Do You Really Need More Than 6 GB Of RAM?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
A 21MP image is only about 60MB in size so you could easily handle that with 3GB of RAM, even with multiple layers. In fact, even a 256000000 pixel image at 8b per channel only needs about 730MB of memory.

The only time you might need more is if you do virtualization on a large scale, but then you probably already know what you need.

Just one thing about Vista ReadyBoost: It's supposed to learn the habits of the user over time, so it's not very effective when you enable it for the first time when it can't predict which programs you'll open next. On my 4GB system it has currently cached 2.8GB, with a few programs open that also consume memory.
 
My Dell XPS M1710 currently has 4 Gb of RAM, of which I get only around 3.2 Gb effective under Vista 64 bit ... I am working with virtualization, I use a test environment with servers and clients on the same machine ... and those 3.2 Gb are barely enough to run VERY basic virtual machines decently. I refuse to change my machine until the Nehalem mobile processors arrive, and then I will have 4 cores and definitely triple channel memory 6 Gb or 12 if I can ... pity I won't be able to put a scsi 15000 rpm hard drive on it. Funny thing, gamers are the ones pushing for higher specs on machines, I can't really use the graphics card on my system, since my machines are virtualized, and neither VMWare Workstation nor VMWare ESXi will give me access to the graphics hardware, all I care about is Cores, memory, fast networking and fast hard drives. Also, the raw GHz speed of the cores is relevant for me.
 
The article has the wrong idea... entirely.

RAM does not increase framerates or computing performance in general when you have "enough" AKA 1-2gb.

This exact same set of questions has been tested by other sites, and Toms has gotten a completely different conclusion than all the rest. Why? Because Tom's did it wrong.

Tom's tested Framerate and general computing performance, when it's been found time and time again that increasing RAM (up to 8gb) decreases load times dramatically.

It doesn't decrease program startup times dramatically, it doesn't decrease Windows load times dramatically, it decreases in-application load times.


Please, redo the article.
Try to fail less next time.
 
I upgraded to 12 gB when I built my new Win7 system. Previously I had 8 gB on Vista.

No noticeable performance gain - but I can open anything I want (and leave it open) while playing games at acceptable frame rates.
 
Hello to all.

First, I think that the article could be useful for people that want to know if it is worth investing their money in more memory. This article is useful because the conclusion for these people is just as gsnyder says: Better use your money for a dinner with your couple and/or kids, there is no point in loading your computer with more memory than your applications will ever use.

Now, from my personal point of view, I think 8 GB is the optimal point for any professional user. But, I think, if you are a professional, you *know* your needs. You don't need anybody to tell you how much memory you need. I currently use Xilinx hardware design tools and I frequently run out of memory with my 4 GB (3 GB) machine. The synthesis process frequently eats up to 2.5GB itself. Then, in my desktop I have to run this at the same time that two VMs; one is a Debian with a repository (64 MB of RAM) and the other is an XP machine where I do device driver development (with 512 MB of RAM). If you are in any situation like this, then you will decide to get the 8 GBs on your own.

Finally, I have to run some experiments for a PhD at the University. These experiments consist on C applications that we have developed ourselves. There is no practical way to run them in a machine with less than 16 GBs of RAM. If you have to rely on virtual memory for these experiments, then your execution time goes from one hour to many days due to random access patterns to data.

However, I still think that the article was useful for the average user that wants to know if it would be worthy before switching to a new configuration with new apps that he/she doesn't know.

Regards to all of you out there,
Mike
 
Can Tom's do an article like this using RAID-0? =D

Does RAID-0 REALLY decrease Windows boot times, and does it REALLY improve game load times, and does it do any good in virus-scanning or anything else that may have to do with HDD access, and what about multitasking?

I know what the general consensus is on the topic - RAID-0 is worthless if you're not working with large files, and the latency increase can actually make Windows boot slower. But is this true? I must know.
 
I would submit as said before that anyone who like me uses VMWare or similar virtualisation software to host multiple virtual machines on the same computer will appreciate all the Ram and Cores they can get.
 
First: "Power users could easily counter energy concerns by pointing out that a better-performing computer allows them to get their work done in less time."

...only makes a valid argument if you turn the computer off after use.

Second: mike78_es "Now, from my personal point of view, I think 8 GB is the optimal point for any professional user. But, I think, if you are a professional, you *know* your needs. You don't need anybody to tell you how much memory you need. I currently use Xilinx hardware design tools and I frequently run out of memory with my 4 GB (3 GB) machine. The synthesis process frequently eats up to 2.5GB itself. Then, in my desktop I have to run this at the same time that two VMs; one is a Debian with a repository (64 MB of RAM) and the other is an XP machine where I do device driver development (with 512 MB of RAM). If you are in any situation like this, then you will decide to get the 8 GBs on your own.

