• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

POLL: "256 ram is enough" True or false?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.


<< And then i want to play a game, I dont have to close anything, bookmark anything for later nothing. I jut open it and have no trouble. If I am building my system that i will be wasting all of my time on, I dont want to have to limit myself, manage resources to be able to play well etc. >>

This is what I do as well. I have generally several IE windows open refreshing threads or chatting with people or whatever. If I want to game for a bit I don't want to spend a couple minutes relocating the threads and whatever else.
 


<< OS + game + winamp + windows explorer + perhaps IE open. 256 is really gonna cut it all the way into this year? Not a chance! >>

Dayum! You really do like to use every ounce of power at your disposal don't you? 😉 Personally, when I'm running a game all I have running is the game (and all the little crap that's always running in the background, but doesn't eat up a lot of resources.) Like a lot of people here, I have several systems and one of them happens to be right next to my gaming system. So I just leave all my instant messengers, winamp, tv tuner, outlook, etc. running on that one while my other system is just fine running something relatively demanding like RTCW or Nascar 2002.

I've tried 512 in one of my systems before (both of my primaries run W2K) and I never noticed a difference in the games I played. And 512 doesn't really make much of a difference in any of the major apps I usually run (office suite stuff, GoLive, WebTrends, CF Studio etc.) For people with multiple systems like this, I don't think there's any real need to have that much RAM if you can easily distribute your applications across other computers. Plus, that way I could distribute my RAM more evenly across several systems and not have one mega machine and several piddly boxes.
 
I have friends playing in Win98SE with 128mb without any problems.

FrogDog- Unless you need to have every app on your computer open at all times like Skoorb does. I would personally go with 256mb. The only reason I have 512mb is because I jumped on it when it was ~$30 some-odd per 256mb. 🙂

amish
 


<< I have friends playing in Win98SE with 128mb without any problems. >>

Ouch. All other arguments aside that's just a clear-cut case of ignorance is bliss. As mentioned warcraft3 alone uses 100 megs of ram. Win98 sure as heck needs more than 28 to be any good at all!
 


<< I have friends playing in Win98SE with 128mb without any problems.

FrogDog- Unless you need to have every app on your computer open at all times like Skoorb does. I would personally go with 256mb. The only reason I have 512mb is because I jumped on it when it was ~$30 some-odd per 256mb. 🙂

amish >>

That's what I'll do as well. When I upgrade if RAM is still as expensive as it is right now then I'll just get 256MB and when it goes down I'll get another 256MB.
 


<<

<< I have friends playing in Win98SE with 128mb without any problems. >>

Ouch. All other arguments aside that's just a clear-cut case of ignorance is bliss. As mentioned warcraft3 alone uses 100 megs of ram. Win98 sure as heck needs more than 28 to be any good at all! >>



You are assuming that everyone will be playing Warcraft 3??

He currently plays: Asheron's Call, Age of Kings, Nascar4, UT, and Ghost Recon without a hitch.

amish
 
I have roomates who are worse they run ME with 128. I cry for them. one of them is a p4 dell system the other "the cursed one" has an amd emachine tower
 


<< Ouch. All other arguments aside that's just a clear-cut case of ignorance is bliss. As mentioned warcraft3 alone uses 100 megs of ram. Win98 sure as heck needs more than 28 to be any good at all! >>



Yeah, but unless you're willing to pay for their escape from ignorance, why not leave them be? And it's not like someone plays WC3 and all of these other games at the same time, right? My opinion is if you're happy with the performance of 256 (or whatever you may have) and the apps you'll want and need to run, so be it.
 


<< That's what I'll do as well. When I upgrade if RAM is still as expensive as it is right now then I'll just get 256MB and when it goes down I'll get another 256MB. >>

How come? I thought 256 was enough?
 


<<

<< That's what I'll do as well. When I upgrade if RAM is still as expensive as it is right now then I'll just get 256MB and when it goes down I'll get another 256MB. >>

How come? I thought 256 was enough? >>



HAHAHA!!!

Skoorb playin' the devil's advocate. 😀

amish
 


<<

<< That's what I'll do as well. When I upgrade if RAM is still as expensive as it is right now then I'll just get 256MB and when it goes down I'll get another 256MB. >>

How come? I thought 256 was enough? >>

It is, but I'm not going to argue that 512 wouldn't be nice. Your poll does say "enough" does it not? I never said 512 wouldn't be nice. 🙂
 
512 is unnecessary, even for gaming.
heck i didnt even notice the difference from 128 to 256.

512 just gives you the placebo effect
 


<<

<<

<< That's what I'll do as well. When I upgrade if RAM is still as expensive as it is right now then I'll just get 256MB and when it goes down I'll get another 256MB. >>

How come? I thought 256 was enough? >>

It is, but I'm not going to argue that 512 wouldn't be nice. Your poll does say "enough" does it not? I never said 512 wouldn't be nice. 🙂 >>

By Nice you mean faster, correct? And so that goes to reason that 256 is slower than 512. Follow me? Now answer why you'd spend all this money on a P4 1.6 and have ram a bottleneck when the CPU/mobo/heatsink, etc. represents such a high ratio of total money spent that you're willing to shave a bit off the sides for less than optimal ram...
 


