8gb vs 16gb DDR3 on P67 I5 2500K

I am working on my next build and I'm not sure if I should go with 8gb or 16gb of ram ?

I know that in the past, there were times where more memory was not necessarely better, even sometimes it would cause reduced performance, I wonder if this will still be the case ?

I will be using windows 7 64bit for OS.

I have a dualscreen setup.

I will have a SSD as main OS / Program drive.

I use my computer mainly for work and gaming.

Work involves photoshop, illustrator, dreamweaver. ( I am a webdesigner ) I am a very intensive multi-tasking guy, just as an example, I currently have about 5 programs open, i have 2 firefox browsers each with over 20 tabs...

Gaming currently is limited to SC2, League Of Legends, and BF2142 , but that will change with my new system...

Do you advice 8gb or 16gb ( DDR3 1600 )?
If i get 8gb, I can put the money on the GPU...

Overall my next build should be around 2000$.

Thx for your advises.

Message quoted 1 times
Message edited by louno on 01-30-2011 at 06:11:17 AM

Reply to louno

In general, once you have 'enough' memory for the programs you run, having more memory won't increase performance any further. However, multitasking will be quicker and smoother. Plus, loading the games themselves and game levels will be quicker. Less graphical anomalies in games as well. With more memory comes greater graphical detail levels in games too.

Why would more system memory affect graphics performance? Because graphics cards can reserve system memory for texture storage and such. My system's GTX 570 has 1280MB of its own, yet still reserves 2815MB of system memory, for a total of 4095MB of available graphics memory.

With your program load, I'd definitely recommend 12GB or 16GB. I bought 12GB for my Sandy Bridge system because I wanted to be a bit more future-proof than 8GB of memory could provide.

Reply to Leaps-from-Shadows

I absolutely do NOT recommend getting 16GB of RAM.

If you Google the Internet, you will find it hard to show a single benchmark with a speed difference between 4GB and 8GB.

Multi-tasking CAN improve very slightly between 4GB and 8GB but it's very low and basically can only be seen under benchmarks (and even then we're talking mainly about the STARTUP of some games being faster because the system doesn't need to temporarily reclaim some RAM so maybe startup is 45 seconds versus 57 seconds after which there's no in-game difference.)

Gaming:
Not a single game available will play differently with more than 4GB.

about 12GB mentioned:
If he has 12GB then he's using an Intel motherboard with Tri-Channel memory requiring either ONE, THREE, or SIX sticks of memory to function. 8GB is not even an option that I'm aware of (unless it can support dual AND Tri which I doubt).

I recommend you consider one of the following:
4GB, 6GB, 8GB

If you go Tri-Channel then get 6GB. Too easy.

If you go dual-channel then it's harder. 8GB can ONLY be justified if you use LARGE picture files with many layers. Here's the math: 50MB RAW file with 10 layers = 500MB (about half a Gig). Two pictures fully opened is a 1GB).

If the above isn't clear you likely don't need the extra RAM.

Unless things have changed, the x58 setup uses TRI-Channel Memory and is likely your best choice so get 6GB of RAM.

RAM is cheap, but it does add a lot of heat and yes, can cause instabilities and even slow things down slightly.

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to photonboy

Gaming update:
I should add that an x58 (1366 socket) motherboard provides 2x the bandwidth between CPU and Graphics card as an 1156 motherboard. An HD5870 (almost fastest graphics card) uses about 50% of the 1156 motherboard so TWO of these in Crossfire would use the entire bandwidth.

If you foresee needing more bandwidth (such as buying TWO future, better graphics cards) then the x58 system is a must. Your CPU is also a bottleneck. If in doubt get the x58 setup with 6GB of DDR3 1600MHz.

I bought an 1156 motherboard because it consumed slightly less power when paired with its CPU as some components where moved into the CPU and were more efficient. Again, the ONLY tradeoff is the 2x difference in bandwidth available to the PCIe bus.

Message edited by photonboy on 01-31-2011 at 11:00:50 AM

Reply to photonboy

photonboy wrote :

I absolutely do NOT recommend getting 16GB of RAM.

If you Google the Internet, you will find it hard to show a single benchmark with a speed difference between 4GB and 8GB.

