Memory Size - Improve Performance?

[GhandiInstinct]

I know having 768 from 512 wont increase performance. But what about going from 1GB to 2GB? Is it worth the money? Makes it easier on the Hard Drive right, loadings faster?

 

[gizbug]

no

 

[Tiamat]

The most performance boost ive had was going from 512 to 1024. And then from PC2100 to PC3200 at 22211

 

[Algere]

Originally posted by: gizbug
no

 

[AluminumStudios]

Adding memory won't magically make your computer faster.

If you use memory intense software like I do (After Effects, Photoshop) operations within the software will be faster because it won't have to hit the virtual memory as hard.

But unless you have an app eating up all of your memory then turning to a gig of virtual memory too, your system will run at the same speed.

 

[imported_NoGodForMe]

Agree, unless you have a bunch of content creations programs running at the same time, the extra memory won't make a differance.
When D3 first came out, Corsair and some articles said it would run fastest with 2 gigs of ram. But most users with a high end system get 60 FPS with no problem. So that claim was just marketing hype. 1 gig is plenty for most.

 

[GhandiInstinct]

Well in games it doesn't matter. But I've noticed my hard drive working a lot less with 2GB.

 

[Nothinman]

Adding memory won't magically make your computer faster.

Sure it will, the OS will have more memory to cache things in and will have to hit the hard disk less.

If you use memory intense software like I do (After Effects, Photoshop) operations within the software will be faster because it won't have to hit the virtual memory as hard.

Virtual Memory != pagefile.

 

[Lonyo]

How did you work out that 768MB isn't faster than 512MB?
It will.

There is a point of diminishing returns. From 128 -> 256 is a big leap (especially for Win XP) and from 256 -> 512MB is a good leap too.
512-> 768 is a jump, not huge, and from 512 -> 1024 is a jump, though not huge either.
From 1GB -> 2GB is the point of diminishing returns (or even going to 1GB).

Most people don't NEED 1GB, but it's useful. 512MB is really a minimum, but more will probably reduce stuttering sometimes (as games etc can load stuff into RAM and have to access the hard drive less).
UT2004 for me uses all of my 768MB RAM, and used to use ~900MB when I had 1024MB RAM.

More RAM will usually improve performance, a bit, if you are using the extra (obviously I wouldn't use any extra above 1GB, so it wouldn't be worthwhile, but I can use more than 512MB or 768MB).


And it doesn't make loadings faster, most of the time.
Initial loadings go from HDD -> RAM.
How will adding more RAM decrease loading times? It won't really, because you still have to take the same amount of data from HDD to then store (in RAM, or pagefile). It may decrease load times though if little to none needs to be put in the page file, I think. A faster HDD will improve performance more than 1GB -> 2GB RAM I believe.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: Algere

Originally posted by: gizbug
no

 

[jrphoenix]

Originally posted by: GhandiInstinct
I know having 768 from 512 wont increase performance. But what about going from 1GB to 2GB? Is it worth the money? Makes it easier on the Hard Drive right, loadings faster?

I have 2Gb or ram... moved up from 768 along with other upgrades in my system overhaul . The only tangible thing I can mention is that Hardocp said that with a 6800 Ultra & 2Gb or ram you can run doom 3 at Ultra levels instead of high.

Ultra level in doom 3 requires a card with 512 Mb of ram... but ran smoothe in Hardocp's review if you have 2+ Gb or ram! If there are a lot of games that use this Ultra level and you don't want to wait for a 512 Mb video card... there is something tangible from have 2Gb of ram. I wouldn't upgrade for Doom 3 alone as the game looks great but, plays mediocre.