Obviously Tom's crew does not play any newer games than ones made back in 1999. If your a gamer and play any newer games at the newer resolutions like 1680 by 1050 or 1920 by 1200 you will need at least 4 gigs or more. Personally I just ordered 8 gigs due to me playing MMORPG's. With MMO's the more ram you have the better as the extra ram helps with textureing and load times with zoneing. Also with the extra ram I will be able to run mutiple accounts at the same time with ease. Also have you ever been playing a game and your antivirus kicks in? Its a freaking nightmare but with the extra ram id imagine it would help. Also the extra ram helps with multitasking. I regularly download my favorite tv shows and burn them but out of fear of creating coasters I do not multitask when burning due to my machine slowing to a crawl. More ram would counter that. So you see I do not believe 8 gigs to be overkil.
bigsnyder
Golden Member
- Nov 4, 2004
- 1,568
- 2
- 81
8GB for sure. So far, I have not had any problems overclocking. Here is what I am using: G.Skill DDR2-1066.. I bought it when it was in sale for $49 a kit. The only reason I went 8GB was the price.
taltamir
Lifer
- Mar 21, 2004
- 13,576
- 6
- 76
toms hardware is a completely amateurish site. They constantly make rudimentary errors which users correct them on (and then they revise the articles, and get corrected again).
even if you ignore the constant mistakes, their level of reporting is simply not up to par.
even if you ignore the constant mistakes, their level of reporting is simply not up to par.
Ok, so you don't like Tom's. I know posting links from other websites is a little faux paux. But my top 3 sites are Anand, HardOCP & Toms. Completely different styles & points of views, but generally good information especially when you assimilate all 3.
But I still stand by my statement "unless you have some VERY specific need" 8Gb is a complete waste for most people even enthusiast / gamers.
darkrisen2003 have you checked your task manager/pagefile to see your actual ram usage during your scenarios. I doubt you're over 3-4Gb during even your quoted scenarios. Show me a screen shot!
But I still stand by my statement "unless you have some VERY specific need" 8Gb is a complete waste for most people even enthusiast / gamers.
darkrisen2003 have you checked your task manager/pagefile to see your actual ram usage during your scenarios. I doubt you're over 3-4Gb during even your quoted scenarios. Show me a screen shot!
My ram came in last night. HUGE differance from the 2 gigs I had before. Currently I play Everquest 2 and just for referance in one of the zones in game that is known to hinder performance is called Nerriak. In Nerriak I used to have spots that would send my fps from 40 to 5 and I would get stuck. Now with the new ram my FPS went from 40 to 60 and in the roughest spots it does not drop below 30. Just for fun I cranked the eye candy to the max and was still able to move around thanks to the new ram.
P.S. Now I can play eq2 while burning a movie and surfing the web using multiple open windows all at the same time and do not have a single hickup.
P.S. Now I can play eq2 while burning a movie and surfing the web using multiple open windows all at the same time and do not have a single hickup.
Yeah, your problem was 2Gb. Some games use over 2Gb.
So those issues would have been fixed by going from 2Gb to 4Gb.
4Gb would have probably future proofed you for the next 2-3 years, which by then your ddr2 memory will be useless b/c everyone will have moved to ddr3, ddr4/5.
the extra 4Gb will probably never be used
I plan my upgrade so my current system (dual-core + 4Gb) should last me until my next upgrade which will probably be a tri-channel system with 3x2Gb (6Gb) or possibly even the Core i5 with 2x4Gb, depending on how long I hold out.
My system should last me a while... if it gets slow, I can always drop in a quad penryn.
So those issues would have been fixed by going from 2Gb to 4Gb.
4Gb would have probably future proofed you for the next 2-3 years, which by then your ddr2 memory will be useless b/c everyone will have moved to ddr3, ddr4/5.
the extra 4Gb will probably never be used
I plan my upgrade so my current system (dual-core + 4Gb) should last me until my next upgrade which will probably be a tri-channel system with 3x2Gb (6Gb) or possibly even the Core i5 with 2x4Gb, depending on how long I hold out.
My system should last me a while... if it gets slow, I can always drop in a quad penryn.
Therein lies the important qualifier.