Finally, I have to run some experiments for a PhD at the University. These experiments consist on C applications that we have developed ourselves. There is no practical way to run them in a machine with less than 16 GBs of RAM. If you have to rely on virtual memory for these experiments, then your execution time goes from one hour to many days due to random access patterns to data."

... your situations are far, far removed from the average user. Actually, your post fits the conclusion of this article perfectly.
 
I think it's a good article, sure they could have addressed other things, but that's always the case. We can now discuss the fact they only used an intel system and not an amd system, they used a 64 bit windows vista only, not windows 7 or xp, or whatever you might complain about (linux anyone).

But their targeted audience will be the just a bit better than joe, the son who uses daddies CC to get a new computer and waste a lot of money on memory and a extreme intel, the person who loves to play games and don't care if it takes 2 seconds more or less to load a game, just wants to play his game good.

Most people don't care about load times, because when they start up something that takes long to load, they will just walk away. Also a lot of games nowadays connect to the net, that takes most of the time anyway, checking the server if your account is still active and what characters your account have or points you have scored before or whatever.

This was a good article, I'm just sorry not everyone found what they wanted to hear.
 
I've got 12GB of RAM and routinely use 5-6GB, and I don't usually run photo editing programs, 3D programs, hell most the time that's without even running a game.

More RAM is better, it allows you to do more at once, you change your computing habits when you have more available to make use of it.
 
I run 16GB in my Mac Pro under OS X and Vista 64, and Photoshop never has to reach for the scratch disk (at least in OS X, better memory allocation). Also great for multitasking with room to spare, like having Photoshop, Photo Mechanic, Lightroom/Aperture, and Firefox all open, and with no delays. The more the better :)
 
I'm running 8 gigs with a Q6600 quad core with vista 64 running stock. The disk cache is also disabled. My computer has been able to use Virtual PC without a problem, or encode over 8 full DVD movies at the same time while surfing the internet.

If you use your computer for light use, 3 gigs is plenty, however i'm disappointed that the article didn't perform more difficult tests to determine when 4 gigs isn't enough.
 
@mike78_es

I accidentally hit the thumbs down on your comment...thought I'd mention it in case you're wondering why someone classified your post as useless.
 
Load up 2 copies of a new MMO (Age of Conan is probably the most hardware intense) at the same time. Add a few hundred megs worth of browser windows, voice chat, mp3 player, etc in the back ground. Now go try to zone around the map a lot.

With 3gigs you'll be swapping to disk or reloading maps every time.

Then try video capture (FRAPs or similar) on top of that... 6gigs will work, but there sure won't be much extra.
 
Outside of graphic designers - sound engineers, I'm not sure if any normal application user will benefit from running anything a 32bit 3gb capacity.
 
On the video side, Mainconcept, Xvid/divx etc. What were the file sizes? Just curious. I would'nt go below 4G for 32bitOS or 64bit OS no matter whaat. I deally I have min 8G for 64bit OS.
 
I'm reminded of my first computer - where 64K RAM was considered the be all to end all and the only way you were getting even THAT much was with an external expansion box from LNW Research. Then there was the first IBM PC and 640K of RAM which was "all that was necessary" for a business workstation.

My point is that technology tends to follow the "Field of Dreams" philosophy: "If You Build It, The Software Will Come." The PC hardware industry has always been pushed by the PC game industry and today is no different than back in the 80's. In the past, games were written with a lot of disk-swapping in mind because memory was expensive. Now that memory is relatively cheap, you're going to see more and more titles written to load as much in RAM as it can for fluid action. 64-bit programming is on the rise and you'll see more titles expecting to be able to access more than 3GB to do what they're designed to. The person who says "x GB is all you'll need" is only thinking in the present and not in the near future.
 
I remember an old test of battle field 2 with 1 or 2 gb ram (i think also on toms) - for games the average frames per second only move a little - but the minimum frame was moved a good deal - and hence the users with 2 gb would have no slow-downs.
 
I recently just upgraded my system to vista 32. When closing out of Left 4 Dead, the computer would ALWAYS freeze unless I terminated the program using ctrl alt del. A bit later I installed additional RAM (it had 2gb, now it had 4gb (well, however much it could recognize). The game has not crashed since. I'd read about others having a problem similar to mine. Perhaps in the future more programs/operating system demands will create situations like this, but as the article states, there are only a handful of examples at present.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom