pushing 1GB RAM....

[SpecialEd]

with the release of 512mb chips of DDR RAM... i find that more and more people are getting 1GB or 1.5 GB of RAM... how much does this really improve performance over 382Mb or 512Mb? Do you think applications are going to start running slowly with just 512Mb? I just don't see software reaching these requirements anytime soon! Whats the rush?

 

[StormRider]

I just bought 2 sticks of 512 MB RAM for the new system I just built (ECS K75SA and Athlon XP 1600+). I did it so I could brag that I have 1GB total RAM in my system.

 

[AMDPwred]

Same here. I just bought 768MB RAM yesterday so I could have 1GB total.

 

[Random Variable]

<< i find that more and more people are getting 1GB or 1.5 GB of RAM... how much does this really improve performance over 382Mb or 512Mb? >>


Unless you specifically use memory-intensive applications, having that much system memory won't improve performance.

 

[Workin']

I have a gig of RAM and I can't tell any difference from when I had 256MB. Except everyone oohs and ahhhs when I tell 'em I have a gig of RAM. It's required if you want to be alpha geek, I guess. And the whole gig cost only about $110, so why not fill 'er up?

You can never have too fast of a CPU, too much RAM, or too much disk space. More is better, always.

 

[IgoByte]

You'll see absolutely no benefit in performance unless you do renderings and complicated, memory-intensive work. As a matter of fact, your performance may decrease as a result of the extra memory. All you need is 256MB for a regular system or 512MB if it's networked and being used as a print/file server.
Also, if you're running Win9x/ME, forget the extra memory...get yourself a new OS.

I have 2GB of PC133 SDRAM in one of my systems (the server) and I also work on it. The performance of the system is excellent (it's a dual PIII1Ghz system with four 60GB HDDs in RAID 0), but so is the performance of my other systems, which only have 512MB of RAM (one has DDR266 and the other PC133). I too am going to get me 2GB of DDR266 in preparation for a MP AMD system however...just so I can show off, I guess...

 

[AMDPwred]

<< You can never have too fast of a CPU, too much RAM, or too much disk space. More is better, always. >>



Finally someone else sees it my way

 

[Ominous]

I got my gig for the price of 512...pure accident as they gave me 512 meg sticks rather then 256 meg sticks. I odn't see a speed difference in my normal applications...but when I have like 20 of my digital pictures open each with a few layers it seems a bit smoother

 

[LXi]

Just bragging rights I see, I consider anything more than 512MB on a consumer PC impractical and wasteful, spend the money elsewhere, like a hard drive, or more CPU power or something useful.

 

[SpecialEd]

I never thought of bragging rights as an incentive to buy more RAM... its soo cheap these days anyway. Well... a year and a half ago I said 128Mb was plently to do everything. But definitely noticed slows using photoshop at work with only 128Mb. Maybe in a year from now, 512Mb won't be enough to run some applications...




Edit: grammar and spelling mistakes... hey, i'm a math major, not an english major

 

[JackBurton]

<< It's required if you want to be alpha geek, I guess. >>


That's right. I do use 474MB of it while playing RTCW though. Damn that game eats up memory like it was candy. :disgust:

 

[avedis]

1 GB of RAM? What would that be used for?
Under a 'normal' environment, I don't believe anyone would need that much, and it would most likely not make things any faster, unless you
are big into graphic apps, and have alot of huge graphics up at the same time. Helps me out when I download por...n erm, was that out loud?
hehe... Seriously though...
I have 512MB, and I still think it's an overkill, don't notice any difference from 256MB.
You could always make a RAM-Drive and put yer swap file on it... Just a thought.
But then again.. Bill gates said "640K is all you'll ever need"

Avedis

 

[kylef]

I *love* my gig of RAM! My system NEVER slows down when I have tons of applications open. I just keep opening more and more and more and more...

I would *not* recommend attempting to put your swap file on a RAMdisk. Your swapfile isn't really even used if you have tons of free memory pages. I've found that Win2k does a good job with lots of RAM by default. I don't think Win9x does a very good job.

Using a RAMdisk is a power-user type of thing because they're not easy to setup effectively. But if you have an I/O intensive application (such as a web server) that doesn't need hard state, a RAM disk might be a good option.

 

[TunaBoo]

I can fill up a gig easy

 

[codehack2]

<< You could always make a RAM-Drive and put yer swap file on it... Just a thought. >>



The whole purpose of a swap file is for spill over when you run out of RAM.. your defeating the purpose of having large amounts of physical memory by doing this. A better thought might be to just disable swapping all together.

CH2

 

[dbcrossfire]

prices are so cheap... why not?

and I love it when I'm at a lan and people ask about my system "oh yea, I've got a gig of ram" or my personal fav "yea, I'm running dual 1.4's" the expression on their face is priceless.

 

[Lore]

As far as I know, Windows 2000 will not allow you to disable your swap file. It'll complain and won't even let you login to the system. I've had that happen when I installed a new hard drive and for some reason the hard drive letters were rearranged, and what used to be the drive that had the swap file was the new, unformatted, drive. Windows 2000 proceeded to let me know that my swap file was too small, but it also would not let me login. POS.