Would an extra 2 GB of RAM be worth it?

[ichy]

I've got a pretty old computer (C2D E6750, Radeon HD 6770 graphics card) with 4 GB of RAM. I finally got around to installing 64-bit Windows 7 and debating whether an extra couple GB of RAM would be worth it. Judging from Newegg prices it would cost me about sixty bucks. Am I likely to see a performance increase in typical tasks (mostly Windows stuff, a bit of World of Tanks) or am I CPU limited?

 

[SecurityTheatre]

I've got a pretty old computer (C2D E6750, Radeon HD 6770 graphics card) with 4 GB of RAM. I finally got around to installing 64-bit Windows 7 and debating whether an extra couple GB of RAM would be worth it. Judging from Newegg prices it would cost me about sixty bucks. Am I likely to see a performance increase in typical tasks (mostly Windows stuff, a bit of World of Tanks) or am I CPU limited?

I think 4GB is adequate for light usage, but if you do a ton of multitasking, you might see some benefit.

If you're itching to spend $60-$100 you might hunt down a cheap SSD for the OS and a few apps. That will help more than anything. 🙂

 

[DominionSeraph]

Depends on how much stuff you have open at any one time.

 

[mjd]

I guess my first question is:
What are you doing specifically that isn't going fast enough for you?

- Are your web pages loading slowly?
- Are the FPS on your games too low?
- Do you compile Java applications and run databases?
- Do you spend all day encoding music or audio?

-M

 

[Termie]

There's no way I'd spend $60 bucks on an extra 2GB. Especially not outdated DDR2 that won't work in future systems.

If you're itching for a speedup, a cheap SSD for your OS will do a lot more good than 2GB of extra RAM. It will require a reinstall, though, so you'll have to decide whether it's worth the effort - it will definitely feel much faster.

 

[bob123aka]

SSD would increase your overall systems speed and make it feel like new. Won't really see much of a noticeable diff. unless you add 4G

 

[mfenn]

There's no way I'd spend $60 bucks on an extra 2GB. Especially not outdated DDR2 that won't work in future systems.

If you're itching for a speedup, a cheap SSD for your OS will do a lot more good than 2GB of extra RAM. It will require a reinstall, though, so you'll have to decide whether it's worth the effort - it will definitely feel much faster.

This. I don't think that 2GB of DDR3 for $60 makes sense under any circumstances. The SSD can at least be carried forward to a new machine.

 

[VirtualLarry]

This. I don't think that 2GB of DDR3 for $60 makes sense under any circumstances. The SSD can at least be carried forward to a new machine.

This x2.

SSD will make a BIG difference. Whereas, RAM only matters if you're running out of it.

4GB is actually good enough for most basic tasks. I do DC on my desktops, so I have more than 4GB in them. (I consider 8GB minimally-acceptable.)

However, I only have 4GB in most of my laptops, and generally, I don't exceed that. I also have SSDs in most of them though.

 

[QuietDad]

You'll make a bigger seat of the pants impression by going to eBay and investing in a quad core CPU, Socket 775 quads are REALLY cheap right now.

 

[escrow4]

My everyday work PC is a G1610 with 4GB DDR3 and a 120GB OS SSD, so I'd say no. SSD first and fresh reinstall of 8.1 would be ideal.

 

[QuietDad]

Thats a dual core also. Going to a quad like a 3gb QX9650 will wake up both of those machines.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Thats a dual core also. Going to a quad like a 3gb QX9650 will wake up both of those machines.

You do realize that for most apps, the G1610 is going to be faster than the fastest Core2Quad, right?

I still think that the best performance/$ improvement would be with an SSD first, and a quad-core 775 chip second, and a RAM increase third.

 

[QuietDad]

I'm not going to argue about it because it's all opinion here and no one is wrong. You'd invest in a SSD and I would invest in a CPU. Your G1610 is snappy, the E6750 not so much. I agree RAM would do little after 4GB. SSD Would make the game load faster, not play faster.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I will say that a Core2Quad system (with enough RAM), does seem noticeably "smoother" than a Core2Duo.

Edit: PS. How cheap is "cheap" for Core2Quad chips? $30 for a Q8300/Q8400? That would probably be worth it.

I don't think that I would invest in a 65nm Core2Quad chip at this point in time. Too much heat/power-draw, too much stress on the mobo (unless it's a high-end mobo with premium VRMs designed for that kind of load).

 

[QuietDad]

8300/8400's are more in the $50-$60 but you can find them at $30. It's a hit or miss. He's already at 65nm with the E6750. My thoughts are this. SSD's do not make good main drive's. They have a shelf life and after so many reads and writes they die. Hard drives with systems installed do not swap easy to new systems. And any memory he buys will probably have to be DDR2 which will die with this machine (don't know of many socket 775 motherboards that support DDR3 and if it's an OLD socket 775 board, it's definitely not DDR3.

So if you buy RAM it's done when the machine goes and even with 64bit windows, unless your doing alot of things at once, anything over 3-4gb is not going to make things that much better.

An SSD will make programs load faster, but will not improve the feel of the desktop once your in the game. And at 4GB of RAM now, I'm betting that it's not paging all that much.

Upgrading the CPU will make it noticeably smoother and while it lasts as long as the computer does, so does the RAM and the SSD has a limited life anyway.

There really is no wrong choice here.

 

[VirtualLarry]

My thoughts are this. SSD's do not make good main drive's. They have a shelf life and after so many reads and writes they die.

the SSD has a limited life anyway.

There really is no wrong choice here.

I was going to let you have the last word, but I just wanted to respectfully disagree with some of those concerns. Older (as in, not produced anymore, and not available new) SSDs had atrocious "write-amplification".

However, most modern SSDs have optimized their way around that problem, with OP (over provisioning) and more capable firmware and controllers.

SSDs absolutely DO make good main drives. That's precisely where their performance benefits shine. They are not fragile. You do not have to coddle them, or move your paging file to a spinning HDD, for fear of them wearing out.

I just wouldn't use a consumer SSD for a database, or DC (distributed computing). There are a few corner-cases, where an SSD may wear down somewhat pre-maturely, but you would likely know if you were in one of those cases.

In short, I think that the fear about SSDs is largely unwarranted around this point in time.

Edit: I will also add, yes, it's largely a toss-up between an SSD and a quad-core. Both would show improvements. SSD for "snappyness and daily tasks", and the quad-core also for that, as well as gaming power.

 

[QuietDad]

I don't disagree with you about SSDs out there that last a long time BUT there are two types of SSD. Single layer that last a long time and double layer that don't. Single layer are enterprise level drives and multis are sold at Bestbuy and New Egg. Thiss is why many people build machines with a 120gb SSD to put the operating system on and all their data is on an old fashion platter drive. The OP started this with $60 worth of RAM and your not going to find a robust SSD for $60. This is a PC that's past it's prime and while a SSD will improve performance, a new CPU will give the same feeling for a whole lot less money and aggravation. $30-$50 for a CPU and an afternoon swapping a chip that just goes on vs a weekend of backups and reinstalling software for $500 for a good SSD ($60-100 is NOT WORTH BUYING) for the same trade-offs makes it a no brainer for me.

Again, this is my opinion and either SSD or CPU will end up feeling the same is most ways so there is no real loser here. It's just a matter of personal preference.

BTW, I just personally have an issue that when a SSD goes, so goes the data, I have recovered dozens of HD failures over the years, because as long as the heads don't scratch the platters, you can get the data back. I have used SSDs mostly as paging and cache drives where who cares if the fail. I just don't think the price/performance point is where I want it as a daily RELIABLE storage.

 

[mfenn]

I don't disagree with you about SSDs out there that last a long time BUT there are two types of SSD. Single layer that last a long time and double layer that don't.

That may be your opinion, but respectfully, your opinion is factually wrong. SLC is only used in the most write heavy workloads like database logs drives. Most enterprise drives are switching over to MLC for cost reasons. MLC is perfectly fine for a desktop workload because there is more than enough NAND to allow for a long lifetime under a normal workload.

A 120 GB drive usually has 128 GB of NAND. Each byte of that NAND can be written somewhere on the order of 3000 times. That's 360 TB of writes over the lifetime of the drive. Now, there is write amplification that occurs due to inefficiencies at the controller level, but that's not a huge factor for modern drives. Let's assume it's a pretty atrocious 5. That's 72 TB of effective writes.

To put that in perspective, you could install a 10 GB game every day and only hit the drive's rated lifespan after 20 years.

 

[QuietDad]

I will defer to your assessment of SSD's and their life spans in today's market in that I haven't looked real hard lately. But back to the OP's question. He wanted to throw $60 of ram at an old machine for a performance gain. Already having 4GB, more RAM is not going to improve performance that much. I suggested for the same $60 he could invest in a quad core CPU. Both the CPU and the RAM will be worthless at the end of this machines life. DDR2 and socket 775 ain't in high demand right now. Other's suggested SSD as an alternative and I agree it's a toss up between the two at the perceived performance enhancements. As stated in post #15 there really is no wrong choice.

My personal opinion that SSD's are unreliable, and it's a personal opinion, and $60 is going to get you a 30GB Intel, it's not worth the effort to back up a drive, reinstall everything to a SSD that your going to spend $150-500 for to get one big enough to be useful, where pulling off a HSF, cleaning it with a little alcohol, swaping a CPU, applying a little thermal past and reseating the HSF get you in the same place for $60.

Once again, I'm not saying anyone is wrong. I'm just not sold on the technology yet. And I use SSD's in a commercial setting so I'm not "afraid" of them. But they go for index files, cache and paging files. The "Data" sits on platters. But that's a corporate risk analysis desicion. Not technology.

 

[T9D]

I bought this 120 gb ssd for $80. Huge difference. I'd never go back to normal spinning HDD for my OS and a few other programs. I was afraid of SSD for the last couple years but all the reviews have greatly improved for reliability and longevity. They really have come a long way with controllers and the like. And the price is much better now. Didn't see any reason to hold off any longer. I'm glad I finally did it and got an SSD. My brothers intel SSD is still going strong after 2 years.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...?ie=UTF8&psc=1

 

[sm625]

It might be worth it to go from 2GB to 4GB, but to go from 4GB to 6GB? No way. Dont do it.

 

[aigomorla]

the OP should notice a benifit from 2->4GB especially on 64Bit.

However 60 dollars for DDR2 kinda makes a sour taste in my stomache..

 

[VirtualLarry]

I should mention that a few months ago, I picked up 4x2GB DDR2-667 RAM for under $60, here on FS/FT. It was used, but tested out fine.