All about Memory
 Latest Memory articles
All Memory articles

Newsletters


  • Ask your question about IT issues
  • Post

Partners

The Games selection

crazy : PC Breakdown What is worst than a Fatal Error occuring during a game you did not save? Unleash your rage at your PC in this game. Blow it to pieces, it feels so...
adventure : Scoobydoo: Episode 2 The sequel of Scooby and Sammy's adventures. Same principle as in the previous episode (available on this website). Click on "Instructions" to see...
Ads

Sponsored links

Conclusion

Previous
2:00 AM - 04/07/2009 by Thomas Soderstrom

Not much has changed since 4 GB of RAM became the “sweet spot” for performance and price in the enthusiast market. While 32-bit operating systems previously limited those 4 GB configurations to around 3 GB of useful memory space, today's test shows that 3 GB is still usually enough.

We remember days when having multiple Internet Explorer windows open could cause a system to become sluggish. But even that scenario has become unrealistic, as all the configurations we tested in this review supported over 100 open windows simultaneously.

If 3 GB worked so well, why do we continue to recommend 4 GB to 6 GB triple-channel kits for performance systems? Perhaps we’re just a little too forward-looking, but we can certainly imagine scenarios a typical “power user” could encounter where 3 GB might not be enough, even if today’s tests didn’t reveal any of them. For those folks, stepping up to a 64-bit operating system at the same time is undoubtedly the best course of action.

We can only recommend larger capacities of 8 GB to 12 GB for professional applications where its usefulness has already been documented and for servers. None of our tests required high-memory capacities and wasted RAM is a burden both financially and ecologically.

Talkback
EQPlayer 04/07/2009 8:19 AM
Hide
-20+

I run 8GB in my rig because... having open memory slots doesn't jive well with my OCD. Haha. /facepalm

Anonymous 04/07/2009 8:21 AM
Hide
-20+

Try opening a PSD file from a 21-Megapixel camera with 3 or more layers in Photoshop and see the difference.

Anonymous 04/07/2009 8:27 AM
Hide
-0+

Great info for the Vista crowd. What about DDR2 and XP? Betcha there are more of us than youse guys.

whitewhale1 04/07/2009 8:29 AM
Hide
-2+

can someone help me with what apps will utilise more ram?

im currently researching building a workstation for photoshop and some 3d modelling to be imported and rendered in CS4

any help much appreciated im no hardware guru :)

Crashman 04/07/2009 8:32 AM
Hide
-3+

wrote :

Great info for the Vista crowd. What about DDR2 and XP? Betcha there are more of us than youse guys.




It's generally accepted that XP uses less RAM than Vista, so you should be fine with 4GB (which, with 32-bit XP, will yield around 3GB of usefull address space).

shades_aus 04/07/2009 8:59 AM
Hide
-0+

@Thomas Soderstrom
What the heck is that image on the front with all the memory modules!
Can you supply a link with a bigger pic??? That's just insane!

curiousgeorgieo 04/07/2009 9:14 AM
Hide
-3+

Hey guys I was wondering: What if you had a 9g game loaded completely on a ramdrive (64bit+software) then kept the remaining 3 for regular ram?

Tindytim 04/07/2009 9:20 AM
Show
Crashman 04/07/2009 9:35 AM
Hide
-0+

shades_aus :
@Thomas Soderstrom What the heck is that image on the front with all the memory modules!Can you supply a link with a bigger pic??? That's just insane!



It looks like a memory testing machine or burn-in rack to me...I'm not sure where the site found it.

curiousgeorgieo :
Hey guys I was wondering: What if you had a 9g game loaded completely on a ramdrive (64bit+software) then kept the remaining 3 for regular ram?



That's a great idea! Because it takes sooo long to copy an entire game from the hard drive to "anything" (even RAM), most users won't even try it. But you would get super-fast map loads!

Anonymous 04/07/2009 9:44 AM
Hide
-8+

Try using several VMs in parallel and you'll be happy to have more than 3 GB. I'm using one VM for work (image of my work notebook with VPN etc.) and one for online banking (mainly because my old smartcard isn't supported in 64bit OS, little bit of a catch22).

knowom 04/07/2009 10:07 AM
Hide
-3+

Crashman :
Because it takes sooo long to copy an entire game from the hard drive to "anything" (even RAM), most users won't even try it. But you would get super-fast map loads!



I have 8GB and use 4GB to load a MMORPG game on and the other 4 to use for system ram. It's great to cut down random disk access and helps improve load times. Like you mentioned though the downside is it takes awhile to copy your game data or whatever into the ram drive. My ramdrive is setup to copy the data automatically on startup, but startup time takes a modest amount longer due to that.

kureshii 04/07/2009 10:08 AM
Hide
-3+

What about setting up RAMdisks (as a temp folder, working directory, swap partition, etc)... surely doing this with 6-12GB of RAM would make a big difference?

gsnyder 04/07/2009 10:16 AM
Show
Anonymous 04/07/2009 10:25 AM
Hide
-0+

I've got 12GB of OCZ's DDR3-1600 overclocked to 1780 in my system. With triple channel 6GB kits at under $100, there's no reason not to populate all the 6 (or 4) DIMMs on a motherboard.

Anonymous 04/07/2009 10:26 AM
Hide
-3+

Also, if you've ever a virtual OS the windfall of having over 3Gb is huge.

ohim 04/07/2009 10:34 AM
Hide
--1+

Having more memory is about system response to load times and clealy multitasking, try to open Premiere , Photoshop and After Effects at the same time and do your work and you will see a huge impact into system response not just stupid 1 task gameing. Just 2 examples:

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/1300/30630315.jpg

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/1691/40873236.jpg

I guess this would run just fine on 3 GB too ?

lcrakel 04/07/2009 10:39 AM
Hide
-0+

After reading this I wish I would have never bought that second kit of memory. Nothing but a waste of money.

Commlock 04/07/2009 11:05 AM
Hide
-12+

The conclusion says: "We can only recommend larger capacities of 8 GB to 12 GB for professional applications where its usefulness has already been documented and for servers."

Therefore it is meaningless to mention about the memory requirement for 3 Adobe programs at the same time. Just read the article carefully.

Commlock 04/07/2009 11:06 AM
Hide
--1+

ohim :
Having more memory is about system response to load times and clealy multitasking, try to open Premiere , Photoshop and After Effects at the same time and do your work and you will see a huge impact into system response not just stupid 1 task gameing. Just 2 examples:http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/1300/30630315.jpghttp://img5.imageshack.us/img5/1691/40873236.jpgI guess this would run just fine on 3 GB too ?



Just read the end of the article carefully.
"We can only recommend larger capacities of 8 GB to 12 GB for professional applications where its usefulness has already been documented and for servers"

sonofliberty08 04/07/2009 11:22 AM
Hide
-2+

just because the x86 are old cow architecture , we should just dumb it and switch to x64 . :)


Comments are closed on this page.

Sponsored links