8GB vs 16GB

When playing Crysis 2, I don't use over 3GB (win7 ult, few background apps etc).

The only reason I'd want loads of RAM would be for putting a whole game on RAM disk for epic load times.
 
JasonM said:
Windows 7 will pre-fetch data it thinks you may need into standby memory. I have 16GB ram and often see just a few mb left, yet only have 6-7gb in actual use. If applications do need this memory, then standby (cached) memory is released. So even with 16GB or more memory, providing the computer is left on long enough to pre-fetch, it's never really wasted memory.
Click to expand...

Do you notice any speed difference after things have been cached in mem?
 
Atom said:
Do you notice any speed difference after things have been cached in mem?
Click to expand...

It's very responsive at loading applications, once everything loaded most would be pressed to separate my system from an SSD boot/app system.

After I first load, if I open disk access (from performance monitor) I can see dll's been read for all sorts of things, everything from Company of Heros (only game I play) to Office dll's. This is prefetch doing it's job.
 
Last edited:
I had 4gb and added another 4gb (4x2gb), made zero difference. Only cost £20 though so I'm happy. :)

I have only filled 4gb once during gaming, I was playing Crysis for a few hours, got to the final level and it suddenly dropped from 60fps to about 0.2fps.


If I was building a new system I'd put 8gb (2x4gb) in it, I'd never need more than that before I upgrade to DDR4 anyway.
 
TBH Lightroom is the only thing that uses the majority of the 8GB I have already - 16GB is only of any use if you have a specific application that will make use of it, such as video editing etc.
 
I have a M4 for os but also have 16gb here to put in. 8gb will be plenty but wondering if 16gb is worth it or a total waste. I bought it while on offer so if I don't use it I will end up selling it.
 
I'm on 4GB of 1600MHz CL7 which I bought in 2009 for about £75 but at some point I'm going to add an identical kit which I bought (brand new) for £10 this year.

Just ghastly how fast computer hardware loses value.

I have no need for 16GB, I don't actually have a need for 8GB, I'm only thinking of upgrading for the hell of it.
 
burrell said:
Never.
Click to expand...

demuxing the audio on a BD rip can sometimes use all 16gb ;)

photoshop can easily use over 8gb so thats the main reason i got 16gb. that and ive reduced the swap file down to 2-4gb as its just not needed (its never grown from 2gb so can assume its not being used but left it there for stability in some apps).
 
RE Ramdisk: Running the risk of repeating myself, windows will cache files that are accessed often in standby memory, it's transparent and windows manages it all for you.

I expect once you add the overhead of populating the Ram disk from HDD, other than write performance I expect application loading would be similar if from standby memory or ramdisk.

Other downside with ramdisk is you copy a whole application in, but not all files will be required by that application, so parts of your ramdisk are totally wasted. Again standby memory will transparently cache what's required, and balance memory with what's required as application & system memory.
 
Last edited:
Over the years I went from
128mb to 256mb
256mb to 512mb
512mb to 1gb
1gb to 2gb
2gb to 4gb

In every case peeps used to say I didn't need it. In every case it was a great upgrade that I never regretted. Memory is cheap atm, so I say go for it! I have 8gb in the post as I write, but much as I'd like 16, another 8 would stretch the wallet a bit too much!
 
^ I remember people LOL'ing at me in the Windows forum when I confidently suggested around 2005-2006 that 4GB for Vista machines would be commonplace, especially x64 variants.

People, basically, are idiots. Go with what you know to be true.
 
JasonM said:
RE Ramdisk: Running the risk of repeating myself, windows will cache files that are accessed often in standby memory, it's transparent and windows manages it all for you.

I expect once you add the overhead of populating the Ram disk from HDD, other than write performance I expect application loading would be similar if from standby memory or ramdisk.

Other downside with ramdisk is you copy a whole application in, but not all files will be required by that application, so parts of your ramdisk are totally wasted. Again standby memory will transparently cache what's required, and balance memory with what's required as application & system memory.
Click to expand...

Yup, I'd agree with the first section. W7 actually does a pretty good job of it too.

Yeah, populating a RAMDisk isn't nice.

Copying in a whole application, wasting space on unused files, isn't really a big issue as the ramdrive is usually a fixed size so it's already there to be used. Copying those files over might be a timewaste tho.

Ramdrives do have a plus side tho, depending on what you use your PC for :)
 
I think 4GB is the sweet spot for gaming. As long as games are still running in x86 mode we don't need more.
 
Last edited:
For games yes, but you're forgetting that the OS and background apps use RAM too even when gaming so it's best to have more RAM anyway. 8GB is the "sweet spot" for a station that serves multiple duties throughout the day.
 
I'm certainly going 16 in my current upgrade cycle. The four I have now is fine for gaming but is stretched for work, often have word, ppt, excel, mappoint, photoshop, browsers, various comms programmes doing bits and bobs in all of them and particularly when i throw photoshop in there it gets very stretched
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom