Do You Really Need More Than 6 GB Of RAM?

[gamefreak62]

I have this to say: programs will use only so much ram as they are programmed to use, and since most users are 32-bit users as of now most programs will cap at at either 2GB or 3.2GB. It simply makes sense that there wouldn't be much of a difference from moving to higher ram levels at this point unless you use multiple, massive programs at once or when running a server, as stated. When people start programming things in 64-bit to use more available RAM we'll see better scaling, until then those bars aren't going to be moving much.

For these reasons, I'd say 4GB is the performance sweetspot of today, and having more ram won't hurt much, especially at todays prices.

BTW: I am a 32-bit user with 2GB of RAM and I multitask, so my system eats RAM for breakfast and I not only very quickly eat the physical RAM I have but HDD swap space very quickly and notice a huge slowdown. Having used my friends computer (which I built) that has 8GB of RAM on 64bit OS, I must say that while I don't think I'd use all of it, speedwise it's far better to have lots of RAM and not need it than to need lots of RAM and not have it.

 

[Guest]

Actually, now that you mention about the swap file and the ram disks, I have a serious proposal for an article on Tom's. There has always been the issue on putting the swap file on a ram disk in order to reduce hard disk access times. Actually, I think this is nonsense (respectfully for everybody's opinion), but I think a serious study about it would be really useful to get a serious conclusion. Here is my point and my opinion:

For the last 6 months I have a laptop with 4 GB (3GB). I decided to completely stop the swap file capabilities from Windows Vista. Yes, everybody will tell you this is the worst thing you can do. OK, just try it (at your own risk). Be careful and keep an eye on the memory consumption of your system while you use it as in a typical work day. If your memory consumption approaches the total amount of physical memory, then your are short of memory and you really need to activate the swap file (or add more memory). But if you do not approach this level, you are safe to use it like this.

In my case, I only run into problems on the laptop if I run heavy hardware-design projects (Xilinx tools) or if I try to open a lot of picture files at the same time. At these times, I just keep an eye on the memory consumption, just to be sure. This is the small prize I have to pay for a system that never swaps to disk. If you can afford it in your system, you will notice that you can tab between all of your applications and you never have to wait. Never.

Of course I know the implications of this set-up. I know that activating the swap file would allow the system to swap less frequently used DLLs and data so there is more space for the rest of the apps. But, indeed, I only need all that much memory in certain situations and you can identify them on advance. And, again "of course", if you plan to have VMs with large RAM setups, don't even think about doing this (either you have physical RAM for all the VMs' RAM at the same time or you will have serious problems if they ask for it at the same time). BTW, when Windows gets close to running out of memory, it *usually* allows processes to die gracefully (again, do it at your own risk and calculate your own risks). Before this, it issues a warning message when around 85% of RAM is used.

So, as the swap file is there to help you to get a bit more of memory than you actually have, if you have some much free memory that you can use it to create ram disks to contain the swap file, you could perfectly avoid using a swap file on the first place. Just try this, deactivate the swap file, use the extra RAM (if there is any now that you can't use hard disk space) for a ram drive with real files and test the system. Or simply use the system without the RAM drive and without swap.

Then, I would really like to know how much difference there is from using a ram disk for your frequent files or leaving this memory for the O.S. cache. I mean, the typical use-cases but also the biased ones so we can get a complete picture of it. When I was a teenager I liked to use a ramdisk on DOS or Win95, and it certainly made a difference at that time, but after some point I decided it was not worth any more.

For example, in Windows Vista, Microsoft implemented an I/O system that allows cache operations to have a lower priority than operations from regular apps. This means that the cache system accessing the hard-disk should not even slow down the system because of the hard-disk access times. Is it really working as it is supposed to? If it worked fine, then it would make no difference to have the ram drive for storing temp files instead of going straight to disk (remember, the operation would happen on RAM and the cache system would flush it to disk in the background; if you happen to write so much to disk that you fill the system's cache, then you would probably run out of ram disk at the same time).

