Worth it to upgrade from 4GB to 8GB?

[Bateluer]

I've got 4GB now, recently converted to 2x2GB sticks from my previous 4x1GB sticks. So now, I've got open slots for more RAM.

Its pretty snappy, but RAM is so cheap right now, I've been thinking about picking up another 4GB, for a total of 8GB.

This is an E8500 on an Abit IN9-32X motherboard, nvidia 680i chipset. I did some quick googling on 8GB in Vista and read a THG article on the subject. They were positive towards 8GB, but didn't include any tangible benchmarks or numbers.

Those of you running with 8GB of RAM, is it worth it? Do you experience a tangible benefit, and in what applications? And do you disable your swap file entirely or leave it on, if on, what size?

 

[Genx87]

I would leave the swap on. But will you notice the difference? Hard to say. But sometimes it is fun to be a geek and get 8GB anyways just to say you have 8GB

 

[Bateluer]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I would leave the swap on. But will you notice the difference? Hard to say. But sometimes it is fun to be a geek and get 8GB anyways just to say you have 8GB

This is true.

 

[Scotteq]

Well.. If you want to analyse it, then keep half an eye on how much memory you are using when you have your computer loaded up and see if performanceisaffectedandyouareexperiencingalotofHDDI/O...




or you can say "Fuggit... RAM is cheap..."

 

[Juddog]

I have 4 GB myself (Vista 64 bit, Home Ultimate ed.)

I have been watching the performance monitor over the past few months, and normally I rarely even hit 3 GB usage, even with 2 copies of WoW running simultaneously I only hit about 3.3 GB usage (they took up about 800 MB each). In fact I have yet to max out the 4 GB of memory on any application that I personally use.

 

[Bateluer]

As I understand the way Vista manages it memory, and from the THG article, Vista will consume 3/4ths of the available RAM. So, if you have 4GB, then it will take 2.5-3 for its caching and Superfetch functions. With it, it will take even more, but cache even more.

 

[nerp]

It's impossible to say whether you SHOULD do this because you haven't really said what you use your computer for and what kind of memory usage you already have. With Vista, additional memory comes with a certian level of diminishing returns. Yes, 8GB will give superfetch more room to play with, but the difference from 4 to 8 is pretty minor compared from the jump from 2 to 4. And the jump from 1 to 2 is downright jaw dropping, imho. So your 8GB setup will help but only a little.

Are you OC'ing? Keep in mind some mobos will start to struggle if you're oc'ing and have all four slots populated with dense ram. 680i chipsets I thought were picky with ram to begin with? THis might be problematic then.

And please don't disable your page file. This is a dead horse issue around here. Just leave it be.

 

[Crusty]

I've got 8GB in this machine right now I've got 4GB of data in residence, and 4GB cached from superfetch. Mind you I'm a developer so I've got Visio/Excel/VS2005 lots of explorer windows/terminals and firefox tabs open on my monitors.

It was definitely worth the upgrade from 4GB to 8GB, I could still fire up Crysis and have no problems playing

 

[Bateluer]

Originally posted by: nerp
It's impossible to say whether you SHOULD do this because you haven't really said what you use your computer for and what kind of memory usage you already have. With Vista, additional memory comes with a certian level of diminishing returns. Yes, 8GB will give superfetch more room to play with, but the difference from 4 to 8 is pretty minor compared from the jump from 2 to 4. And the jump from 1 to 2 is downright jaw dropping, imho. So your 8GB setup will help but only a little.

Are you OC'ing? Keep in mind some mobos will start to struggle if you're oc'ing and have all four slots populated with dense ram. 680i chipsets I thought were picky with ram to begin with? THis might be problematic then.

And please don't disable your page file. This is a dead horse issue around here. Just leave it be.

No, I don't OC. The summer months are too hot and wreak havoc on even mild overclocks.

I've personally used Vista on 1GB, 2GB, and with 4GBs, and from 1 to 2 had the biggest increase. Either way, thanks for the replies. Perhaps a Christmas present to myself?

 

[nerp]

Originally posted by: Bateluer

Originally posted by: nerp
It's impossible to say whether you SHOULD do this because you haven't really said what you use your computer for and what kind of memory usage you already have. With Vista, additional memory comes with a certian level of diminishing returns. Yes, 8GB will give superfetch more room to play with, but the difference from 4 to 8 is pretty minor compared from the jump from 2 to 4. And the jump from 1 to 2 is downright jaw dropping, imho. So your 8GB setup will help but only a little.

Are you OC'ing? Keep in mind some mobos will start to struggle if you're oc'ing and have all four slots populated with dense ram. 680i chipsets I thought were picky with ram to begin with? THis might be problematic then.

And please don't disable your page file. This is a dead horse issue around here. Just leave it be.

No, I don't OC. The summer months are too hot and wreak havoc on even mild overclocks.

I've personally used Vista on 1GB, 2GB, and with 4GBs, and from 1 to 2 had the biggest increase. Either way, thanks for the replies. Perhaps a Christmas present to myself?

Do it. It won't do any harm.

 

[VinDSL]

Originally posted by: Bateluer
I've personally used Vista on 1GB, 2GB, and with 4GBs, and from 1 to 2 had the biggest increase. Either way, thanks for the replies. Perhaps a Christmas present to myself?

Heh! Try 512 MB some time...

My relatives visited us last Christmas, for a few weeks, and their Vista HB lappy had 512 MB installed.