There are people who do use a ton of RAM, and for them, 4GB is not enough these days. Then again, these people are also likely to be running an i7 rig because those chips are so fast for heavy multitasking/ encoding/ transcoding! For a lot of people, <4gb and dual cores are fine, and that's why the netbooks are selling extremely well. Heck, my Dell Mini 9 (2GB) is great for word processing, internet usage, and can decode dvd resolution h264 content no problem, and that is all a lot of people do. The WHS plugs along happily with 4GB, even though I have 4GB more sitting around that I could pop in it. On the other hand, my desktop very rarely has <7GB in use these days.
The answer isn't is 4GB good enough versus 8GB or 6GB versus 12GB. Usually, if someone has a need for a lot of computing power, they know it, and know they need more ram. Saying that 4GB is fine may be correct for a large portion of the population, but it is already insufficient for a sizable number of users.
I guess not if you're a multitasker who doesn't know how to close firefox.
For me, 4GB (actually 3.325GB) is totally overkill. Using 0.98GB right now. So there goes the myth of Vista using over 1GB.
For me, 4GB (actually 3.325GB) is totally overkill. Using 0.98GB right now. So there goes the myth of Vista using over 1GB.
I think I got the same RAM as you, the 8 GB of that low-latency Patriot Viper ram w/ the rebate. I've got Win7 running with XP, Vista, and Server2008 running on VMs.
Originally posted by: Scoop
I guess not if you're a multitasker who doesn't know how to close firefox.
For me, 4GB (actually 3.325GB) is totally overkill. Using 0.98GB right now. So there goes the myth of Vista using over 1GB.
Is that Vista 32 or 64? Firefox is very low memory usage for me to be honest. I never see it get over 250MB, but I don't keep crazy amounts of tabs open either.
Originally posted by: pjkenned
Originally posted by: Scoop
I guess not if you're a multitasker who doesn't know how to close firefox.
For me, 4GB (actually 3.325GB) is totally overkill. Using 0.98GB right now. So there goes the myth of Vista using over 1GB.
Is that Vista 32 or 64? Firefox is very low memory usage for me to be honest. I never see it get over 250MB, but I don't keep crazy amounts of tabs open either.
My firefox gets up to 500 to 600 MB but I keep a lot of tabs open. I noticed too the more add ons you installed the higher your firefox ram usage is at startup.
Originally posted by: pjkenned
Originally posted by: Scoop
I guess not if you're a multitasker who doesn't know how to close firefox.
For me, 4GB (actually 3.325GB) is totally overkill. Using 0.98GB right now. So there goes the myth of Vista using over 1GB.
Is that Vista 32 or 64? Firefox is very low memory usage for me to be honest. I never see it get over 250MB, but I don't keep crazy amounts of tabs open either.
My sig says it's 32-bit. Right now Firefox uses ~44MB. At the time I wrote that is used about 65MB, had probably been on longer than this instance. I don't use tabs at all and I hardly ever have more than one window open and that's the case right now. I try to spend as little memory as possible
Originally posted by: pcslookout
Originally posted by: pjkenned
Originally posted by: Scoop
I guess not if you're a multitasker who doesn't know how to close firefox.
For me, 4GB (actually 3.325GB) is totally overkill. Using 0.98GB right now. So there goes the myth of Vista using over 1GB.
Is that Vista 32 or 64? Firefox is very low memory usage for me to be honest. I never see it get over 250MB, but I don't keep crazy amounts of tabs open either.
My firefox gets up to 500 to 600 MB but I keep a lot of tabs open. I noticed too the more add ons you installed the higher your firefox ram usage is at startup.
About the same here. It's probably worth pointing out that if you have multiple monitors, there's a fairly natural tendency to have more stuff open. I usually have two or three browser instances open with many tabs each so I can look at multiple things at once. It's also helpful if you want a certain set of tabs open on a side monitor while a full screen app is open on the center screen (I have 3x 24-inch panels).
Originally posted by: aka1nas
Originally posted by: pcslookout
Originally posted by: pjkenned
Originally posted by: Scoop
I guess not if you're a multitasker who doesn't know how to close firefox.
For me, 4GB (actually 3.325GB) is totally overkill. Using 0.98GB right now. So there goes the myth of Vista using over 1GB.