Multi-tasking CAN improve very slightly between 4GB and 8GB but it's very low and basically can only be seen under benchmarks (and even then we're talking mainly about the STARTUP of some games being faster because the system doesn't need to temporarily reclaim some RAM so maybe startup is 45 seconds versus 57 seconds after which there's no in-game difference.)

Gaming:
Not a single game available will play differently with more than 4GB.

about 12GB mentioned:
If he has 12GB then he's using an Intel motherboard with Tri-Channel memory requiring either ONE, THREE, or SIX sticks of memory to function. 8GB is not even an option that I'm aware of (unless it can support dual AND Tri which I doubt).

I recommend you consider one of the following:
4GB, 6GB, 8GB

If you go Tri-Channel then get 6GB. Too easy.

If you go dual-channel then it's harder. 8GB can ONLY be justified if you use LARGE picture files with many layers. Here's the math: 50MB RAW file with 10 layers = 500MB (about half a Gig). Two pictures fully opened is a 1GB).

If the above isn't clear you likely don't need the extra RAM.

Unless things have changed, the x58 setup uses TRI-Channel Memory and is likely your best choice so get 6GB of RAM.

RAM is cheap, but it does add a lot of heat and yes, can cause instabilities and even slow things down slightly.

For clarity: I'm running one 8GB kit and one 4GB kit in dual channel on a P67 mainboard with a 2500K Sandy Bridge processor. That's how I got 12GB. I previously had a system with 4GB of RAM, and I can definitely tell the difference in multitasking without the aid of a stopwatch.

Loading levels once the game starts will also be positively affected, leading to a smoother-feeling game experience. The games themselves won't play differently but they will look differently with higher detail levels and less graphical anomalies like missing textures and such. This also makes for a better gaming experience. Any time a game has to pause/stop and load anything at all, more RAM makes it faster. These are not measurable with benchmarks and stopwatches -- they are subjective (but very real) differences.

If you get two kits of the same kind of RAM at the same time, you minimize (to as close to zero as you can get) the likelihood of incompatibilities and instabilities that can cause slowdowns. Of course, sometimes boards can't populate all four RAM slots unless you loosen the timings, but that tends to happen mainly to older boards.

I still recommend 12GB or 16GB.

Reply to Leaps-from-Shadows

PRICE:
I'll also add that 1156 motherboards are cheaper if that's a deal breaker.

When buying motherboard:
1) 1156 or 1366
2) *eSATA output
3) AMD or Intel (get Intel)
4) quality (recommend ASUS or Gigabyte AND read reviews)
5) price (1156 is comparably cheaper)
6) Crossfire, SLI, or BOTH (if you think you'll use two or more video cards.)

Recommendation:
1156 motherboard + Intel i5-750 CPU (i7-860 if transcoding video or for high-end dual Graphics)

1366 motherboard + Intel i7-930

Summary:
You'll find it very hard to utilize more than what 1156 + an Intel i5-750 gives you. At the upper end you have the 1366 + i7-930 which presently gives you EXACTLY the same gaming performance (even with dual graphics cards).

You can save at least $200 by going with the 1156/i5-750 which is interesting because if you put that money towards a graphics card, say a $400 instead of $200 one you'd have a HUGE gaming difference. Note that a HD5870 uses on average less than 50% of a CPU's processing power.

RAM: again 4GB/8GB or 6GB

Video card:
The NVidia GTX 560 Ti is awesome when comparing price, gaming, and NOISE levels.

Reply to photonboy

2GB vs 4GB vs 8GB
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/m [...] y-better/1

Reply to photonboy

How about a newer article: Linky

That link is to a specific page where it has a conclusion stating the subjective differences.

Reply to Leaps-from-Shadows

dunno bout you guys but im going with 16gb, i currently have 8gb and just watching a video and running my usual apps (ok so im a power user) im left with ~200mb as we speak - not even gaming

second argument - for my, its only ~$150AUD for 16gb (4x4) - WHY NOT?

also on my P67 rig im about to build.

------------------------------ i7-2600k@4.6 // Noctua DH14 // ASUS P8P67 Pro // 16gb Ram
Intel 120gb SSD + 1tb WD // 2xGTX570 SLI // Corsair 750w // 2xE900F HD Tuners
(( Using car audio equipment for my sound system - 700w RMS ))
Reply to apache_lives

Left with 200MB?

