How much RAM do you really need?
Never enough!
Posted on 04/11/2015 11:25:09 AM PDT by Utilizer
Typically, today’s budget PCs come with 4GB of RAM. A mid-range configuration may offer double that, and high-end gaming systems and workstations go as high as 16GB or more.
There’s no doubt which way the wind’s blowing, either: Windows 8 supports up to 128GB of physical memory (assuming you’re running the 64-bit edition), while Windows 8 Pro can go up to 512GB.
Does anyone really need this much RAM? Memory isn’t as expensive as it used to be, but there’s obviously no point paying for gigabytes of RAM from which you’ll receive no material gain.
Does more equal faster?
Many people assume that adding memory makes a PC significantly faster, and in some cases it does. Sticking an extra pair of DIMMs into a motherboard won’t change the speed at which the processor executes code, but it can help in other ways, especially on older systems with 2GB of RAM or less, since adding RAM reduces the need for Windows to rely on “virtual memory”.
Simply put, virtual memory is a file on your hard disk that serves as temporary storage when your PC’s “real” memory is full. Virtual memory makes it possible, for example, to have several heavyweight applications running at once, even if they won’t fit simultaneously in RAM. When you switch from one to another, Windows quickly swaps the relevant data from the disk into real memory, which explains why the virtual memory file is sometimes called a swap file. If you’ve set Windows Explorer to show hidden files, you can see the swap file in the root directory of your system disk; depending on which version of Windows you’re using, it will be called pagefile.sys or swapfile.sys.
(Excerpt) Read more at pcauthority.com.au ...
Recently I have been considering getting them upgraded to 4GB at least, but really do not know how significantly that might speed them up. I also wonder how much better they would perform with 8 or even 16 Gigs on them, since I think the 64-bit CPUs might be able to handle it.
Is it worth the extra expense?
More is usually better- depending on what you do with the machine. Don’t get more than 4 GB unless you have a 64 bit operating system though. I max everything, always.
Ping!
All of it.
Depends on what you’re doing. Bring up the disk monitor and watch for the amount of thrashing going on.
One memory hog program is Firefox if it's been left on a while. I've found that it often has substantial memory leaks, and can take a lot of space if it's been on for a few days. (That can be reclaimed by exiting and restarting the program.) YMMV, of course.
“...alternate/backup have 2CB”? Sorry, that should read 2GB, not 2CB.
Need to type slower and more awake. :)
And then some.
And I'm not a codeslinger/bytehead.
5.56mm
A basic machine handles that sort of thing just fine.
Now, if you're editing video, or playing certain games, then more RAM and a better processor may be of some benefit.
But overall, the capabilities of the machines outweigh the needs of almost all consumers. Corporations want you to buy "more", but few people need "more".
Using a single 64bit linux pc with 2gb of ram and it blows all my windoze pcs away and they have duocore proc and twice the ram
4GB would be the bare minimum I would recommend for a Win 7 machine. You will see a significant increase in response speed going up to 8GB, and then a diminishing return to about 16GB. After that, unless you are running several very intensive programs, you will not see any speed increase.
Well, a lot of it has to do with resource usage.
If you remember the Commodore 128, which had 128kb of RAM there was some pretty amazing stuff they did — to include a graphical operating-environment; see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEOS_%288-bit_operating_system%29
The Amiga also had some impressive abilities, despite what would be considered meager system resources by today’s standards.
So the question becomes so much more interesting when you consider how effectively you are using what you have.
When it comes to memory, more is ALWAYS better.
Computers are so fast now that they have to have brakes on them because of the limitation of the speed of light across the length of the motherboard. Unless you are doing some kind of heavy math, you won’t know the difference on processing, but, you will on memory.
Graphics memory is another place that more is better.
My first personal computer has 21k of memory and a tape drive for storage.
I am running various flavours of Linux on all the machines, which version depends upon which function each machine is geared toward. Most of the customers I work with are running XP or Vista, though.
Agree about the Firefox memory drain. Fortunately I use Opera for simple browsing and email-access so no worries there.
I remember working on the RCA301 with 10K memory. :)
For routine work:
XP works well with 1MB
Vista works well with 2MB
Windows 7 works well with 4MB
Less than those isn’t a great idea.
For heavy duty loads like various sorts of virtual machine usage, more is better, much better.
The biggest speed bump comes from a SSD instead of a HD.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.