Is 4GB now the standard?

[sacoops]

Hi. I'm starting to think about buying myself a new computer and wanted to know a little bit about the amount of memory i am likely to need. I will be using it mostly for gaming with maybe an 8800gts. Would i benefit from having 4GB memory rather than 2? If i went for 4GB would i need a 64bit OS? Would the 64bit OS hold me back with any applications i might use. My computer use is really only for gaming and general computer use.

Thanks for your help

 

[beurling]

Yes, Yes, and Maybe.

Some programs will require you to search out 64bit drivers, but most programs are adopting 64bit drivers slowly, and it will only get better. I haven't come across anything I ahven't been able ot solve with Vistax64 and I mainly game.

 

[sacoops]

Thanks for your help. So what are the most common problems that most 64bit users will face?

 

[beurling]

program developers that choose not to pay Microsoft their fee for signing their drivers will not work properly on your system. Most mainstream developers pay these fees because they can afford it. But some programs like benchmarking utilities and things like wireless networking cards may not have 64bit drivers yet.

It won't affect any of your games or almost any program you use. If you are worried about a specific program not working, you can check to see if it is supported on their website or ask on the forum.

 

[sunangel]

i personally think 8gb is (should be) the standard. ddr2-800 is so cheap right now its really stupid not to go 4x2gb. everyday more and more apps are get compiled in x64 so there is no reason not to have 8gb of memory, especially if your running a quadcore.

 

[lcaley]

Yes, Yes, and Maybe.

Some programs will require you to search out 64bit drivers, but most programs are adopting 64bit drivers slowly, and it will only get better. I haven't come across anything I ahven't been able ot solve with Vistax64 and I mainly game.

I agree. I haven't had much (if any) trouble with compatibility issues in Vista x64. I do plan to get more RAM sometime soon though. I'm thinking about getting a 2x2gb kit to make 6.

 

[MikosNZ]

Hi. I'm starting to think about buying myself a new computer and wanted to know a little bit about the amount of memory i am likely to need. I will be using it mostly for gaming with maybe an 8800gts. Would i benefit from having 4GB memory rather than 2? If i went for 4GB would i need a 64bit OS? Would the 64bit OS hold me back with any applications i might use. My computer use is really only for gaming and general computer use.

Thanks for your help

A little, No and Not likely.

4gb wont be a huge speed boost for most users, infact many will not notice any difference between 4gb and 2gb. I know in general gaming terms I didnt. I would say its really only required if you do large sets of multitasking or particular demanding individual tasks.

You definetly do not need a 64bit OS. A 32 bit OS still will use the bulk of the memory (3.2- 3.5 most likely) and what it doesnt is partially offset by the larger memory footprint of applications running in a 64 bit environment. Very few benchmarks show any noticable difference between 4gb on a 32 or 64 bit OS. That said this will change as apps become more memory hungry and 8gb becomes a viable build choice.

64 bit compatiability is pretty good in vista these days. I havent encountered any issues and from what I have read that is pretty much the norm for vista 64 now.

All this said with the price of ram these days it really doesnt hurt to put as much in as you can. Its so cheap it doesnt make that much of an impact on the overall build price, especially if we are talking ddr2-800.

 

[Falken699]

2 GB is the new "realistic" "standard".

Got 2 x 1 GB like 2 years ago of DDR 400 on a S939 motherboard, and NO, nothing really uses it to the point that I'd need 4 Gb.

I play Crysis at a playable framerate on Very High, do encoding, burning, and general tasks.

At this point, I'd RECOMMEND 4GB ONLY if you use Vista x64. But if you are looking at what most people need? It is only 2 Gb.

 

[zenmaster]

I would go with 4gb, even with a 32-bit OS.

 

[Shadow703793]

^Agreed.

You might run in to problems with x64 drivers for things such as Printers, camera,WiFi,etc if they are more than 3 years old.

 

[runswindows95]

I also agree with zenmaster. I mean, you can pick up 4GB for $80.

 

[ZOldDude]

Hi. I'm starting to think about buying myself a new computer and wanted to know a little bit about the amount of memory i am likely to need. I will be using it mostly for gaming with maybe an 8800gts. Would i benefit from having 4GB memory rather than 2? If i went for 4GB would i need a 64bit OS? Would the 64bit OS hold me back with any applications i might use. My computer use is really only for gaming and general computer use.

Thanks for your help

As a gamer stick with XP 32bit and 2X1GB of ram.
No game known uses more than that...and won;t for years to come.

Vista can't do ANYTING faster than XP and never will as all support for Vista ends with this year as per MS.

 

[blacksci]

Actually old dude your wrong, there is a game that will use more then 2 gigs, Company of Heros uses 99% of my ram, and when i get my other 2 gigs back from rma, will use most of it as well. 4 gigs is cheap, and not a bad idea, theres not many games that will use it, but there will be in the near future, and if you have other apps going, your gonna want to have more then enough ram then just enough.

 

[samtemplar]

if you get 8 gig (or more) you can effectively get rid of the swap file. There was an article about that a few weeks ago. There is a definate perfomance increase by not having a swap file. I myself have 4 gig and use it. By only choosing to have the standard of today (2Gb) you may be effectively shortening the life of your pc. Build you PC for upgradeability and future proofing, in other words a quad core with 8 gigs of ram and 64bit OS will provide you with a pc that has a longer life than todays standard. Also for all the people that reckon XP is faster than vista, there is a rumor that SP1 will fix that, and if you are after a speedy OS with less features, Why not consider going back to windows 98

In other words people are buying vista because it is the future. Or at least XP is not the future so why buy a dying OS?