Then you have a MAJOR problem because Windows Memory management would never, ever do that.

I have 8GB and I usually use about 3GB and the HIGHEST I've ever hit when multi-tasking and gaming is 6GB. and that dropped back down to 4GB right after the game stopped.

Reply to photonboy

8 GB is your best bet. Anything higher will be wasted anyways

Reply to bearclaw99

AH, just go with 16 Gigs. Create a ram disk 4 -> 8 Gigs for scratch pad.

Free ramdisk driver limits you to 4 gigs, I think the paid version is like $10 bucks.
Bench marks for a ram disk is like comparing a tutle (SSD) to a sportscar.
One drawback if you create a ramdisk and set it to save on power down and load on bootup it will add time to both operations.

Added:
http://memory.dataram.com/products [...] re/ramdisk

Message edited by RetiredChief on 02-01-2011 at 07:11:04 PM

Reply to RetiredChief

So you are suggesting I use some ram for use as photoshop scratch disk ? thats interesting...

The main reason why i'd consider 16gb is because its pretty cheap but, its either i get better quality 2x4gb modules ( any recommendation ? i dont like those huuuge heatsink ram models though.. ), OR i get affordable 4x4gb modules ( ~200$ )

One thing to keep in mind is that I keep my computers for 4 years minimum (current system is 4 year & 5month old), so they have to be a little future proof. This will be my 4th homebuilt system, and what i noticed is that I usually end up upgrading something after 2 years or so, sometimes video card, sometimes the monitor, but generally, i've found that ram was always one of my considerable upgrades because usually i never get too much ram, i always get the recommended amount for a price/performance system, currently this is 8gb, but what about in 2 years ? Upgrading ram is a bit of a hassle, everytime i upgraded my ram ( after 2-3 years) what happenned was that i either couldnt find the same exact model of ram to add to my pc so i end up buying a completely different set to replace my ram instead of adding to it.

so, in conclusion... there isnt much benefit of 16gb as of today, ill get 8gb and if i have some money left over ill get 16gb to help with photoshop performance and make my system a little more futureproof

Reply to louno

Shi*s and grins. From AS SSD bench mark – 120 Gig Pheonix Pro SSD vs 4 Gig Ramdrive
……….. …………………………….Read/Writes
………………………………. SSD …………. Ramdrive
Seq read/writes ….. 202/134 ……. 4714/4966
4K ……………………….. 23/90 ……….. 440/353
4K – 64 Thrd…….. 125/119 ……... 873/856
Overall score …...….. 473 ………...…… 4614

Know what you are taking about.
Went from 2 x 2 gig -> 4 x 2 gig -> 2 x 4 gig + 2 x 2 gig (For 12 gigs).
All ram sticks are DDR3-1600, CL7

Message edited by RetiredChief on 02-02-2011 at 12:39:44 AM

Reply to RetiredChief

I can personally vouch for using Photoshop with the scratch being on a RAMdisk. Whenever dealing with any large images or images with layers, having a RAMdisk scratch area has increased performance dramatically on my work system (AMD Athlon II X4, 8GB of RAM).

I would recommend getting as much RAM as your budget allows. 8GB would be great for what you do, but if more is in your budget, go ahead and get it while it's cheap. No one really knows if it will get cheaper, at least not immediately.

I got 12GB, three 4GB sticks, for $150, so $50/stick. DON'T get triple kits or quad kits or hex kits, the price per stick will be significantly more. For example, buying three identical single sticks was almost 40% cheaper than buying a triple-channel kit of the SAME RAM.

Message quoted 1 times

------------------------------ i7 2600K 5GHz w/HT 1.4v ~ Asrock P67 Fatal1ty ~ ASUS 6970 2GB 1000/1475 1.25v
16GB G.Skill Ripjaws X DDR3-1600 ~ Intel 160GB G2 SSD ~ OEM 8800GT PhysX ~ Samsung 12x Blu-ray
Seasonic X650 Gold ~ Razer Mamba & Lycosa ~ Tecnofront HWD ~ Big Custom Water
Reply to jedimasterben

jedimasterben wrote :

I got 12GB, three 4GB sticks, for $150, so $50/stick. DON'T get triple kits or quad kits or hex kits, the price per stick will be significantly more. For example, buying three identical single sticks was almost 40% cheaper than buying a triple-channel kit of the SAME RAM.

