how much of memory for xp

[Tears_For_Fears]

I have 512Mb of ram on winxp. but using 2 softwares it showed xp never used ram over 300Mb. Then I opened a lot of(9-10) applications but it never used more than 450Mb. Now why should I buy more than 512Mb of ram? I play games like "rise of nations" but dont know what the memory usage is then.

 

[Rugger]

Reasons to go to 1GB:
1. Modern games tend to use a lot of memory.
2. Memory usage close to max is slower than if you have some overhead. The overhead can be used in the event that you are close to max usage and get a large mem hit.
3. Will definitely help during loading the games and loading maps.

__________________________________________________
<font color=red>You're a boil on the arse of progress - don't make me squeeze you!</font color=red>

 

[Tears_For_Fears]

ok. so if u dont play big games, dont buy memory over 512 mb.

 

[Rugger]

If I were playing any games I would have 1GB...well any games except solitaire and such...

__________________________________________________
<font color=red>You're a boil on the arse of progress - don't make me squeeze you!</font color=red>

 

[Crashman]

The more you have, the more XP will try to use. The more XP tries to use, the more files you can have cached to RAM. That means you might get better performance with 1GB, but it really depends on what you're doing.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[Tears_For_Fears]

"The more you have, the more XP will try to use"-- its not completely true. If u have 512Mb and even if u disable page file and u have 200 Mb of free ram, xp will still use page file. Since xp will use page file no matter what, using more than 512Mb will gain almost nothing except in big games( quake, half life..)

 

[Crashman]

I went from 512MB to 1024MB, Windows used an extra 20MB+

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[RichPLS]

Why are you even asking the question if you know the answer? Hmmmm . . .

<pre><font color=red>°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°`°¤o \\// o¤°`°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°
And the sign says "You got to have a membership card to get inside" Huh
So I got me a pen and paper And I made up my own little sign</pre><p></font color=red>

 

[Tears_For_Fears]

"I went from 512MB to 1024MB, Windows used an extra 20MB+"-- thats all u will get for buying an extra 512Mb.

"Why are you even asking the question if you know the answer?"-- I'm not an expert and/or someone might prove me wrong.

 

[RichPLS]

In your case it might not be worth the investment, in my case, I have 2-gigs.
I do not utilize it at all times, but it is there when I need it. Lots of apps are memory hogs, AutoCAD, photochopping, video editing, games, multiple apps opened at same time.
You are the best expert in your situation as the that value.

<pre><font color=red>°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°`°¤o \\// o¤°`°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°
And the sign says "You got to have a membership card to get inside" Huh
So I got me a pen and paper And I made up my own little sign</pre><p></font color=red>

 

[jammydodger]

If u have 512Mb and even if u disable page file and u have 200 Mb of free ram, xp will still use page file.

So you are saying it is impossible to disable the page file in windows XP? Hmmmmm...

using more than 512Mb will gain almost nothing except in big games( quake, half life..)

...or if you use multiple programs at the same time, or for video and audio encoding or for file compression/encryption, or for running a web server.

 

[dunklegend]

Wusy why do you always recommend 300MB static?
What's the reasoning behind this?

BTW I'm not saying you're wrong.
What I'm asking is why are you right?

<font color=red>It's impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious<font color=red>

 

[BrentUnitedMem]

1024MB is only for the top dogs. HAHA

Okay maybe not.

For normal desktop use 512MB is a better choice than 1024MB, because unused memory is equal to a loss in performance.

However, when you do decide to run applications that require more memory, 1GB will be nice, and besides the performance difference between 512MB and 1024MB, even if you are using 200MB of memory is small.

Also, 2x512MB will give you the potential to run dual channel, about a 5% increase in performance. And 2x512 is normally a better memory setup than 2x256MB not only because of the size difference, but also because most chipsets like double-sided modules more.

<font color=blue>******
<font color=green>"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and common sence." -The Buddha
<font color=blue>AIM BrentUnitedMem

 

[Tears_For_Fears]

"And 2x512 is normally a better memory setup than 2x256MB not only because of the size difference, but also because most chipsets like double-sided modules more."-- two double sided modules will use 4 banks means u cant add anymore in future unless ur motherboard supports more than 4 banks( I don't know if any supports more than 4).

and setting 300Mb static will use 300 Mb page file. why not try no page file at all?

 

[jammydodger]

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=1839&p=8" target="_new">http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=1839&p=8</A>
and I quote...

your best memory performance will clearly be with four matched double-sided DIMMs.

That is in reference to the intel 875/865 motherboards.

 

[Rugger]

two double sided modules will use 4 banks means u cant add anymore in future

First: Not true. This is completely dependent on the memory controlled.
Second: Double-sided does not necessarily mean that there is 1 bank/side of memory chips. It is true that this is common in todays memory module configs, but the two are not dependent on each other. You can have single-sided modules with 2 banks or double-sided modules with a single bank.

unless ur motherboard supports more than 4 banks( I don't know if any supports more than 4).

The AMD memory conroller for the A64 can handle more than 4 banks. Before the Venice core, the A64 would default to 333Mhz FSB when there were more than 4 installed, but it still supported more than 4 banks.

__________________________________________________
<font color=red>You're a boil on the arse of progress - don't make me squeeze you!</font color=red>

 

[BrentUnitedMem]

<b>"and setting 300Mb static will use 300 Mb page file. why not try no page file at all?"</b>
It's 300MByte geez get it right! haha jk

That's a good idea. You can go with 2x1024MB and choose no page file at all!

On another note:
Many of the new mobo chipsets can run up to 8 banks! =4x1024MB, though it's generally not a good idea.

Since each slot on the motherboard normally uses 2 banks, it's generally better to fill the banks of each slot rather than fill only half with a one bank module.

Also, for most desktop applications, including most games you will not need more than 4 banks.

<font color=blue>******
<font color=green>"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and common sence." -The Buddha
<font color=blue>AIM BrentUnitedMem

 

[dunklegend]

Fair enough.
Thanks

<b><font color=green>Celibacy is not hereditary<font color=green></b>