It would be very interesting to see an article on this issue, comparing the effect of de-activating the swap file, using ram disks, both or any other combination, for different memory configurations and different application mixtures. What do you think about it? Would it be worth if Tom's wrote an article on this issue?

Regards!

 

[Shadow703793]

The question is, why won't you get 8GB (DDR2; not 3) when prices are so cheap?

 

[captainspock]

Can anyone explain why windows XP X64 will increase the size of your swap file when you increase your ram size currently with 8gB ram the swap file is also 8gB You would think as you increase your memory the swap file would become smaller, to point where it could not needed at all.
It seems quit illogical. It looks like bad programming by microsoft, I wonder if they will fix it in windows 7????

 

[Guest]

i think it is due to a bottleneck somewhere in other parts... That is why we don't see the difference in performance...

 

[r0maru]

I wonder what will be the performance if they remove page file.

 

[ph3412b07]

I think we're missing a basic concept here. Set aside raw performance, and instead consider the purpose of ram. Users like me like to keep many applications open, and these stack up memory usage quickly. Games, browsers, productivity software etc.

Just an example, my friend's Firefox page file is 1.7 GB (its a couple hundred tabs). His computer only has 2GB. It goes without saying that given a 8GB RAM upgrade or something he would fill it up no problem. Granted, he's an internet addict, but you get the point. (that more ram means more multitasking, running multiple apps, utilizing multiple cores..etc)

 

[Guest]

my Athlon x2 4600 with 2GB ram took 34 sec to finish scanning of 377 MB rar file
Total object scanned : 170

 

[Guest]

i'm missing the part about running windows with swap page set to 0MB with its pros and cons

 

[gac64k56]

I have 3 x 2 GiB modules (OCZ 3P1600LV2G) on a i7 920 (overclocked to 3.98 GHz ^^), it DOES help when you are playing memory hogging games like SecondLife in a populated area with mostly 512 x 512 to 1024 x 1024 textures @ 1920 x 1200, that can take up 1 to 1.5 GiB alone, Vista stock taking up 2 GiB (to include SuperFetch), and if you are a builder, modeler, or some other profession in SL, you may have things like Photoshop open in the background or on another window, which can take up 250 MiB to 1 GiB or more depending on what you use. Sculpting, 3D editors, terran editors, etc. Will take up more. That is one instance of why one would need it.

Yes the developer part takes up more, but the developing crowd normally have more memory or better processors to keep up with their work.

If you love Firefox, IE, Safari, Opera, whatever you favorite internet browser is, tabs also can really cause the application to use more memory. DeviantArt for example, you can be searching, see something you want closer, open in new tab, continue searching, then look at it later. Memory taken, yet again.

School projects is another one. Microsoft Powerpoint, Word, Excel, Access all use more and more memory, as more is done to it, nonetheless; the addons also require more memory. The same with applications like Adobe Acrobat Reader or Professional, Fireworks, Photoshop, Flash, or Dreamweaver. 3D art, 3D programs, same issue. Maya, 3D Studio Max, Cinema 4D, Blender, Wings 3D, everyone of these require more memory, both graphicly and system wise, depending on the application used.

Denser memory modules are becoming cheaper, better, more available to the public. 4 GiB of DDR2 and 6 GiB of DDR3 is within many potential budgets, soon 8 GiB of DDR2 and 12 GiB of DDR3 will be affordable for the average joe. You dismay this, but it is becoming true.

But that is my two cents...

--gac64k56

 

[talys]

I disagree with the author. What if you have a couple of VirtualPCs running in the background -- for example, an XP VPC to run some legacy apps, a sandbox VPC for trying out new "stuff"?

What if you're a web designer, and have Visual Studio, PhotoShop, Expression, Illustrator and Flash open at the same time? Now open a few large PhotoShop/Illustrator files, and start SQL.

I suggest as an alternate consideration a simpler formula: If you're using enough RAM that you need to swap to pagefile (ie your hard drive goes nuts when you start a new app that you use), then why NOT buy the extra 4GB or extra 6GB? It's like, a hundred bucks.