Prove your 40 percent price difference, I dont see it.

Price is same per stick: 4GB to 8GB (1 stick to 2 sticks)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 231-308-TS

Price is same per stick: 4GB to 8GB (2 sticks to 4 sticks)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 231-329-TS

Reply to TW_Honorius

RAM, Scratchpad, Photoshop:

You should let Windows 7 manage your RAM. Photoshop usually defaults to use 50% if you have enough RAM although you can change this.

For example, if you have 8GB and run Photoshop it will allocate 4GB of the System RAM for itself that is used by nothing else.

There is no reason to use another program to try to force Photoshop to use more RAM since it already works perfectly.

There are some unique cases where forcing RAM to be used in certain ways can be good but Photoshop is not one of them. Again, you can already tell Photoshop how much RAM to use.

Message quoted 2 times

Reply to photonboy

photonboy wrote :

RAM, Scratchpad, Photoshop:
You should let Windows 7 manage your RAM.

Windows always manages RAM, even if you've partitioned a RAMdisk, no?

photonboy wrote :

Photoshop usually defaults to use 50% if you have enough RAM although you can change this....There is no reason to use another program to try to force Photoshop to use more RAM since it already works perfectly.

Yes, but Photoshop still wants to know where to place a scratch disk.

I think what RetiredChief is saying is that you can set up a virtual hard drive — called a RAMdisk — which will reserve, say, 4GB of your physical RAM and call it Volume G, for example. Then in Photoshop, you can asign Volume G to be your scratch disk.

But I am curious, Photonboy. Are you saying that Photoshop will never use your assigned scratch disk until it maxes out using the RAM you've assigned to Photoshop? i.e. I have 16GB Physical RAM. I assign 50% to Photoshop. So Photoshop will ONLY use the scratch disk AFTER it maxes out the available 8GB of RAM? Or does Photoshop use it's available RAM for some operations, while using it's scratch disk for others?

Reply to cscooper2000

On another note, I have a few similar RAM questions:

1. If I purchase a P67 (LGA1155) board, I only get dual-channel RAM. If I purchase the "older" x58 (LGA1333) board, I get triple-channel RAM. It almost seems that the second-generation i7 and corresponding MOBOs took a step backward, no? Apples to apples, which is better for video editing in Adobe Premiere and After Effects CS5, photo editing in Photoshop CS5 and animating with Blender and Maya? Any games I may want to play are secondary to my work needs.

2. And if I purchase a "Quad-channel" kit of 16GB (4 x 4GB) and put it in a dual-channel system, would I say I'm running 8GB dual-channel RAM? or 16GB RAM. Does Windows recognize the RAM as 8GB (of double-fast RAM) or 16GB? I hope that makes sense. I'm not sure if my thinking makes sense to those more in the know.

Reply to cscooper2000

i got 16gb gskill ram because i can afford it, and it runs at the same spec as the equivilent 8gb kit from gskill. It has insane specs - 2133 mhz cas 9, and thats 16gb. Find me another manufacturer guaranteeing that speed with 16gb, even the almighty corsair doesnt match that. This ram is amazing.

if you want to check it out here is the link

http://www.gskill.com/products.php?index=371

Reply to j4mi3

Quote :

1. If I purchase a P67 (LGA1155) board, I only get dual-channel RAM. If I purchase the "older" x58 (LGA1333) board, I get triple-channel RAM. It almost seems that the second-generation i7 and corresponding MOBOs took a step backward, no? Apples to apples, which is better for video editing in Adobe Premiere and After Effects CS5, photo editing in Photoshop CS5 and animating with Blender and Maya? Any games I may want to play are secondary to my work needs.

Sandy Bridge is Intel's mainstream CPU, despite being able to match and/or exceed the performance of most extreme options. Dual-channel is more than enough for mainstream users. X58 is the extreme performance option from Intel and despite being older it's still the king of the hill when maximum memory bandwidth is needed.

