you plan on using applications that can really use lots of memory (photoshop comes to mind), go for it. Memory is too cheap now not to make sure you have more than you need.

One thing to look into is your motherboard my require registered memory to recognize more than 128meg per stick (BX based boards for example) and that type of memory is more expensive and ALL of you memory must be registered to use it. When take into account a 128/stick "limit" and only 3 slots on many MBs, well that puts you at a limit of 384 meg. Which should be enough for just about anyone who's needs can be met with an older MB.
 

SCUBA

Senior member
Jul 21, 2000
555
0
0
128 is good its not a minimum and you dont need to buy another 128 ram just to cut those 10 seconds from loading
well if got the monay buy the extra ram but if u dont stick wed da good old 128
 

chuckieland

Diamond Member
Sep 30, 2000
3,148
0
0
well you can always add alot of memory with price this cheap
then disable VM on windows
i heard you will notice the increase performance because ram is faster then VM
 

Zucchini

Banned
Dec 10, 1999
4,601
0
0
well logically even though you have lots of ram, you shouldn't have to disable vm. :p The memory manager should use ram b4 it resorts to vm. disabling it just screws you if you ever do run out of physical memory.
 

BFG10K

Lifer
Aug 14, 2000
22,709
3,003
126
256 MB should be good enough to run the next generation of 3D games (Doom 3 and Unreal 2) very well.

Urbantechie:

Just don't go over 256MB in any 9x system. Use NT for anything more. The 9x kernal just can't handle it.

It amazes me how many variations of this false statement keep cropping up.
 

Snooper

Senior member
Oct 10, 1999
465
1
76
Scuba,

It didn't cut 10 seconds from my load times. It reduced my load times by 95%!!!! I don't consider that to be insignificant and it DEFINITELY was worth going up to 256megs.
 

ninjazed

Senior member
Nov 29, 2000
278
0
76
Has anyone dealt with Memman? It looks like he has some pretty good stuff. I always hear everyone talking Crucial or Mushkin. Crucial is just Micron stuff and Mushkin costs an arm and a leg. So what about Memman? I still haven't decided if I'm going to take advantage of low RAM prices and bump up to 384 or 512. More real use use input is needed to sway me people!
 

Zucchini

Banned
Dec 10, 1999
4,601
0
0
hm, well i got pc133 infineon cas 3 that runs at cas 2 128MB for $49 from mushkin. Comes on nice shiny black pcb:)
 

GoldenTiger

Banned
Jan 14, 2001
2,594
0
0
You will see no more than .5 frames per second difference in games for CAS3 to CAS2... just save the money, it only really matters if you're overclocking PC66 CAS2 to PC133 :).
 

GoldenTiger

Banned
Jan 14, 2001
2,594
0
0
Oh yeah, by the way: 256mb is fine. Get 384mb+ for fluff or for heavy, heavy-duty image editting (or if you like playing around with 3d like 3d studio max or cool3d :)).