 

[blacksci]

Vistas sp1 has been tested for speed already, and its not quite as fast as xp, thats proven, so forget the rumors, also he said he wanted the fastest, that it is. Personally i run both, i like vista more cuz its pretty and new, and gives me neat toys, but i use xp right now cuz i have games that dont like vista yet, with compatablity issues, and i dont like the idea of downloading cryptic drivers that are unsigned, and as far as i know, could kuput my whole system, i want reliability, and xp right now gives us that, sure its not the newest os, but its still alive and kickin just fine.

 

[russki]

No game known uses more than that...and won;t for years to come.

Actually old dude your wrong, there is a game that will use more then 2 gigs, Company of Heros uses 99% of my ram, and when i get my other 2 gigs back from rma, will use most of it as well

Yup, and Supreme Commander is a memory hog. ZOldDude is a bit of a Vista hater.

 

[StevieD]

I have 8GB (Vista 64).

When I loaded the machine I tested lesser combinations of RAM.

Going from 1GB to 2GB there was a HUGE improvement in speed of the machine.

2GB to 4GB there was a dramatic improvement.

After 4GB there was no noticeable improvement. I am sure there was, it just was not noticeable enough to warrant a positive comment.

BTW, those improvements are with typical office type tasks.


Why have 8GB? Because my little RAM meter was hitting 6GB with better than 50% average CPU (Q6600) usage last week. Bottom line, you multitask and you can use your toys.

 

[croc]

As a gamer stick with XP 32bit and 2X1GB of ram.
No game known uses more than that...and won;t for years to come.

Vista can't do ANYTING faster than XP and never will as all support for Vista ends with this year as per MS.

Not that I'm doubting you, but could you provide a link? To the end of Vista support, that is.

 

[blacksci]

Indeed, i believe he has it wrong, if we switch xp with vista there lies the true root of what ms has said so far, and we all know microsoft cant be wrong, there gods were pions. Vista is going to be around for a while, if they werent supporting vista at the end of the year, that would make mainline news. nuff said.

 

[samtemplar]

I'm not saying vista is faster. But c'mon it has sleep mode, it takes about 5 seconds from off to ready-2-go. I owned Xp too, so i can compare, i reckon the slight speed gain from using old OS's does not outweigh their newer often better features. Didn't this same argument exist for windows 2000 when xp came out.. AS for me i'd take as much ram as i can justify. Me personally i can justify having 4 gig, any less is a bottleneck in my system. Go for 8 or more if you can because soon enough you'll find something that chews it all up and ddr2 memory will be scarce and outdated (like ddr today)

 

[ImajorI]

Five years ago my system had 264 MB of ram and that was fine... then. Get at least 4 and better 8 Gigs now if you want a decent system 2 years from now. Do you think programs will begin using less ram in the future?

 

[boonality]

This is just my opinion but if you choose XP then you will probably need to upgrade to vista within 2~3 years for support and compatibility reason but seriously, that's a good while out.

As far as 32bit vs 64 bit, while 32bit is the standard... it is quickly dissapearing. One of the biggest issues that you may run into is that many older programs use a 16bit installer which executes great in a 32bit OS but will not run on a 64bit OS, but again, when I say older I mean from say 2002 and earlier. It varies from software to software though.

Memory though... I would recommend that you go with 3GB if you choose a 32bit operating system because 32 bit windows operating systems (both vista and windows) can only address 4GB of memory total, this includes video memory and any other memory from an add on card. So while memory is really cheap, 3GB "could" be but isn't always!!! cheaper than 4GB, if 4GB is cheaper then buy it anyway!

For a 64bit OS, 4GB is probably plenty but if you feel inclined then just buy 8GB, it will only improve performance, even if you don't notice the difference... which you probably won't.

 

[notherdude]

Not that I'm doubting you, but could you provide a link? To the end of Vista support, that is.

Don't hold your breath for a link showing MS will drop all support of Vista in a year! LOFL

I guess he means to say that Windows 7 MIGHT come out sometime in 09. Ha! I'll be shocked to see it before 11 myself. 7 will just be Vista SE, you watch. The only problem with Vista is that it broke a lot of old stuff. That's it. 7 won't work with the old stuff either.

Benchmarks are all over the place comparing XP to Vista in speed. The largest and most complete study shows Vista with a slight advantage, believe it or not. It also showed the two so close in speed that it makes no practical difference. There is still a very small frame rate advantage for XP but the gap keeps closing.

There is no reason to avoid getting Vista if you are a home user/gamer

 

[Scotteq]

As a gamer stick with XP 32bit and 2X1GB of ram.
No game known uses more than that...and won;t for years to come.

Vista can't do ANYTING faster than XP and never will as all support for Vista ends with this year as per MS.

I'm throwing the b*llsh*t flag on this one.

The newer strategy games (CoH and that ilk) certainly *can* use more than 2GB of system memory. And as far as MS ending support for Vista?? You need to put down the crack pipe, my friend, and point your browser to http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/default.mspx

Development for XP is what's ending - SP3 is it. And the current schedule for XP says January 09.

 

[mford66215]

Get as much memory as you can afford, then put your OS of choice on it. Even if your favorite OS doesn't use all the ram you have today, you'll still have it later.

I've got everything from Vista on down running at my house, they each have uses. But you should try to match the OS with the hardware capabilities.

i.e: I'm putting together a scrap laptop for give-away to charity. PIII 500Mhz, 512kb 12Gb IDE system. This system could run everything from Windows 3.11 through XP or Ubuntu without much of a performance impact....it's going to be slow by todays standards no matter what I do. I would consider either XP or Ubuntu to be current, giving you a machine that can be used for another few years in basic office/school environment. The fastest build by far would be Win3.11 with MS Office 4.2 (specially if OS installs onto a ramdisk).

Not like I'm gonna go dig out the old WFW 3.11 CD though.....how'd you read a PDF file on that?