Quote :

2. And if I purchase a "Quad-channel" kit of 16GB (4 x 4GB) and put it in a dual-channel system, would I say I'm running 8GB dual-channel RAM? or 16GB RAM. Does Windows recognize the RAM as 8GB (of double-fast RAM) or 16GB? I hope that makes sense. I'm not sure if my thinking makes sense to those more in the know.

If the manufacturer tests two RAM sticks together and they pass, they call it a Dual-Channel kit.
If the manufacturer tests three RAM sticks together and they pass, they call it a Triple-Channel kit.
If the manufacturer tests four RAM sticks together and they pass, they call it a Quad-Channel kit.
In all of those instances, the RAM itself is the same. The only difference is that the manufacturer tested and "matched" those particular RAM sticks together.

In your example, Windows would recognize 16GB of RAM. The CPU/mainboard would recognize 16GB running in dual-channel mode.

Quad-Channel memory kits will become important when the X79 chipset and Sandy Bridge "E" (SNB-E) CPUs arrive later this year, as SNB-E has a quad-channel memory controller.

Message edited by Leaps-from-Shadows on 06-18-2011 at 05:29:49 PM

you will only find a difference, if you run progrmas that will use more then 4gb worth of RAM, then do upgrade, if more then 8 gb (very unlikly unless you run many components that has to be addressed with mroe memory) then upgrade to 16gb

check your omputer by running resource monitor, and see how much free memory u got, if u have more "in-use" memory then"standby memory" then that you shuld give u are clear indication on whether you need buy more RAM. do the checking while ur running a game though, checkingt he resource monitor while the computer is idle is pointless.

by the way if i were you, id porbably upgrade my memory for speed, rather then capacity, once u reach certain limit say 8GB.. and if the conputer use no more 8GB, then you are going to see no diffenrece whatsoever, however if you stoiped their and changed ur currently 8GB to a higher speed memoery say at least 2100mhz then u are going to see a noticable imporvement.

(1600mhz is considered a low average when it comes to games)

save ur moeny, and if u can also sell ur memory, re-buy 8GB but with at least 1600mhz speed.

(capacity improves multitasking -- speed improves speed...)

Message edited by MEgamer on 06-18-2011 at 07:50:47 PM

Reply to MEgamer

Are you all insane?

Of course the 16GB is better than 8GB. When Photoshop reach the 7.5GB limit it just simply starts to write on disk. Using Scratch disk is SLOOOOW. I have 4 hard Raid disk and it is SLOOOW in comparing to RAM. I do not even mention other programs that needs such emount of RAM. Computing moleclule structures and tunnels on 4 dedicated processors need about 6-8GB of RAM for itself. So YES buy more RAM if you reached the limit.

OMG. You are all insane or what?

Reply to Izy

8GB for Games, 12GB & 16GB for Photoshop + Work.

Reply to trihedral

louno wrote :

I am working on my next build and I'm not sure if I should go with 8gb or 16gb of ram ?

I know that in the past, there were times where more memory was not necessarely better, even sometimes it would cause reduced performance, I wonder if this will still be the case ?

I will be using windows 7 64bit for OS.

I have a dualscreen setup.

I will have a SSD as main OS / Program drive.

I use my computer mainly for work and gaming.

Work involves photoshop, illustrator, dreamweaver. ( I am a webdesigner ) I am a very intensive multi-tasking guy, just as an example, I currently have about 5 programs open, i have 2 firefox browsers each with over 20 tabs...

Gaming currently is limited to SC2, League Of Legends, and BF2142 , but that will change with my new system...

Do you advice 8gb or 16gb ( DDR3 1600 )?
If i get 8gb, I can put the money on the GPU...

Overall my next build should be around 2000$.

Thx for your advises.