Is that Vista 32 or 64? Firefox is very low memory usage for me to be honest. I never see it get over 250MB, but I don't keep crazy amounts of tabs open either.
My firefox gets up to 500 to 600 MB but I keep a lot of tabs open. I noticed too the more add ons you installed the higher your firefox ram usage is at startup.
About the same here. It's probably worth pointing out that if you have multiple monitors, there's a fairly natural tendency to have more stuff open. I usually have two or three browser instances open with many tabs each so I can look at multiple things at once. It's also helpful if you want a certain set of tabs open on a side monitor while a full screen app is open on the center screen (I have 3x 24-inch panels).
Wow three 24 inch panels must be really nice! I could have dual monitors but one would be a CRT with my main LCD. Don't really feel like dragging out the CRT though and plus it is a little smaller. If I had three panels though I could see myself having even more stuff open as well. Makes it very nice for photoshop.
Yes, and you just reinforced my statement that 8Gb is overkill for 99% of users of computers. Now if you surveyed people here it might be a different ratio like 90/10 (instead of 99/1). But remember I did throw in the qualifier. Unless you have a very specific need for LOTS of ram. And those people KNOW they need the ram. If you have to ask then you only need 4Gb or less.
No when I see my minimum fps go up from nonplayable to playable in my games because of going from 4 GB to 8 GB it is not. Sure it may not look like a lot as numbers but just a few fps can make the difference between playable and nonplayable minimum fps in some games.
The other advantage being able to leave everything you want open while gaming and then instantly being able to alt tab out to use it. More ram is not always so much about how much faster it will make your pc. More so about how much faster you want multitasking to be and the amount of safety net room you want. I prefer to have everything that I keep open to be cached into ram or most of it so when I alt tab or switch windows I don't have to wait. The only way to have this when playing games is to have at least 8 GB of rams. Sure you could say 4 GB of ram is enough but it is not if your a big multitask user. Now if you close most of your programs before running a game sure 4 GB is enough but otherwise no. I myself prefer to keep everything ready to use. Sure I could close a lot of my programs but that makes it more inconvenient. If your a really heavy multitask user then you may just need 16 GB of ram. Talking if you keep 50 plus programs open at once while gaming. I don't think most people do. Though sooner or later 16 GB of ram won't look like to much either if we migrate as pc users to doing more at once. I hate waiting for programs to redraw into memory when switching windows with pcs with little ram 2 GB or less. Very annoying.
The other advantage being able to leave everything you want open while gaming and then instantly being able to alt tab out to use it. More ram is not always so much about how much faster it will make your pc. More so about how much faster you want multitasking to be and the amount of safety net room you want. I prefer to have everything that I keep open to be cached into ram or most of it so when I alt tab or switch windows I don't have to wait. The only way to have this when playing games is to have at least 8 GB of rams. Sure you could say 4 GB of ram is enough but it is not if your a big multitask user. Now if you close most of your programs before running a game sure 4 GB is enough but otherwise no. I myself prefer to keep everything ready to use. Sure I could close a lot of my programs but that makes it more inconvenient. If your a really heavy multitask user then you may just need 16 GB of ram. Talking if you keep 50 plus programs open at once while gaming. I don't think most people do. Though sooner or later 16 GB of ram won't look like to much either if we migrate as pc users to doing more at once. I hate waiting for programs to redraw into memory when switching windows with pcs with little ram 2 GB or less. Very annoying.
Another thing I was reminded of by someone at work, is that there are people who do things like multi-box in WoW. For them 5+ game instances running side-by-side is very common and I was told that an i7 + over 6GB of ram is basically required to do that and get good fps in each window.
Hell, I usually want to have 2 or 3 3D games running at once, leave them running for a week or two at a time, and alt+tab out or between them if I want to take a break.
I wasn't able to do this anymore easily with 8GB and newer games, I should be good fo a little while with 12GB.
taltamir
Lifer
- Mar 21, 2004
- 13,576
- 6
- 76
Originally posted by: Scoop
I guess not if you're a multitasker who doesn't know how to close firefox.
For me, 4GB (actually 3.325GB) is totally overkill. Using 0.98GB right now. So there goes the myth of Vista using over 1GB.
Alt tab out of a game to look at the walkthrough...
