Do You Really Need More Than 6 GB Of RAM?

[Guest]

Once the pride of the so-called upper middle class in the United States, McMansions and SUVs have now become symbols of excess and waste--at least the reminders of an era past

What a crock of lunacy. Only retarded liberals with their head in the sand actually believe this crap. You either are blind and dumb or purposefully trying to be inflammatory. You have no right to assign a value of excess and waste to my SUV. HOW DARE YOU EVEN SUGGEST IT IN A FREE SOCIETY. Oh that's right, you commie liberals want to tell everyone else what is and isn't moral? But you turn around and tell anyone else with any inkling of real morality to shutup. That sounds like HYPOCRISY TO ME!!!! I see plenty of SUV's and trucks where I live, so they most certainly aren't relegated to the past. You socialists can pry my SUV from my cold dead hands., right after I run you over with it.

 

[slippery slope]

I'm a Linux developer and routinely upgrade my systems to the maximum affordable memory. Today I put 4x2GB DDR2 into my main development computer which runs Linux with zero swap space defined. I have to be careful not to run out of memory when launching applications, but all the extra memory is used by Linux for efficient file caching. In fact there is a facility in Linux called tempfs, that is even better than a RAM disk because it uses the file cache, i.e. no duplicate data in RAM. My application is a Java program that uses lots of available memory for knowledge base caching.

I'm waiting for 4GB DDR2 and 4GB DDR3 modules to get down to a reasonable price, before upgrading my recent motherboards to 16GB or 24GB RAM. Any guesses as to when that might be?

 

[Shadow703793]

[citation][nom]captainspock[/nom]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????[/citation]
You will have to set the swap file manually. Windows (all x64 versions) will automatically set the swap file to 1.5(or is it 2) times the ammount of RAM installed. As of yet, it is not fixed in Windows 7 (build 7068).

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]slippery slope[/nom]I'm a Linux developer and routinely upgrade my systems to the maximum affordable memory. Today I put 4x2GB DDR2 into my main development computer which runs Linux with zero swap space defined. I have to be careful not to run out of memory when launching applications, but all the extra memory is used by Linux for efficient file caching. In fact there is a facility in Linux called tempfs, that is even better than a RAM disk because it uses the file cache, i.e. no duplicate data in RAM. My application is a Java program that uses lots of available memory for knowledge base caching.I'm waiting for 4GB DDR2 and 4GB DDR3 modules to get down to a reasonable price, before upgrading my recent motherboards to 16GB or 24GB RAM. Any guesses as to when that might be?[/citation]

Finally someone who understands that the article wasn't written for people who already knew they needed more memory due to unusual software configurations.

Unfortunately, the demand for 4GB DIMM's is very low in the retail market, which means that not many manufacturers are willing to compete there. I don't see demand picking up for a long time.

The really unfortunate problem is that while DDR3 should support up to 16GB per DIMM and DDR3 motherboards are capable of up to 8GB per DIMM, manufacturers don't see enough demand for 4GB DIMMs to justify the expense of developing these.

 

[deminicus]

well the thought of "if you build it they will come" comes to mind. The ecosystem has a tendency of self balance, once more people have 6 gig + rigs the landscape may change.

an analogy would be bandwidth capping. Australia does it a lot and it has been showed that peoples' web habits reflect that.

 

[dgoto]

So does this mean using 64 bit windows (Vista or XP) to gain access to
more meomory is a mistake. So then what major aplications do not support 64 bit or which applications benefit the most for the same reason. Thanks

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]dgoto[/nom]So does this mean using 64 bit windows (Vista or XP) to gain access tomore meomory is a mistake. So then what major aplications do not support 64 bit or which applications benefit the most for the same reason. Thanks[/citation]

You can use up a lot of RAM on virtualization or running multiple high-memory applications, such as multiple instances of video editing and encoding. Most people will run 2-3 major applications simultaneously with a far lower memory load.

I can download patches and updates while playing a game and transcoding a movie simultaneously and still use less than 3GB RAM, so I think most users are safe at 3-4GB.