Reply to Lomzaman3

I have 16 gigs of RAM. It has gone down in price so much that I thought I'd throw in the secound 8 Gigs just to max out Windows 7 Home premium that I run(64 bit version) After several months of use I feel the second 8 gig set was a waste of money. I start task manager and always have 10 to 12 gigs or so sitting around not being used. I surf the 'net and play Dragon Age, work with with MS Office 2010 in which I put together PowerPoint training presentations. But I never use more than 10 gigs out of the 16 I have installed. Occasionally when the PowerPoint presentation gets large I may go up to 10 Gigs but that is rare.
I Think that 8 to 10 Gigs of a good low latency RAM would be all you'd ever use even under heavy use.
My Build (I am both an enthusiast and think you get a better computer when you put it together yourself without all the useless programs and fluff that you have to eradicate.)
i5-2500K
16 Gigs RAM ADATA (8 would have been enough)
OCZ SSD 120 gig for operating system and MS OfFice
1 TB Western Digital Black SATA3
MSI GTX 460 Video card
2X ASUS cd/dvd burners
AsRock P67 Extreme Gen3 Motherboard

Do you advice 8gb or 16gb ( DDR3 1600 )?
If i get 8gb, I can put the money on the GPU...

Overall my next build should be around 2000$.

Thx for your advises.[/quotemsg]

Reply to Lomzaman3

I have 16 gigs of RAM. It has gone down in price so much that I thought I'd throw in the secound 8 Gigs just to max out Windows 7 Home premium that I run(64 bit version) After several months of use I feel the second 8 gig set was a waste of money. I start task manager and always have 10 to 12 gigs or so sitting around not being used. I surf the 'net and play Dragon Age, work with with MS Office 2010 in which I put together PowerPoint training presentations. But I never use more than 10 gigs out of the 16 I have installed. Occasionally when the PowerPoint presentation gets large I may go up to 10 Gigs but that is rare.
I Think that 8 to 10 Gigs of a good low latency RAM would be all you'd ever use even under heavy use.
My Build (I am both an enthusiast and think you get a better computer when you put it together yourself without all the useless programs and fluff that you have to eradicate.)
i5-2500K
16 Gigs RAM ADATA (8 would have been enough)
OCZ SSD 120 gig for operating system and MS OfFice
1 TB Western Digital Black SATA3
MSI GTX 460 Video card
2X ASUS cd/dvd burners
AsRock P67 Extreme Gen3 Motherboard

Reply to Lomzaman3

OP: For your work, definitely go with 4x4gb (or 2x4gb+2x2gb).

While gaming won't see any difference, your multitasking will. I've used up all 8gbs before, so it's not like it's a huge amount these days. Hell, Battlefield 3 uses over 6gb sometimes.

Also, get a 120gb SSD. Or at least 80/90gb. They say those 60gb SSDs are good as boot drives but honestly it would be such a pain in the ass. I have been pretty anal about my file storage and all that, all of my music, movies, games, docs are all on my HDDs, etc. So just Windows and apps like iTunes, photoshop, Office, etc use up about 56gb.

With a $2000 budget, if that's only for the hardware and not monitor and accessories, you can build a sick PC with all that RAM and an SSD and even CFX/SLI GPUs.

Oh, and if you're going to do any video transcoding, you HAVE to get a Z68 board with Quick Sync/Virtu.

Message edited by wolfram23 on 11-03-2011 at 07:39:58 PM

Reply to wolfram23

DONT LISTEN TO THEM JUST GET 16GB OF DDR3 ITS 99 BUCKS RIGHT NOW Y WOULDNT U WANNA MAX OUT UR SYSTEM AT THESE REDICULOUS CHEAP PRICES I GOT 16GB OF CORSAIR DDR3 1600MHZ CORSAIR RAM FOR 102 BUCKS AFTER TAXES.ON GAMING THE EXTRA RAM SPEEDS UP LOADING TIMES AND ANY LITTLE LOAD U HAD ON UR CPU WILL BE PUT ON THE RAM FIRST.U GUYS WE ARE NOT IN 2007 ANYMORE WHERE 16GB OF RAM IS 1000 BUCKS ITS A DAM BENJAMIN

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to mrbrown510

mrbrown510 wrote :

DONT LISTEN TO THEM JUST GET 16GB OF DDR3 ITS 99 BUCKS RIGHT NOW Y WOULDNT U WANNA MAX OUT UR SYSTEM AT THESE REDICULOUS CHEAP PRICES I GOT 16GB OF CORSAIR DDR3 1600MHZ CORSAIR RAM FOR 102 BUCKS AFTER TAXES.ON GAMING THE EXTRA RAM SPEEDS UP LOADING TIMES AND ANY LITTLE LOAD U HAD ON UR CPU WILL BE PUT ON THE RAM FIRST.U GUYS WE ARE NOT IN 2007 ANYMORE WHERE 16GB OF RAM IS 1000 BUCKS ITS A DAM BENJAMIN

Please don't use caps like that.

