is 8GB enough for windows 7?

[Red Squirrel]

Yes I know it will run, but is it enough to have plenty of ram left for other applications too and have plenty of performance? Consider stuff that's often left open like AV software, messenger apps, several browser instances, email client etc... then if I want to game or open up a huge autocad or photoshop file etc, will I have enough left over? I tend to have like 10ish windows open when I'm working. On my current XP machine I have 4GB and I usually run out of GDI resources before I run out of ram, but just wondering how much more of a hog 7 is compared to XP, or is it not that bad?

I'm building a new machine and I was really wanting to have at least 12GB but turns out I can only put 2 sticks because of the huge heat sink. They make them so big now, it's crazy.

 

[Dkcode]

8GB is plenty. I use 6 and I have never ran out of RAM.

 

[Retro Rob]

Agreed, 8 is plenty.

If you want to see for yourself, take a look at TaskMGR when you have everything open to see how much of your resources are being used.

Good gauge as to if you need more or not.

 

[Zargon]

Agreed, 8 is plenty.

If you want to see for yourself, take a look at TaskMGR when you have everything open to see how much of your resources are being used.

Good gauge as to if you need more or not.

a better test would be to go into admin tools > performance monitor and turn on memory usage logging, and let it run while you game or whatever

 

[entfy]

8gb works but when the price is sooooooo cheap IMO i don't see a reason when for under 100 you can get ddr3 1600 mhz 16gb (4x4gb) for $85.

 

[JackMDS]

Yeah Burgers are so cheap why would you have 5 for Breakfast.:hmm:

In other words why spending money in something that does not do any thing just because it is cheap.

 

[RU482]

Yeah Burgers are so cheap why would you have 5 for Breakfast.:hmm:

In other words why spending money in something that does not do any thing just because it is cheap.

that is a terrible analogy.
Burgers are tasty, memory is not

 

[Retro Rob]

a better test would be to go into admin tools > performance monitor and turn on memory usage logging, and let it run while you game or whatever

Perfmon is a very good test. Ditto!

 

[slayernine]

Battlefield 3 will eat your 8gb and ask for seconds.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Good to know I should be fine. I looked at it further and it seemed if I turned the heat sink around it could fit, so I decided to try it and while the heat sink is like 2mm from the video card, it does fit. I put tape to ensure it does not contact. So ended up getting the 12GB that I wanted.

Been a while since I built a computer, I just can't believe how big everything is now. The video cards, heat sinks, even the ram. Before physical space was never an issue to consider.

 

[mikeymikec]

If we're talking average uses of a computer (e.g. web browsing, e-mail, office apps, media playback), 2GB is fine at present, even with 64-bit Win7. Memory usage typically hangs around the 1GB mark with MSE installed as well, which leaves plenty to play with.

If your uses of the computer are greater than what I've described, you may need more RAM.

I'm sure that my 2GB estimate will alter over time, just like once I said that 512MB was enough for the average uses of XP, but these days I suggest 1GB on average. Some people can get away with less, but not many.

My advice isn't meant to be "you can save money on DDR3 RAM", but "don't feel that you must have >4GB for optimal Win7 performance".

Looking at my RAM usage right now, with Firefox (few tabs), Thunderbird, Sunbird, MSE, Afterburner and SpeedFan, Task Manager reports it as 1.37GB. Process Explorer reports physical memory usage at 1.4GB. My system has 4GB RAM.

 

[Vic Vega]

...

 

[piasabird]

I think if you like to play a lot of video online with integrated video you should probably use at least 4 GB. This is more of a problem with Microsoft and and IE. There may be some tweaks that improve performance. This is just my opinoin. I actually would get at least 8 gb.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I would say that 4GB should run Windows 7 and office-type apps, web browsers, IM clients, etc., just fine.

But given the price, I would def. choose to put at a minimum 8GB of RAM (2x4GB) in.

I choose to install 16GB into my current machine, an X6 1045T @ 3.51, ASRock 990FX Extreme4 board, two GTX460 1GB OC cards. Mostly, just because I could (4 slots).

I debated 32GB, but since I had heavily invested in 4GB DIMMs during sales, I couldn't really justify the expense of ordering new RAM (even though I already had plenty), and having to splash out for Win7 Pro (Home maxes out at 16GB).

 

[Vic Vega]

...

 

[pauldun170]

I have 4 Windows 7 machines at home
Win7 32bit running on a laptop with 2gb of ram.
Its run everything from Bioshock to CS3
Not once have I had to worry about ram

I have an old POS P4 with 3gb ram.
I've run Oracle, Eclipse, Photoshop, buch of other crap on it
Ram has been the one thing that has not been a bottleneck

My HTPC runs beautifully with 4gb ram
I play stuff like the Dirt series and a ton of other stuff in my Steam library.