Originally posted by: aka1nas
Hell, I usually want to have 2 or 3 3D games running at once, leave them running for a week or two at a time, and alt+tab out or between them if I want to take a break.
I wasn't able to do this anymore easily with 8GB and newer games, I should be good fo a little while with 12GB.
You can't do that with all games though. I would run more than one game if I could.
Wow the difference between 4 GB vs 8 GB is amazing in Vista 64 bit! Everything seems so much smoother and loads quicker.
Now I can finally have tons of firefox tabs open, keep my games open while alt tabbing all while having my antivirus scan my system in the background everyday at a certain time. I don't only do just that. I have more than just firefox and games open. I finally have enough room to not have to worry about going over when multitasking. Think the key is if you multitask a lot. Though minimum fps in some games it can make or break the game play. Not all games of course but if you play ones that it does it makes a huge difference. Never going back to less than 8 GB of ram even as just a gamer I wouldn't but if your a heavy multitask user you definitely should not. Quite surprised by the difference I have been missing a lot.
Now I can finally have tons of firefox tabs open, keep my games open while alt tabbing all while having my antivirus scan my system in the background everyday at a certain time. I don't only do just that. I have more than just firefox and games open. I finally have enough room to not have to worry about going over when multitasking. Think the key is if you multitask a lot. Though minimum fps in some games it can make or break the game play. Not all games of course but if you play ones that it does it makes a huge difference. Never going back to less than 8 GB of ram even as just a gamer I wouldn't but if your a heavy multitask user you definitely should not. Quite surprised by the difference I have been missing a lot.
Funny how not too long ago people said the same thing about 1->2GB. Then 2->4GB. I think that saying 99% users will never use it is a little overkill. Are we just stating at home users? Because I know in the work environment it's a different story.
Ex: I work at an engineering company working with a lot of different 3D software, and the 4GB limit (we're on 32-bit OS right now) is killing us.
That said, I've been on the fence about the whole 4->8GB jump mainly because it's so cheap right now. But the 4GB I'm on (and now using Windows 7) has been the sweet spot for me. I do run into the system dragging every once in awhile but what I can't narrow down is the lack of quad-core (core2duo right now) or that extra memory. Plus, I started using VMWare Workstation religiously now. I like a VM with plenty of memory to keep up with me. To sum me up though I'm not part of that "99%".
I'm surprised the topic of more cores versus more memory hasn't come up yet. Especially since multi-tasking has been brought up as a benefit and what people are looking for. There's so much "depends" on what you are doing that justifies whether to boost your hardware.
I think the normal response to any and all questions regarding "To upgrade memory or processor?" should be "IT DEPENDS". Thanks to those of you though that always put it in the original post, it helps...
Ex: I work at an engineering company working with a lot of different 3D software, and the 4GB limit (we're on 32-bit OS right now) is killing us.
That said, I've been on the fence about the whole 4->8GB jump mainly because it's so cheap right now. But the 4GB I'm on (and now using Windows 7) has been the sweet spot for me. I do run into the system dragging every once in awhile but what I can't narrow down is the lack of quad-core (core2duo right now) or that extra memory. Plus, I started using VMWare Workstation religiously now. I like a VM with plenty of memory to keep up with me. To sum me up though I'm not part of that "99%".
I'm surprised the topic of more cores versus more memory hasn't come up yet. Especially since multi-tasking has been brought up as a benefit and what people are looking for. There's so much "depends" on what you are doing that justifies whether to boost your hardware.
I think the normal response to any and all questions regarding "To upgrade memory or processor?" should be "IT DEPENDS". Thanks to those of you though that always put it in the original post, it helps...
Yeah it really does depends but I noticed now in firefox my greasemonkey scripts now load up just about instantly! So happy! Use to have to wait with a freeze on the page for like 5 to 6 seconds then the greasemonkey script would work in firefox. I read something similar with someone who upgraded from 4 GB to 8 GB of ram but with some kind of other scripts when working. Can't remember what. I will have to try to find the link again. Amazed at how much of a difference it made. Did not think greasemonkey scripts would actually get a speed boost. Nice though I hated waiting those 5 to 6 seconds. Sure it may not seem like much but it adds up quickly if you do it 30 to 100 + times daily.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter