upgrade to 2.5 or 3 GB RAM is it worth it?

[kriostar]

My motherboard can support up to 4GB RAM. Will I even see an improvement in gaming if I upgrade to 2.5 or 3? Also I can run a 1GB stick and 3 512's right? Or is 2 enough for the majority of games?

 

[mpjesse]

Answer to questions in order asked:

1. No

2. Yes

3. 2GB is plenty for games and Vista. however, if you want FAST load times then 4GB is good. Vista uses (on my system) about 1.2GB all the time... that leaves less than 800MB for games. So 4GB is a good idea.

 

[graysky]

Vista uses (on my system) about 1.2GB all the time... that leaves less than 800MB for games. So 4GB is a good idea.

Is your machine a power server or something? What are you running that uses that much memory? If it's just a desktop machine, using 60% of the system memory for the o/s is just obscene.

 

[lordaardvark2]

i'd like to know too, not because i'm a doubter or questioner, but simply because i'm curious. upgrades from, say, 256 to 768 or something like that are so satisfying and tangible, i've always fantasized of multiple gigs of ram in a system... however i have heard that it just stops being worth it after a while. operating on 768 megs of ram, i can't imagine what ~2 gigs would be like. *sigh* i need a better computer... 4 yr old tech doesn't cut it so well, although i'm 100% satisfied.

 

[CNeufeld]

Considering you don't say how much RAM you currently have, or what you do with your computer, it's pretty much impossible for someone to give you an answer.

2GB of RAM works out well for me for running some games like Oblivion or Civ4. I also run SQL Server 2005 (runs all the time, even if I'm not using it), and I do software development with this computer (but not when I'm playing games, obviously). I found with 1 gig of RAM, I'd want to make sure that everything was shut down before firing up a game, and even then, it was swapping. Heaven forbid that my wife was logged into XP at the same time; I'd have to go log her out first, and then fire up the game.

With Vista, more RAM is even better, but I still don't find myself getting too close to my 2GB of physical memory, so I don't plan on plunking in more memory. Vista is currently using about 1.3GB of memory, with Outlook 2007 and a few browser windows open. Vista handles memory "differently" than XP, in my experience. It's more willing to use all of your resources it can, but it doesn't seem to cause problems when other applications need them later.

Clint

 

[bydesign]

Your load time will not improve going from 2Gb to 4gb, maybe if you use a stop watch but nothing you would be able to notice.

 

[kriostar]

Sorry... I'm at 2GB now... just wondering if the upgrade to 2.5 or 3 would even be noticable/ worth it and it sounds like the answer is no. Thank you all ^^

 

[AdamBomb42]

The reason for Vista using that much RAM is it's super fetch feature. You really have more RAM available than what you are saying. If a program requires more RAM than what is available, then Vista will clear some room for it. 2GB is plenty, just remember that if you have a dual-channel board you want to use dual-channel memory.

 

[Mondoman]

...just remember that if you have a dual-channel board you want to use dual-channel memory.

To clarify, you want to run your memory in dual-channel mode, as specified in the MB manual. "Dual-channel memory" is just a marketing phrase for two single DIMMs packaged together, because it's the MB that determines whether or not the memory runs in dual-channel mode.