I also do agree that for him it's worthwhile to get it but your reasoning is not sound. It's literally double the price of 8gb... putting that $50 towards a better GPU will give much better gaming results than the RAM. Also it will not help speed up loading. A solid state drive will help with loads tremendously, but for the RAM as long as you don't max it out it will not speed up gaming.

As I reasoned in my last post, it's useful for him since he'll probably use up a lot of RAM with his non gaming stuff.

Reply to wolfram23

true and sorry for the caps.but come on later on ddr4 will come out and then when he want to get 16gb it will be more expensive.when i had lga 775 people told me to get 8gb instead of 16gb.it use to be so cheap i wish i had gotten the 16gb now 16gb of ddr2 is 400 bucks.so you see its better for him to just max out his ram right now because later on it will just be a waste of money since it will be expensive .and if he does photoshop as a source of income its a no brainer.i use my pc for both gaming and as a daw audio production pc thats y i got 1055t,16gb of ram and a 6850 instead of 8gb and a 6870 or 6950

Reply to mrbrown510

I am currently working in Graphic Design and I just got 16GB of ram, and I can't tell you how much I love the entire 109$ I spent on it.... I also bought an AMD Phenom II x6 1090T Processor.... I work with all of the Auto Desk programs, as well as RealFlow 2012 and Adobe CS5, and some others, but rendering time on MAJOR projects is fast as hell.... Yeah it is overkill, but in the same breath, I don't have any down time due to overloading my ram... If I had 8GB I would most definitely see that... RealFlow alone works with over 5 million particles to create a SMALL ocean scene.... That program is more than happy with 16GB, IMO get it... Better to be safe than sorry

Reply to BMWM3

photonboy wrote :

RAM, Scratchpad, Photoshop:

You should let Windows 7 manage your RAM. Photoshop usually defaults to use 50% if you have enough RAM although you can change this.

For example, if you have 8GB and run Photoshop it will allocate 4GB of the System RAM for itself that is used by nothing else.

There is no reason to use another program to try to force Photoshop to use more RAM since it already works perfectly.

There are some unique cases where forcing RAM to be used in certain ways can be good but Photoshop is not one of them. Again, you can already tell Photoshop how much RAM to use.

photonboy wrote :

RAM, Scratchpad, Photoshop:

You should let Windows 7 manage your RAM. Photoshop usually defaults to use 50% if you have enough RAM although you can change this.

For example, if you have 8GB and run Photoshop it will allocate 4GB of the System RAM for itself that is used by nothing else.

There is no reason to use another program to try to force Photoshop to use more RAM since it already works perfectly.

There are some unique cases where forcing RAM to be used in certain ways can be good but Photoshop is not one of them. Again, you can already tell Photoshop how much RAM to use.

I see he is using a Solid State Drive. One should disable all unnecessary writing to the SSD. No Page Filing and no Cache for that drive. BUT, always have a battery back-up plugged-in to your box.

OCZ OCZSSD2 Vertex Plus 2.5" Solid State Drive - 120GB [primary]
Western Digital 1TB backup HDD [secondary - 3 partitions]
Corsair Hydro H60 CPU Liquid Cooling
Ultra X-Blaster ATX Black Mid-Tower Case with Clear Side
Ultra ULT40135 Performance 120mm Case Fan [front and back]
Asus M4A88T-V EVO USB3 Motherboard
AMD Phenom II X4 980 Black Edition Processor
Transcend 2000MHz aXeRam Overclocking Memory Kit 16GB
Corsair CMPSU-650TXV2 Enthusiast Series
PNY GeForce GTX 460 1GB GDDR5 PCI-e VCGGTX4601XP

Message edited by niceget on 05-06-2012 at 04:45:37 PM

Reply to niceget

Forum Overclocking : Memory 8gb vs 16gb DDR3 on P67 I5 2500K

General Discussion

CPUs

Motherboards

Graphics Cards

Memory

Chipsets & Bios

Heatsinks & Air Cooling

Water Cooling

Intel

AMD