 

[martin0642]

Yes. Because of Mother Gaia I shan't install more than 4 GB of RAM.

Are you really that silly or is that just a plug for an eco-blog /. effect?

People need 64 bit so that coders can make an app with as-yet-unconcieved uses and not be limited to a minimal market share because luddites continued to run x86 junk from the last decade. The naxt RAM limit is literally terabytes away, and I want to see the types of apps that fill that void. It's not about making Starcraft faster, it's about getting the lady in the red dress into my living room.

Silly red-pillers...no imagination...

 

[martin0642]

[citation][nom]martin0642[/nom]Yes. Because of Mother Gaia I shan't install more than 4 GB of RAM.Are you really that silly or is that just a plug for an eco-blog /. effect?People need 64 bit so that coders can make an app with as-yet-unconcieved uses and not be limited to a minimal market share because luddites continued to run x86 junk from the last decade. The next RAM limit is literally terabytes away, and I want to see the types of apps that fill that void. It's not about making Starcraft faster, it's about getting the lady in the red dress into my living room. Silly red-pillers...no imagination...[/citation]

 

[empstar]

in the artical : [ we tested in this review supported over 100 open windows simultaneously]

I opened up 15 internet explorer to run this game http://3go1.3kingdom.com.my ( is a flash net game) and it eat up 4 GB !! of memory and my PC only have 2GB of RAM. (C2D 6750+Corsair)
and my PC HANG sometime after open up so many browser and others application. I NEED MORE RAM !! 3GB not enough !!

 

[Guest]

Well, I use Illustrator CS2-CS4 quite often. I always have trouble exporting out files from Illustrator the way I want. I very ofter get "OUT OF MEMORY" error and unable to export files. Sometimes as well, just panning around an image drawing I do I get "Out of Memory, Can't Preview" and it switches to FORCE "Outline Mode". At worst case scenario, I CAN'T even save my ".AI Files" at all that I draw/render out due to "Out of Memory Unable to Save". Even the "Ctrl + Shft + Alt +F12 -> Clear Cache" method doesn't help. And also these drawings are ONLY BLACK AND WHITE. It is also when Photoshop CS4 was off, which I usually like it to be on at the same time. I hope, I wish, one day if Illustator-64 comes out, I can actually export files the way I want, be able to apply color, and not having to worry to run out of memory, and save my files safely. I'm already guessing if I use color(if I get can actually get the chance to complete a drawing in color), 8-14 GB depending on the amount of color using(4-10 pigments), to be able to export. So personally I don't think 6GB would be enough.

Q6600
8GB RAM
Vista 64
8800gt

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]ipe[/nom]Well, I use Illustrator CS2-CS4 quite often. I always have trouble exporting out files from Illustrator the way I want. I very ofter get "OUT OF MEMORY" error and unable to export files. Sometimes as well, just panning around an image drawing I do I get "Out of Memory, Can't Preview" and it switches to FORCE "Outline Mode". At worst case scenario, I CAN'T even save my ".AI Files" at all that I draw/render out due to "Out of Memory Unable to Save". Even the "Ctrl + Shft + Alt +F12 -> Clear Cache" method doesn't help. And also these drawings are ONLY BLACK AND WHITE. It is also when Photoshop CS4 was off, which I usually like it to be on at the same time. I hope, I wish, one day if Illustator-64 comes out, I can actually export files the way I want, be able to apply color, and not having to worry to run out of memory, and save my files safely. I'm already guessing if I use color(if I get can actually get the chance to complete a drawing in color), 8-14 GB depending on the amount of color using(4-10 pigments), to be able to export. So personally I don't think 6GB would be enough.Q66008GB RAMVista 648800gt[/citation]

I occasionally get "out of memory" errors with Photoshop, even though I have hundreds of megabytes available and the file I'm manipulating is only a few megabytes. I think it's a software issue, perhaps a configuration error.