 

[jouno53]

I stopped reading after they started talking about how ram is going to destroy the environment... and I thought only the mainstream media watchers were brainwashed. :\

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]jouno53[/nom]I stopped reading after they started talking about how ram is going to destroy the environment... and I thought only the mainstream media watchers were brainwashed. :\[/citation]

Everything you make or use drains natural resources, forcing prices to go up eventually. I don't spend much time contemplating it, but you'd that anyone looking to save a few dollars here and there would be smart enough to pay attention to power consumption at least.

 

[warriorpoet]

I'm not exactly a "typical user", but here's what gets me over 4Gb:

1. Finale 2008 (standard musical composition software) with high quality sounds.
2. Songbird
3. Firefox with 2-3 tabs open
4. F@H smp + gpu2 (large WU)
5. Avast! real time scanner
6. Vista x86_64
7. at times a single instance of audacity

I don't think this is an exceptional level of multitasking by any means. I upgraded to 8 Gb because of stuttering/ loading issues with 4Gb and upgrading 4 more Gb was only $35- not a heavy penalty, and now I can actually get some work done.

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]warriorpoet[/nom]I'm not exactly a "typical user", but here's what gets me over 4Gb:1. Finale 2008 (standard musical composition software) with high quality sounds.2. Songbird3. Firefox with 2-3 tabs open4. F@H smp + gpu2 (large WU)5. Avast! real time scanner6. Vista x86_647. at times a single instance of audacityI don't think this is an exceptional level of multitasking by any means. I upgraded to 8 Gb because of stuttering/ loading issues with 4Gb and upgrading 4 more Gb was only $35- not a heavy penalty, and now I can actually get some work done.[/citation]

That's some excellent information: Perhaps we should set up a POLL about "Which applications take YOU over 4GB" to see if we can get a concensus of applications to fold into a future "multitasking" test!

I'll see what this sites supreme editorial leader thinks!

 

[chengbin]

I have 3GB of RAM, and during 1080p video encoding 3GB is just not enough. With x264, encoding 1080p, and some preprocessing with avisynth, each encoding takes about 1.5-1.7GB of RAM. Since each encode only takes about 30-40% of my quad core, I'm tempted to run 3 encoding at a time (which I do when I encode SD). If I had the RAM, say 8GB. I could run 3 encoding at a time. That would use 5GB of RAM. Vista and other background tasks takes about 1.5GB of RAM. I also like to run Folding@Home on my GPU, that takes another 500MB of RAM. If sometimes I feel like playing Counter Strike or CoD4 for a little, I can do that, without closing an encode. Counter Strike takes about a good 500-700MB of RAM, while CoD4 takes 1GB. Although you can say you have to close F@H GPU to play games, but still, 5+1.5+1=7.5GB of RAM, if I run 3 HD encoding and play CoD4 at the same time.

 

[ARCHER0915]

How about some tests running 2 or more VM's while running apps in the background? Do the testing simultaneously on the VM's and then it will be seen where the 6+ gig's of memory really shine

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]chengbin[/nom]I have 3GB of RAM, and during 1080p video encoding 3GB is just not enough. With x264, encoding 1080p, and some preprocessing with avisynth, each encoding takes about 1.5-1.7GB of RAM. Since each encode only takes about 30-40% of my quad core, I'm tempted to run 3 encoding at a time (which I do when I encode SD). If I had the RAM, say 8GB. I could run 3 encoding at a time.[/citation]

That's probably the MOST RELEVANT arguement thus far for more RAM, and would be a GREAT benchmark. Again I'll refer this to the site's commanding editor for consideration in future benchmark creation.

 

[Guest]

I would prefer using more x64 native application, like 7-Zip instead of WinRAR, in order to give a more accurate typical usage.
I am sure, that nobody has a 12 Gb machine to run 32 bit applications.
In terms of synthetic benchmarks, Lamark Speed Test could have been also a good first glance choice.

 

[chengbin]

[citation][nom]Crashman[/nom]That's probably the MOST RELEVANT arguement thus far for more RAM, and would be a GREAT benchmark. Again I'll refer this to the site's commanding editor for consideration in future benchmark creation.[/citation]

Thanks for your kind words.

I don't think that's a great benchmark, because if you don't have the required RAM, it won't run. x264's speed is CPU based, but it just takes up a lot of RAM.