OMG, it was almost unusable - that's how S-L-O-W it was!!! And that's NO exaggeration...

I replaced the 512 MB with 2 GB RAM and it instantly became as fast as my Quasi-8 GB Vista HP lappy (4 GB RAM + 4 GB ReadyBoost)!

LoL!

Guess what their Christmas present was!?!?!

Hint: They're STILL thanking me!

 

[WT]

But sometimes it is fun to be a geek and get 8GB anyways just to say you have 8GB

:thumbsup:

I was pricing another 4gb kit yesterday, and sadly, this was for my spare gamer rig, which is running Vista Ult. 64, so it would hardly get ANY use in that capacity other than to test stuff out on 64 bit, but .. dayam .. I'm such a hardware geek that 8gb sounds sexier than 4gb.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

I have two Vista x64 rigs, a dual core with 4GB (mostly for play) and a quad with 8GB (also mostly for play but definitely does all the work). Now I don't really push the 4GB system other than gaming, but with my 8GB rig I have often hit 3GB without doing anything thanks to SuperFetch doing its job to make sure my apps will load just about instantaneously whenever I actually do work.

8GB is going to be overkill for just about everyone, 6GB is more of the sweet spot, but considering how that requires mismatched pairs as well as not being as cost effective, going ahead with the full 8GB isn't so crazy, especially when we have hot deals for ~$30 per 4GB pair. Text

 

[T101]

I use 8GB on Vista Ultimate x64. Since I do alot of multitasking, I have found that it is easy to go beyond 4GB of ram. Even when gaming. So using ram instead of swap improves performance. Considering the price of DDR2 memory at the moment, I must say that while you perhaps not might utilize all of 8GB, if you find yourself hovering on the verge of 4GB usage, or go beyond it, it is well worth it.

 

[mancunian]

6 Gigs does seem to be a sweet spot on Vista 64.

I cheaped out when I bought these parts and only got 2GB. Discovered soon enough that wasn't gonna cut it with Vista 64, so purchased another 4GB, just in case running 4 sticks was a problem were I to just buy another 2GB.

I ended up chucking the initial 2GB alongside the new RAM and the whole 6GB just ticks along very nicely.


Having slightly more than enough RAM is nice.

 

[pcslookout]

Originally posted by: mancunian
6 Gigs does seem to be a sweet spot on Vista 64.

I cheaped out when I bought these parts and only got 2GB. Discovered soon enough that wasn't gonna cut it with Vista 64, so purchased another 4GB, just in case running 4 sticks was a problem were I to just buy another 2GB.

I ended up chucking the initial 2GB alongside the new RAM and the whole 6GB just ticks along very nicely.


Having slightly more than enough RAM is nice.

Very helpful so you don't have to be worried about going right at your ram limit or a little over. That is the nicest thing about it I bet.

 

[George P Burdell]

Can you buy faster 4GB RAM instead?

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: George P Burdell
Can you buy faster 4GB RAM instead?

Unless his overclocking capabilities are currently limited by his ram speed, he isn't going to see much of a speed boost from getting faster ddr2 memory. He'd be better off getting more memory IMO (or saving up for his nehalem machine)

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: George P Burdell
Can you buy faster 4GB RAM instead?

Unless his overclocking capabilities are currently limited by his ram speed, he isn't going to see much of a speed boost from getting faster ddr2 memory. He'd be better off getting more memory IMO (or saving up for his nehalem machine)

yup, faster ram won't help when you run out and hit the page file, and it won't improve things like SuperFetch which will purposefully use more ram if it is available.

Primary reasons to stick to a faster set of 4GB (2 x 2GB) would be something like overclocking where its much less headache to get a fast and stable system with only two sticks.

 

[Bateluer]

It also costs more to get faster DDR2 RAM. DDR2-800 and DDR2-1000 are dirt cheap. DDR2-1066 is slightly more, and DDR2-1100/1200 is pricey.

 

[Bateluer]

Well, I went ahead and ordered another set of the DDR2-1000 G.Skill RAM that I bought last month. Should get it Friday.

 

[techmanc]

Unless you have memory intensive programs running I never seen any noticeable improvements in using more than 2gb ram

 

[Bateluer]

This Abit IN9 pisses me off. I can't get it to POST with all 4 sticks in, regardless of timings or voltages. I've sent the DDR2 voltages between 2.0 and 2.1 volts. The furthest I got was a lockup in windows after about 10 minutes. I've got the new sticks in one of my test beds now, running Memtest86. No failures yet.

I am serious considering saying screw it, and buying an Asus P5QC board. It has support for the number of SATA drives I require, PCIe 2.0, and DDR3 as well as DDR2. 6 RAM slots, should work alright with 4 2GB sticks of DDR2?

 

[us3rnotfound]

You've probably already checked, but is there a new Bios out for your Abit? That could resolve the issue.

 

[Bateluer]

Originally posted by: us3rnotfound
You've probably already checked, but is there a new Bios out for your Abit? That could resolve the issue.

I am already running the latest BIOS, 1.5. Abit has pretty much ended support for the IN9 32X MAX board. Sad, when you consider that it was a 300 dollar board. :|

Regardless, I finally said fvck it and ordered an Asus P5Q SE Plus board from Newegg. I must say, with all the myriad issues I've had with the 680i based board, I'm not too likely to purchase an Nvidia board again.