1GB DDR3 Enough for XP Pro?

[makwy2]

Hello everybody in TH Land,

I wasn't sure if this question was better put under the Memory or Windows XP forum, but I thought folks here might be more knowledgeable about XP specifically, so here it goes!

BACKGROUND: I am re-building/resurrecting an old machine that I recently replaced. My new Win7 Ultimate machine is great (see specs in signature) but I need Windows XP from time to time and the comfort of a decent back-up rig and I have to turn to my old machine.

I am looking at basically replacing the machine's motherboard, CPU, and RAM. I think I found an appropriate AMD AM3 mobo with a nice dual-core Athlon II CPU and now the final piece of the puzzle is the RAM. I am trying to keep myself on a tight budget while not having to add any money to this machine for upgrades in the near future. On the other hand I'd rather invest a little now and not have to worry later.

QUESTION: Is 1gb of DDR3 RAM enough to run Windows XP Professional 32-bit smoothly even with heavy multitasking? I usually have many, many programs open simultaneously and this often choked the 512mb of DDR333 in the system currently. I am debating between 1gb or 2gb DDR3.

Your thoughts, advice, and answers are appreciated in advance!

 

[Guest]

I would go for 2 GB.

 

[makwy2]

I would go for 2 GB.

Why is that? Wouldn't 1gb of DDR3 be better than 2gb (or more) of DDR?

 

[tigsounds]

Why is that? Wouldn't 1gb of DDR3 be better than 2gb (or more) of DDR?

And..

I usually have many, many programs open simultaneously and this often choked the 512mb of DDR333 in the system currently.

And..

but I thought folks here might be more knowledgeable about XP specifically, so here it goes!

So why argue? Why the question? If you have it all figured out, go with it.

It doesn't matter if you have speed-of-light memory. It only holds so much and then it's full.
DDR2, DDR3, DDR9999, DDR 10xE99, so what? out of memory is out of memory.



edit: grammar

 

[Ijack]

+1

More memory is always better than faster memory (unless your hard disk is faster than your RAM - even then you've got the overhead in the OS of page switching).

 

[makwy2]

And..

I usually have many, many programs open simultaneously and this often choked the 512mb of DDR333 in the system currently.

And..

but I thought folks here might be more knowledgeable about XP specifically, so here it goes!

So why argue? Why the question? If you have it all figured out, go with it.

It doesn't matter if you have speed-of-light memory. It only holds so much and then it's full.
DDR2, DDR3, DDR9999, DDR 10xE99, so what? out of memory is out of memory.



edit: grammar

@Tigsounds - I'm not arguing, no need to get defensive, buddy. I was asking for clarification/rationale. All that was written was that one user was an answer as to what 'they' would do. What should I do? Why? I don't have it figured out but I'd like to figure it out with the help of generous users here on this forum. I am looking for knowledge not just answers.

@ijack - Thank you, that is all I was looking for: quantity is more important than speed. I thought perhaps it was the other way around.

 

[mibix19]

One pint of Whiskey or two pints of beer?

 

[NoseNuthin]

Your OP lacks sufficient detail for a reasoned response, so you should not really be surprised if the replies are opinions and generalisations.

Grumpy9117 already suggested 2Gig.
I would suggest that the reasoning behind this is something like :-

You are already spending a fair amount of cash for a 'backup machine' (AM3, DDR3), and you expect to have 'many, many programs open simultaneously'.
So my opinion is that another gig of ram would be 'worth it' for you.

If you are uncertain start with 1gig and keep task manager running when you are using the machine 'normally', you can get an idea of memory usage and it's effect on performance. And as it's your backup machine you can make some comparisons with the way that your 'normal' machine is working. Adding the columns 'Page Faults' and 'PF delta' in task managers process tab might help you get an idea of how much your machine is making use of virtual memory.

If you take the time and effort to obtain enough information to ask the question in a more detailed fashion you will most likely find you already have the answer.

 

[hang-the-9]

If you want several programs open and want to swap between them with any kind of speed, get 2 gig, if not more. Windows XP, just by itself with nothing else open wants at least 300MB or RAM, so the 512 you have now is just barely enough to feed it. I.E. would add another 150MB, usually more. If you have several I.E. tabs, each one adds it's own process, so add that up. Office is another 30 MB per application open.

Any type of heavy duty app like a game, CAD, Photoshop, will add another gig just for itself.

 

[makwy2]

If you want several programs open and want to swap between them with any kind of speed, get 2 gig, if not more. Windows XP, just by itself with nothing else open wants at least 300MB or RAM, so the 512 you have now is just barely enough to feed it. I.E. would add another 150MB, usually more. If you have several I.E. tabs, each one adds it's own process, so add that up. Office is another 30 MB per application open.

Any type of heavy duty app like a game, CAD, Photoshop, will add another gig just for itself.

Thanks hang-the-9 ! I may go 2gb after all now that I see it in that perspective. Now to see if I can make this upgrade for less than 140 bucks...

 

[tigsounds]

Thanks hang-the-9 ! I may go 2gb after all now that I see it in that perspective. Now to see if I can make this upgrade for less than 140 bucks...

These guys ship every morning.. Fry's

They might be giving NewEgg.com a run for their money.

 

[makwy2]

Best answer selected by makwy2.