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]chengbin[/nom]Thanks for your kind words. I don't think that's a great benchmark, because if you don't have the required RAM, it won't run. x264's speed is CPU based, but it just takes up a lot of RAM.[/citation]

Not running is also a result! I think the site would be most interested in using a more familiar program for multiple conversions, but if one configuration can run three instances and another can only run two, you can still figure out the time per task. I like the idea of using up the extra cores and that you can run out of memory before it happens.

 

[chengbin]

Actually what I say is not totally correct.

The reason why I have to run 3 encodes simultaneously to fully utilize my quad core because I'm using a x264 GUI called AutoMKV. The problem with AutoMKV is that it can't use multithreaded avisynth. Therefore when I use a slow preprocessing plugin, like MVDegrain 3, I'm being bottlenecked by avisynth, and therefore each encode is only using 30-40%. I still stick with AutoMKV because it is DAMN simple to use (once you painstakingly configure it), and creates as good of an encode as more complex GUIs like MeGUI.

Even if you use a GUI that supports multithreaded avisynth, if you run a 2 pass encoding, the first pass will still only use about 50-60% of a quad core because frame type decision is run in the first pass, and it is not threaded. But once it goes to second pass, CPU usage will always be in the 90%s. I would still run 2 encodes, so I fully utilize my quad core in the first pass.

Also, yesterday I was watching a 1080p movie, and I had to shut down one encode because I don't have enough RAM (surprisingly it takes about 500MB of RAM to watch a 1080p video). If I had RAM, I could have watched the movie and encode at the same time.

 

[neosoul]

At the current prices, why not just upgrade the heck out of ram? It gives me that warm fuzzy feeling of knowing ram capacity isn't a culprit for once.

 

[chengbin]

8GB RAM=$170
Windows Vista 64 bit=150

$320 for 5GB more RAM, I don't think so (I'm in Canada, prices are a lot higher)

 

[nurgletheunclean]

First off x264 can use all 4 cores with a simple switch.
--threads auto (will make it use 4 threads on a quad). Use mediacoder instead of automkv as an x264 frontend. As far as memory useage goes something is wrong with automkv if it's using that much ram. Video encoding shouldn't use that much memory. After all the process sholdn't really work on more than 6 frames at once. 6 1080p frames is

 

[nurgletheunclean]

First off x264 can use all 4 cores with a simple switch.
--threads auto (will make it use 4 threads on a quad). Use mediacoder instead of automkv as an x264 frontend. As far as memory useage goes something is wrong with automkv if it's using that much ram. Video encoding shouldn't use that much memory. After all the process sholdn't really work on more than 6 frames at once. 6 1080p frames is

 

[chengbin]

[citation][nom]nurgletheunclean[/nom]First off x264 can use all 4 cores with a simple switch.--threads auto (will make it use 4 threads on a quad). Use mediacoder instead of automkv as an x264 frontend. As far as memory useage goes something is wrong with automkv if it's using that much ram. Video encoding shouldn't use that much memory. After all the process sholdn't really work on more than 6 frames at once. 6 1080p frames is[/citation]

Read what I said. x264 cannot take 4 cores when

1) it is bottlenecked by avisynth
2) it is in first pass, frame type decision and look ahead are NOT multithreaded

x264 can definitely use that much RAM when you use some avisynth preprocessing.

 

[Guest]

I still run XP professional and I don't use my notebook for anything but surfing the net and watching media. yes my P4 3.2ghz with 1gb ram still runs smooth and I've yet to feel compelled to spend 1-2k for a new system.

 

[royale606]

I'm running XP right now at work and at home (along with Win7 dual boot at home) and 2 gigs of DDR2 ram has been fine, on an Athalon X2 4200+... I can see the need in professional, intensive apps for sure... but for me (I run at least 5 apps simultaneously and FireFox takes up the most RAM by far).. (due to having about 25 tabs open at all times)..

For awhile there i had the page file disabled and it ran great. Photoshop didnt like this at all (scratch file warning on load) so i re-enabled it. I haven't hit the full 2 Gigs even when running photoshop, and firefox simultaneously.. So i can agree, I'm a system admin, and 2GB is fine for my purposes..