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]empstar[/nom]in the artical : [ we tested in this review supported over 100 open windows simultaneously]I opened up 15 internet explorer to run this game http://3go1.3kingdom.com.my ( is a flash net game) and it eat up 4 GB !! of memory and my PC only have 2GB of RAM. (C2D 6750+Corsair)and my PC HANG sometime after open up so many browser and others application. I NEED MORE RAM !! 3GB not enough !![/citation]

Default window for Windows is msn.com which, even with flash animations, comes out to only a few megabytes per page.

If you can really play 15 games simultaneously, you probably need more RAM!

 

[elkad]

[citation][nom]septagent[/nom]"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."Is that what you call normal use? I don't think I really have the attention span to play more than one game at a time, and neither does my CPU. [/citation]

Normal? No, but "normal" people barely need one video card either, much less the quadGPU setups we see tested here.

If you play a subscription MMO, there is a good chance you have access to at least 2 accounts and sometimes play them simultaneously. The extreme guys run 5-10 accounts (on multiple machines) at once. Buffbots in DAoC. Jumpgate scouts and market toons in EVE Online. Even just towing a healer behind your warrior in World of Warcraft while you run quests. I've been playing various graphical MMOs for 12 years now, and I've had multiple accounts in every one of them.

 

[coolkev99]

Ahh Im sooo glad this test was done. I can't tell you how many people I run across who think loading up thier system with memory is going to make it run FASTER!!! 1 to 2gb yeah. After 3 you won't even notice.

 

[JonnyDough]

The notion that bigger is better has taken a beating lately in all aspects of society.

Why post garbage like this? I'm 6'7" and I still think I'm better than most people. Case in point: I don't make garbage statements like this one! UNTRUE!

 

[danimal_the_animal]

I haven't moved to 64-bit yet so i run 3gb of ram and it's just enough!

i really put it to use when i use ripbot264...leaves me with 800-1gig of ram left over while encoding video...all 4 cores are being used but i still have plenty of power to check mail and surf the internet, and transfer files to my mythtv box. i think for what i am doing 3gb is the sweet spot....if you have dual channel you may want to get 2X 2gb just to utilize the bandwidth even though you will be limited to 3.3gb.

 

[danimal_the_animal]

ohh

I am using windows vista business.

 

[Onus]

1. Every single one of us is an "average" user SOME OF THE TIME. Many of us have >1 rig, with entirely different purposes. I won't fire up my primary rig (Q9450/HD4850) just to check email in the morning, when my "little" one (4850e/790GX) will do just fine.
2. There are uncountable new-build threads in the forumz, most of which are for non-professional uses. This clarifies that there's no need for >4GB of RAM for them.
3. If you're running VMs, server(s), and/or other professional apps, you know who you are, and this article was NOT denying your need for more RAM; specifically it called you out as an exception. You don't have to defend your need for RAM, at least not to me.
4. All else being equal (and I know it often isn't), to deliberately waste resources is stupid, pure and simple. Being green isn't about giving up necessary performance, it's about not wasting; not using resources to no purpose. If you need 16GB for your work, and need every watt of that 1KW PSU in your rig, go for it.
5. This article suggests that, even after going to 64bit Win7, I probably won't benefit meaningfully from going to 8GB of RAM. What I'll probably do is velcro a USB port inside my case with an 8GB thumbdrive in it to see if that makes a difference.

 

[Guest]

World of Warcraft with iTunes running in the background, and a Firefox session with a couple of tabs open and pages loaded will use about 3.4GB of RAM. If you only ran 3GB, you would be swapping already.
This is a very typical scenario, millions play WoW, and listen to music in the background, and have a browser open for quests.

 

[bobwya]

I run Windows XP x64 with 4Gb of RAM. Very little of that ever gets used (a little over 2Gb when video encoding).

If I had 12Gb(+) of RAM I would setup a RAM disk to run games off. This is a pretty obvious thing to do!!

THG = fail
Yet more unimaginative benchmarks that most people already know the answer to (i.e. just look at the system info window in Process Explorer)... Plz rewrite this article so it says something useful...

Bob