My primary machine has 8gb ram in it
I never bothered to track memory usage. I'm sure it will come in handy when I build a new primary PC and my 8gb machine transitions over to a workstation type PC


Summary - Windows 7 runs fine with 2gb and happiest with 4gb.
Buy 4gb
Buy more if you find a nice sale

 

[KAZANI]

Windows 7 runs fine with 2gb and happiest with 4gb.

I run W7 64bit with 2GB. Although physical memory usage is usually at ~50% the amount of swapping going on all the time is excruciating. I can't wait till an upgrade.

 

[Matt1970]

4GB is the sweet spot for Windows 7.

 

[KAZANI]

4GB is the sweet spot for Windows 7.

Yeah...TODAY! I plan on keeping my next upgrade for ~5 years and I still haven't figured if I need to go with more than 8GB.

 

[Nothinman]

Yes I know it will run, but is it enough to have plenty of ram left for other applications too and have plenty of performance? Consider stuff that's often left open like AV software, messenger apps, several browser instances, email client etc... then if I want to game or open up a huge autocad or photoshop file etc, will I have enough left over? I tend to have like 10ish windows open when I'm working. On my current XP machine I have 4GB and I usually run out of GDI resources before I run out of ram, but just wondering how much more of a hog 7 is compared to XP, or is it not that bad?

I'm building a new machine and I was really wanting to have at least 12GB but turns out I can only put 2 sticks because of the huge heat sink. They make them so big now, it's crazy.

I had a laptop with 2G and am currently using a Win7 VM with 3G and it runs just fine with everything I use left open almost all of the time. A few things are hogs and need closed down periodically, like the Exchange 2010 management tool, but otherwise it's fine. If you really need to open huge AutoCad and Photoshop files, do some profiling of the current memory usage of the apps. But the memory usage between XP and Win7 should be very similar, my laptop with 2G actually seemed to run slightly better with Win7 than XP.

 

[mikeymikec]

I run W7 64bit with 2GB. Although physical memory usage is usually at ~50% the amount of swapping going on all the time is excruciating. I can't wait till an upgrade.

How are you measuring the "amount of swapping"? I've built quite a few Win7-64 PCs with 2, 4 and more GB RAM, and with the necessary drivers and say MSE, I can't see any difference in boot times or general performance.

Considering that an additional 2GB costs about £10 in the UK, if it's really that excruciating, you can't afford £10 (or currency equivalent)? Assuming DDR3. A stick of DDR2 is just over twice the price.

I assume you're not losing a huge chunk of the system RAM through on-board graphics. Perhaps if 256MB was lost through on-board graphics, then a load of apps were running, Windows would start paging to disk more heavily.

 

[KAZANI]

The system hits the swap all the time even for the simplest tasks such as listing the contents of a nearly empty folder. Also no memory is taken from the GPU, since I have a discrete Radeon HD2600 Pro.

About a year ago I spend 90€ to add a couple of 1GB sticks of DDR but hit an outrageous incompatibility wall and the computer wouldn't start (identical specs - different brand) . Today the same DDR can be had for ~60€ but I wouldn't risk another failed purchase ATM (euro crisis be damned!). Besides, I'll -hopefully- be upgrading with the Trinity launch.

 

[Red Squirrel]

I don't know what some of you guy's version of "running fine" is if you were only using 2GB. Even with XP 2GB is barely good enough. With AV software and typical background apps, bunch of apps open, things get ugly pretty quick.

But anyways, I managed to fit in the extra stick so I'm good either way. At the price of ram I like having the extra buffer. Right now I'm only using 3.65GB according to task manager so I have tons left over. I'm guessing part of that 3.65GB is some caching stuff too.

 

[Vic Vega]

...

 

[Nothinman]

I don't know what some of you guy's version of "running fine" is if you were only using 2GB. Even with XP 2GB is barely good enough. With AV software and typical background apps, bunch of apps open, things get ugly pretty quick.

But anyways, I managed to fit in the extra stick so I'm good either way. At the price of ram I like having the extra buffer. Right now I'm only using 3.65GB according to task manager so I have tons left over. I'm guessing part of that 3.65GB is some caching stuff too.

"Running fine" means just what you think. That the system runs with very little lag or jitter due to I/O. I generally leave off AV because I use common sense and do almost of my browsing in the Linux host, so that helps a good bit. I would bet the majority of that is caching. I'm at 2.18G in my VM right now with 1/2-2/3 of my normal apps open. Sadly, the biggest memory hogs are our ticketing, invoicing, etc system and Outlook. VS and SSMS 2005 combined are using like half the private working set as those two right now.