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

[BFG10K]

256 ram is enough

False.

256 MB is the bare minimum you want to outfit a gaming rig with and you'll often get a lot of paging in games like RTCW and Serious Sam2 with high detail game settings and larger levels.

512 MB is the recommended amount for a good gaming experience, especially with Windows 2000/XP.

 

[sharkeeper]

This is one of those questions where you ask n people you get n different answers!

Cheers!

 

[misterj]

512 for games and graphic/video editing. 256 for everything else

 

[grrl]

I went from 256 to 383 when RAM was cheap. The extra stick seemed to help when I was multitasking, especially with Photoshop running. With Win2k and a few simple apps open though, only about 25% of the memory is taken up.

 

[spamsk8r]

<< Do none of you multitask?

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

You do realize that windows can now multitask right? I run this at ALL times:

-operating system
-windows explorer. If this ain't open I'm not booted up.
-msn messenger
-icq
-zone alarm
-united devices distributing app
-winamp. if this ain't open i'm not booted up.
-IE. I MIGHT close an IE window when a game starts but probably not. I like to get right back to surfing the second a game stops.
-game - for instance warcraft 3 which sucks up a mean 100 megs alone.
>>



That's it? I run all that and more on 256 with no problems whatsoever, just make sure you buy good RAM, my computer always has more than enough RAM to take care of everything I throw at it. And also, if you have both ICQ and MSN open, along with AIM maybe, why don't you download Trillian? Website, takes care of all the IM programs, all in one

 

[BlvdKing]

256 is enough for now.

 

[WilsonTung]

I refuse to vote in this poll - this is not a black and white issue. I say get the amount of RAM that suits your needs best.

My recomendations for Windows XP?

64 MB to boot the machine
128 MB for office programs, web surfing, coding

256 MB for games
512 MB for simultaneous applications + games
1 GB+ for workstation environments (CAD, Video Editing, anything else really heavy)

I get by just fine on 128 MB. I'm not much of a gamer

 

[CraigRT]

Can't even vote.. it depends on the OS for me at least.. Win2K i definitely like 512 more... Win98 or 9x and 256 does the job fine.

EDIT: just looked at my task manager and I am using 273MB as we speak.

Winamp, ICQ, a bunch of IE's, SETI@HOME, Direct Connect, G6 FTP and someone uploading to me, AVG is running in the background, that's about it
it manages to eat up 270+ MB... I definitely use more than 256 so for me at least, 256 is not enough.
for 98 I still think it is though.. I never noticed a diff in 98 with 384 or even 512 over 256.

 

[spyordie007]

I know it's been said but I wanted to throw in my 2 cents, 256 MB of DDR is great for most things, even running Win. XP
The real problem comes in when you run more memory intensive programs, such as very big games, or video editing in Adobe Premiere however 256 is gone in a heartbeat.

-Spy

 

[spyordie007]

<< Can't even vote.. it depends on the OS for me at least.. Win2K i definitely like 512 more... Win98 or 9x and 256 does the job fine.

EDIT: just looked at my task manager and I am using 273MB as we speak.

Winamp, ICQ, a bunch of IE's, SETI@HOME, Direct Connect, G6 FTP and someone uploading to me, AVG is running in the background, that's about it
it manages to eat up 270+ MB... I definitely use more than 256 so for me at least, 256 is not enough.
for 98 I still think it is though.. I never noticed a diff in 98 with 384 or even 512 over 256. >>


I dont think Win. 98 can manage more than 256 MB in any kind of reasonable manner.

 

[KingofBladez]

I just recently went from 256mb to 512 and it was definitely worth it. I really notice it when exiting a game, the system is responsive much quicker than with 256mb.

 

[limsandy]

"Oh it's true, it's true."
- Kurt Angle

 

[Mitzi]

256Mb of RAM is enough - true.

This time next year perhaps more would be optimal but today, for most uses 256Mb is plenty.

<--- Has 512Mb DDR

 

[Insidious]

I was on 98SE when I went from 256 to 512......... I saw no difference in system ops (gaming)

Since I've been on XP, I have never run with 256 and can't say the result would be the same, but suspect it would be.