<< 512 is unnecessary, even for gaming.
heck i didnt even notice the difference from 128 to 256.

512 just gives you the placebo effect >>



Now that one I'll have to disagree with. I did notice a difference from 128 to 256.

amish
 


<< I am of the belief that upgrading to a p4 1.6 for a gaming machine and settling on 256 megs vs 512 to "save a few bucks" is doing yourself a gross disservice. >>


Bah. The nice thing about memory is that it's extremely easy to add later. I can think of scenarios where I'd like more than 256MB but none of them are compelling enough to justify having 512MB if you really can't afford it. My work PC has 256MB and I typically have 2-3 instances of IE, MS InterDev, SQL Enterprise Manager, text editors, email program, Novell tools, etc. open at once. This is a tool used to make a profit so it seems a little silly for a noncommercial home user to get 512MB if the only reason is for "enthusiast window dressing".

I have 768MB in my home PC simply because I bought the memory when it was dirt cheap. At today's prices, I'd probably settle on 256MB now and upgrade to 512MB when the performance and financial needs justified it.
 


<< 512 is unnecessary, even for gaming.
heck i didnt even notice the difference from 128 to 256.

512 just gives you the placebo effect >>

OK see that's just sad. Stop using windows 3.1;(
 
Enough, yeah... for general computing and such. If you're running memory intensive stuffs all the time like Photoshopping or lotsalotsa multitasking... heck you need 512 to run smooth. I don't do that so... 256 is enough. But like everyone says... more is better! =)
 


<<

<<

<<

<< That's what I'll do as well. When I upgrade if RAM is still as expensive as it is right now then I'll just get 256MB and when it goes down I'll get another 256MB. >>

How come? I thought 256 was enough? >>

It is, but I'm not going to argue that 512 wouldn't be nice. Your poll does say "enough" does it not? I never said 512 wouldn't be nice. 🙂 >>

By Nice you mean faster, correct? And so that goes to reason that 256 is slower than 512. Follow me? Now answer why you'd spend all this money on a P4 1.6 and have ram a bottleneck when the CPU/mobo/heatsink, etc. represents such a high ratio of total money spent that you're willing to shave a bit off the sides for less than optimal ram... >>

No, by nicer I mean the the fact that you know you're covered for all situations. Right now very rarely do I run out of ram so that my computer has to start swapping. Reassurance would be NICE. 512 would give me that reassurance. Is it worth it right now at current ram prices? No. If they drop to what they were a few months ago then yeah I'd say it would be.
 
Just upgraded from PIII 667 128->256 -> Athlon XP 1700+ 512 DDR

The difference one notices depends on workload and system. If you're multi-tasking like crazy and have 64MB you're definitely going to notice the difference. If you're like amish and don't multi-task, well 256 may be good enough for you, but imagine what you COULD be doing, you never know, you may get hooked.

Personally speaking, I multitask a great deal.. multiple IE windows, icq, aim, etc. I noticed a small difference upgrading memory so definitely take memory on a case by case basis. If all he's going to be doing is gaming, then NO, 512 is NOT NECESSARY. but it doesn't HURT. Except in the pocketbook. Wait until prices come back down to earth.
 
I see 55% of the heaviest computer users do just fine with 256MB with today's operating systems. That shows that 256MB is just plenty for the typical home user. Did you remember to turn off that XP "hog my memory" switch? And please stop insulting us with that Win3.1 garbage (it wouldn't run any memory hogging program and you know it).

You don't need 512MB for Word, or Excel, or email, or web browsing. There you just covered 75% of all computer users. One or two games have been made that are real memory hogs. But avoid those, and you will see the vast majority don't need 512MB.

That said, I have 1 GB of RDRAM since I have a highly specialized program...
 


<< I see 55% of the heaviest computer users do just fine with 256MB with today's operating systems. That shows that 256MB is just plenty for the typical home user. Did you remember to turn off that XP "hog my memory" switch? And please stop insulting us with that Win3.1 garbage (it wouldn't run any memory hogging program and you know it). >>

Well it seems clear to me that those who say 256 is adequate are not that heavy users. I have it at work right now and I'm constantly running with 5-15 megs free, caching constantly. Get a few development tools open and its all over.

Frogdog what is NICE about ram if not for the speed? If it's no faster do you like it that it makes you feel sexy when it's in your computer or something?
 
Aren't you looking at this issue too seriously, Skoorb? I mean, you can buy the 256MB and if it isn't enough, just buy another stick. If it's enough, then you saved yourself some bucks. There's very little risk starting off with 256MB. It's not like you buying into a CPU/chipset platform and can't upgrade without tossing all this expensive componetry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top