Experiment: Can Adding RAM Improve Your SSD's Endurance?

[memadmax]

I notice a difference from 4 to 6 gigs but not 6 to 8 gigs while doing normal stuff, even gaming, but there was an exception when running virtual machines. I of course had more ram to play with and was able to give the VM's more room to breath, increasing their performance and the host system as well.

 

[daglesj]

People still buy systems with 4GB of ram these days? 8 should be the minimum considered on a new pc. A new normal pc that is. A media workstation should have as much as you can cram into it.

Well back in the real world most normal folks would struggle to use 2GB if they are running Windows 7/8.

Yes amazingly most real world users don't run more than a web browser and Word at the same time.

Not everyone uses a PC like you. 4GB is still a comfortable margin for most out there. Will be for some time.

 

[daglesj]

8GB is plenty.
It is NOT true that you can "never have enough RAM". I have 16GB and my PC rarely goes above 3GB. I've never, ever used all 8GB except when video editing (most of 16GB).

People buying 16GB or more are just wasting their money if they don't need it.

Try reducing your Pagefile to around 64MB and see how that works. It can help push stuff into that unused ram.

 

[srap]

I was expecting this to be more detailed.
Like, testing with 4, 6, 8, 12, 16 Gigs of ram to see where it starts to add less and less, if the effect is linear or not, and testing with more casual softwares to see if those can benefit from more ram or not (most probably not, but if this isn't stated, someone stupid may start shoving 8-16 gigs of ram into a facebook pc).

 

[InvalidError]

Well back in the real world most normal folks would struggle to use 2GB if they are running Windows 7/8.

Yes amazingly most real world users don't run more than a web browser and Word at the same time.

You will likely end up using most of 4GB with just bundled OS stuff and web browser over time if the PC runs long enough to expand the disk cache to fill otherwise unused RAM - if Task Manager reports 1950MB cached and 2000MB free, you only have 50MB that are truly unused. "Cached" gets double-counted as "free" simply because Windows can axe it on-demand.

Right now, after a few days running, I have:
- 9.4GB in-use
- 18.8GB cached
- 3.8GB free

 

[daglesj]

Well back in the real world most normal folks would struggle to use 2GB if they are running Windows 7/8.

Yes amazingly most real world users don't run more than a web browser and Word at the same time.

You will likely end up using most of 4GB with just bundled OS stuff and web browser over time if the PC runs long enough to expand the disk cache to fill otherwise unused RAM - if Task Manager reports 1950MB cached and 2000MB free, you only have 50MB that are truly unused. "Cached" gets double-counted as "free" simply because Windows can axe it on-demand.

Right now, after a few days running, I have:
- 9.4GB in-use
- 18.8GB cached
- 3.8GB free

Well good for you but the PCs I monitor with real world users rarely if ever go over 2GB. Most don't require 43 Firefox tabs to be open whilst transcoding a load of blu-ray rips. Plus they switch them off at 5pm.

On the machines I build running Windows 7 they usually sit at around 800Mb - 1.5GB tops with a browser, Excel and Word open. Thats pretty normal out there.

8GB is just overkill for such machines/users.

 

[InvalidError]

Well good for you but the PCs I monitor with real world users rarely if ever go over 2GB.

Are you counting "Cached" in that? Because you should. While cache is not counted as allocated by Windows, systems do become very sluggish without enough of it to keep frequently accessed files in RAM.

By the end of the day, I bet the PCs you monitor use a lot more than 2GB when counting allocated + cached.

 

[fkr]

Well good for you but the PCs I monitor with real world users rarely if ever go over 2GB.

Are you counting "Cached" in that? Because you should. While cache is not counted as allocated by Windows, systems do become very sluggish without enough of it to keep frequently accessed files in RAM.

By the end of the day, I bet the PCs you monitor use a lot more than 2GB when counting allocated + cached.

the question that is being asked here is will the money spent on another 4 gigs of ram ever be recouped in productivity. maybe word and excel and web browsers only open marginally faster. If an employee is making $10/hr then you would need to recoup 4 hours of productivity over the lifespan of that computer. Is it worth it or not. If there is any increase in performance it would be hard to believe in a workforce environment that the money would not be recouped.

and 99.9% of people who contribute to this forum need 8+ gigs, just because.

 

[smeezekitty]

Well good for you but the PCs I monitor with real world users rarely if ever go over 2GB.

Are you counting "Cached" in that? Because you should. While cache is not counted as allocated by Windows, systems do become very sluggish without enough of it to keep frequently accessed files in RAM.

By the end of the day, I bet the PCs you monitor use a lot more than 2GB when counting allocated + cached.

the question that is being asked here is will the money spent on another 4 gigs of ram ever be recouped in productivity. maybe word and excel and web browsers only open marginally faster. If an employee is making $10/hr then you would need to recoup 4 hours of productivity over the lifespan of that computer. Is it worth it or not. If there is any increase in performance it would be hard to believe in a workforce environment that the money would not be recouped.

and 99.9% of people who contribute to this forum need 8+ gigs, just because.

4 GB is on the low edge of usable nowadays. Especially for 64 bit OSes.

Don't underestimate the performance boost from the disk cache. It really can make a difference by a factor of ten in loading common items.

Lets say you save 45 seconds per work day (not unrealistic if using a traditional hard disk)

4 hours = (4 * 60) 240 minutes
240 minutes = (240 * 60) 14400 seconds
14400 seconds / 45 seconds = 320 days
Accounting for 5 days a week that is 448 days or 1.23 years.

Not too bad.

 

[swifty_morgan]

I think the idea of this thread was to show if adding the extra ram would possibly prolong the life of the SSD?

 

[fkr]

I think the idea of this thread was to show if adding the extra ram would possibly prolong the life of the SSD?

such is the scientific approach, research one thing to only discover more questions.

 

[ramon zarat]

16GB @ 1866Mhz here with a 5GB RAM disk and everything "temp" or "cache" redirected to the RAM disk. (Browsers, archivers, Photoshop, Windows user and system temp, etc...). Basically any applications that allow you choose your a temporary folder is in the RAM disk.

Speed boost on top of my SSD stripped RAID array ( 2 X M4 128GB @ 903MB/s sequential read) is great. The RAM disk + the 11GB RAM left reduce C: access to practically zero. Crystal Disk Mark bench my RAM disk at 8800MB/s sequential read and 1023MB/s 4K read!! All writes hit 90-95% of read speed!

I'm using Asrock XfastRAM RAM disk. The whole redirection process is automated in the GUI for most browsers and Windows. If you don't have an ASrock MB, I suggest the free RAM disk from DataRAM, but it's limited to 4GB in the free version.

 

[swifty_morgan]

came across this a minute ago.......... I have an Asrock and do use xfast........ simply forgot about that. nice call.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAdRsQJBEBE

 

[wysiwygbill]

What paging settings might be best? Automatically managed across all drives? A separate partition with a manually configured paging size? Paging on a hard drive or SSD? I wonder how these would affect your scores with plenty of memory available.

 

[InvalidError]

What paging settings might be best?

Fixed size always seemed to work best for me - next best option after turning it off altogether if you have enough RAM to afford that with RAM to spare for caches. With automatic size, Windows seems to like wasting time re-sizing them.

 

[rb420]

Just turn off the swap file all together. I've been running 8 gb of ram for 3 years now and I just disable it completely. Only a handful of times have I ever gotten the "out of memory" error. I can't believe we are still using HDD as extra ram with the capacity we have now.

Agreed. I've been doing the same thing on my rig with 12 gb ram. Never had an out of memory error. just turn it off.

 

[Evolution2001]

Admittedly, I didn't get through all the comments (and not that this thread is almost a week old makes it nearly ancient)...but I wanted to posit this as an additional test.
The 16GB RAM upgrade currently costs $143 at NewEgg.
If you take that $143 and spend it on another SSD such as a 128GB 840Pro or Vector (both @ $140) and make those drives your temp space. Move the USERPROFILE temp, WINDOWS temp, and the applications' respective temp storage location to the SSD. You could also try Windows with and without it's pagefile on that drive as well. See what your results are.
I personally don't think many of us will wear out the R/W cycles of our newer SSDs, but for the same price as memory, I'd be curious if there's better value in having slightly less overall performance than 16GB of RAM, but having an additional 128GB of usable storage space as well.