256 is fine.

(I only went to 512 because I had a store credit to blow and didn't need anything else at the time)

 

[bjc112]

<< Do none of you multitask?

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



exactly what i have open always...

 

[skace]

[*Edit: Talk about confusing my points*]

First off let me say I have 512 mb of ram. Second off let me say I play Everquest. Third off let me say I've hit the PHYSICAL BARRIER at which my computer said I ran out of memory and proceeded to close things down for me. And not only that, I can reproduce the effect at will in Everquest.

Yea, Ok lets be fair, Everquest may not be the most memory efficient game, but most arn't. If you are upgrading your machine right now, you should be looking at least 3 steps in front of your own feet, meaning you plan to play games that are better than what you can currently play today. If I know I can just barely play EQ with the clip plane down, graphic models on low, textures on low, sky plane on single instead of double, particle effects on low, and hit a memory barrier. I should know damn well that I will probably want more the next time around.

Now the question is, Will I ever play games such as MMORPGs (Everquest) where the global texture file grows at enormous rates. Most games have a preset number of textures that they try to fit in and at the same time keeping that number within limits by reusing textures. But when you have a game with an everchanging world, where things can zone into your level and introduce more and more textures to a specific zone, you realize that your memory usage will now grow and you will need to accomodate for that. Verant knows this and tries to be strict with what they add to the global textures, but they also want to improve their game (AKA, their can only be so many swords that look like that rusty sword you got from a snake at level 1 before people get sick of seeing it). Back in Quake1, You had to run a command line parameter just to load certain maps because they required 32mb of ram and Quake by default used only 16. So, it is obvious that games are increasing in memory demands, the question is, do you think you plan to play the games that are increasing at the fastest rates (mainly dynamic online worlds)?

My beef is not with people saying 256 ram is enough, because it may be depending on what you do. My beef is with people who say you will never need 512, or it is a waste, or there are no games that will ever use it, blah. They are wrong.

Next system will be 1GB+ and I'm sure I will use it all.

 

[Electric Amish]

Wow.... Still going.

I still don't think there is a requirement for more than 256mb unless you are compiling or photoshopping or something along those lines. I would spend the extra $$ on a video card if there were any decent one's to buy. That's still going to be the main bottleneck.

amish

 

[Trader05]

Personally, my older system with Celeron oc'd to 928, with 512mb of ram, everything else is the same, was pretty smooth. When i upgraded to P4 1.6a, i only bought 256 because of the cash flow at the time. Some things are really fast due to the processing speed but others are slow to the fact i'm not satisfied, such as multitasking. I just bought another stick of 256, hopefully it makes a difference. BTW, running WinXP pro on both systems, clean install.

 

[bacteria]

man this is the most meaningless thread ever

 

[MasterHoss]

Well, I used 512MB PC133 SDRAM and my A7V133 for almost 1 year... my previous computer had 384MB PC100 SDRAM and I didn't really notice a difference either way. Now, with my new K7V Dragon+ and 256MB PC2100 DDR SDRAM, I miss my 512MB of RAM. I notice that things are sluggish. For games, loading doesn't seem to be an issue but I notice exiting out of games is slower now.

If he likes multi-tasking, like I do, then I would suggest getting something more than 256... but if you are telling your friend he needs more than 256MB to increase his experience with game play, the improvement won't be noticable.

 

[toant103]

512

 

[eplebnista]

True.

 

[RanDum72]

I would say for 'normal' use (like MS office, web browsing, an occasional, non 3D intensive game, moderate multitasking, win98/ME), its more than adequate. But if you're a hardcore gamer, Photoshop freak, multi-task demon, etc...then youdefinitely need more, at least 512mb IMO.

 

[travler]

after following this thread i have come to this definate conclusion:

Is 256MB of SDRAM enough?

 

[Muerto]

If you're using WinXP then 256 may be pushing it but it will still work. With any other OS 256 would be fine. There isn't any game on the planet that will need more than that though.