 

[nostall]

Pretty impressive results so far. I have not gone SSD, but this adds, for me, a little more incentive to do so.

 

[swifty_morgan]

when can we see some ram disc benchmarks?................ maybe for individual games and individual programs?

and what happened to those ram disc gizmos they made for pci-e slots. that was an awesome idea but it disappeared quick. always wanted to try it.

 

[Godswill Chinonso]

Can a low RAM course some softwares not to be installed?

 

[fkr]

no low ram cannot keep you from installing some software. It can however keep you from running certain software

 

[daglesj]

Well good for you but the PCs I monitor with real world users rarely if ever go over 2GB.

Are you counting "Cached" in that? Because you should. While cache is not counted as allocated by Windows, systems do become very sluggish without enough of it to keep frequently accessed files in RAM.

By the end of the day, I bet the PCs you monitor use a lot more than 2GB when counting allocated + cached.

Great so we invest in upgrading all our machines to 8GB for IE9/Word/Facebook usage. Probably recommend we upgrade all the 2.4Ghz C2Ds to i7 3970's while we are at it as well. I bet our profits and productivity will soar!

Glad some of you guys are not in charge of the budgets of my IT dept. We'd go bust in a matter of a few months.

 

[fkr]

Well good for you but the PCs I monitor with real world users rarely if ever go over 2GB.

Are you counting "Cached" in that? Because you should. While cache is not counted as allocated by Windows, systems do become very sluggish without enough of it to keep frequently accessed files in RAM.

By the end of the day, I bet the PCs you monitor use a lot more than 2GB when counting allocated + cached.

Great so we invest in upgrading all our machines to 8GB for IE9/Word/Facebook usage. Probably recommend we upgrade all the 2.4Ghz C2Ds to i7 3970's while we are at it as well. I bet our profits and productivity will soar!

Glad some of you guys are not in charge of the budgets of my IT dept. We'd go bust in a matter of a few months.

I am glad I am not an investor in your company if you are worried about speeding up facebook usage. not to mention that you must not need the productivity if you are spending yours days posting on tom's hardware. You are obviously very on top of things. btw are you hiring...

 

[daglesj]

Well good for you but the PCs I monitor with real world users rarely if ever go over 2GB.

Are you counting "Cached" in that? Because you should. While cache is not counted as allocated by Windows, systems do become very sluggish without enough of it to keep frequently accessed files in RAM.

By the end of the day, I bet the PCs you monitor use a lot more than 2GB when counting allocated + cached.

Great so we invest in upgrading all our machines to 8GB for IE9/Word/Facebook usage. Probably recommend we upgrade all the 2.4Ghz C2Ds to i7 3970's while we are at it as well. I bet our profits and productivity will soar!

Glad some of you guys are not in charge of the budgets of my IT dept. We'd go bust in a matter of a few months.

I am glad I am not an investor in your company if you are worried about speeding up facebook usage. not to mention that you must not need the productivity if you are spending yours days posting on tom's hardware. You are obviously very on top of things. btw are you hiring...

Facepalms...Oh boy........

The Aspergers is strong with this one...and many others here. Not to mention misreading what I said. But lets try again.

8GB of ram and i7 CPUS are not in ANY way essential for day to day average business tasks (whether business critical or lunchtime social network catch ups). Business IT budgets do not stretch to those that feel staff should spend their days running PC benchmarks all day. The minimum to get the job done without negative productivity impact is a universal business protocol.

Sweat the assets as long as you can.

Ask Intel and MS about the current uphill struggle they are having to convince companies they need shiny new stuff with the old C2D gear they bought 6 years ago is still doing just fine. Ain't happening.

 

[smeezekitty]

Well good for you but the PCs I monitor with real world users rarely if ever go over 2GB.

2 GB is rarely enough now.
Nobody said anything about upgrading to I7s either. The Core 2 Duo still packs a punch.

My RAM usage is 1.6 GB right now and I have seen 95% used of 3 GB before.

4 GB is a good amount for an averege user and 8 GB for the average enthusiast.
I think 16GB being the norm won't be that far off either.