Benefits of 4Gb RAM vs 2Gb

[Lanz]

I have 3 vista machines.

A laptop with 1GB running 32bit.
A media center with 2Gb running 32bit.
and Gaming PC with 4GB running 64bit.

All of them do the job just fine. The most trouble I've had is with the 64bit one, mainly due to flakey drivers (or no driver atall for odd bits like wireless cards, old webcams etc) I've only ever had a bluescreen on the 64bit version.

Things are snapper with 4GB (but only once everything is cached), but I very much doubt you'd see any increase if fps on any game currently. So it all depends on what sort of performance you are after.

 

[helmutcheese]

That's a bit presumptuous. I've been running Vista (albeit in 32-bit guide) since June/July last year and have only just gone to 4GB. Vista ran very well on 2GB of RAM, and runs just the same with the 3.2GB it can address now. To be fair, I haven't tried any games out yet, but I'm not anticipating a world of difference.

4GB is a good amount to have, especially on a higher-end machine or where gaming is concerned, but it's certainly not necessary. Never once have I felt my machine was struggling to cope with 'just' 2GB of RAM.

I dont really care what you have done or not done, the fact is you aint even on a OS that can use 4GB or gamed on it so come back when you do.

I and others and reviews sites all show 4GB is better than 2GB, I really only care about what I think and its snappier and I actually do use my PC for more than surfing Pr0n.

 

[Mattus]

I dont really care what you have done or not done, the fact is you aint even on a OS that can use 4GB or gamed on it so come back when you do.

There's no need for that.

If TheVoice doesn't see any difference between 2GB and 3.2GB, why should he see any difference going to 4? This depends on your usage pattern. I like to have a couple of Linux virtual machines running in the background, whilst maybe playing a game and running other apps that can suck memory like iTunes. For me, 4GB is useful and I do notice the difference. If you don't run several memory-intensive applications simultaneously, it's less useful.

He wasn't questioning that 4GB is better than 2GB. He was saying that in his usage of the PC, he doesn't need the extra RAM. There's no doubt that a quad-core is faster than a Celeron, but you wouldn't recommend a quad to your granny, would you? Horses for courses.

 

[Fire Wizard]

4GB is a good amount to have, especially on a higher-end machine or where gaming is concerned, but it's certainly not necessary. Never once have I felt my machine was struggling to cope with 'just' 2GB of RAM.

I couldn't agree more with you. When I first purchased Windows Vista 64-bit, I only had 2GB of RAM installed in my system and I was extremely happy with the way my system was performing. I have just recently upgraded to 4GB of RAM and whilst things are quicker and would say that if you can afford 4GB of RAM and are using Windows Vista, defiantly go ahead and purchase 4GB of RAM, it certainly isn't a requirement.

I dont really care what you have done or not done, the fact is you aint even on a OS that can use 4GB or gamed on it so come back when you do.

Hello helmutcheese, may I suggest calming down a bit. TheVoice was simply expressing his opinion, his post was in no way offensive and there was certainly no need to act the way that you did.

 

[helmutcheese]

There's no need for that.

If TheVoice doesn't see any difference between 2GB and 3.2GB, why should he see any difference going to 4? This depends on your usage pattern. I like to have a couple of Linux virtual machines running in the background, whilst maybe playing a game and running other apps that can suck memory like iTunes. For me, 4GB is useful and I do notice the difference. If you don't run several memory-intensive applications simultaneously, it's less useful.

He wasn't questioning that 4GB is better than 2GB. He was saying that in his usage of the PC, he doesn't need the extra RAM. There's no doubt that a quad-core is faster than a Celeron, but you wouldn't recommend a quad to your granny, would you? Horses for courses.

I dont give a monkey's, he doesnt even have a 64bit OS or game so he does not have much input into this 1000x dupe topic until then.

And you obv cant read too well, he was quoting me claiming that 2GB to 4GB makes no difference not just his own PC, then he admits he is on 32bit and not gamed "yet" .

I wish peeps would stop moving goalposts and learn to use the SEARCH and not post threads that are asked multiple time per week.

 

[helmutcheese]

I couldn't agree more with you. When I first purchased Windows Vista 64-bit, I only had 2GB of RAM installed in my system and I was extremely happy with the way my system was performing. I have just recently upgraded to 4GB of RAM and whilst things are slightly quicker, I certainly didn't notice a massive boost in performance.



Hello helmutcheese, may I suggest calming down a bit. TheVoice was simply expressing his opinion, his post was in no way offensive and there was certainly no need to act the way that you did.

Read above, I dont even give his opinion any plus value as he is on a 32bit OS that cant use 4GB and not even gamed.


At no time did I curse or name call him, but I am sick of the useless info given out, I advise anyone to go and Google like 10+ reviews on 2GB v 4GB in Vista and then decide for themselfs if they need it.

The fact remains its cheap as chips today.

 

[Lanz]

Read above, I dont even give his opinion any plus value as he is no a 32bit OS that cant use 4GB and not even gamed.

That doesnt really matter, no game will use the 3.5gb he can address with 32bit, and no game will use the 4gb that you can address. So in reality his opinion is valid, as unless you use OVER 4GB, then 64bit or 32bit Vista performance is virtually identical. You'll get the same fps in games just so long as you dont page to disk, which doesnt even happen with 2GB.

helmutcheese you seem aggressive today for no reason. Everyone is entitled to their opinion in this boring old 2GB vs 4GB rubbish that has been answered a million times before. You have your opinion about the matter and the other guy has his.

 

[james.miller]

That doesnt really matter, no game will use the 3.5gb he can address with 32bit, and no game will use the 4gb that you can address. So in reality his opinion is valid, as unless you use OVER 4GB, then 64bit or 32bit Vista performance is virtually identical. You'll get the same fps in games just so long as you dont page to disk, which doesnt even happen with 2GB.

helmutcheese you seem aggressive today for no reason. Everyone is entitled to their opinion in this boring old 2GB vs 4GB rubbish that has been answered a million times before. You have your opinion about the matter and the other guy has his.

careful. there is at least 1 game around that'll crash under a 32bit os and less than 4gb of ram.

there is a nice boost going from 2gb to 4gb on vista, speed in general is improved the more you use it. remember vista is very more efficiant with memory. the more you have, the more it'll use for caching and so improving usage in general. if you are buying ram, with todays prices there is really no need to get less than 4gb

 

[helmutcheese]

I still dont agree and did not say any game took 4GB but PC has to run lots other stuff and the game and 2GB wont cut it for some games on fully loaded Vista64 Ult.

I accept others opinions but not someone on a 32bit OS who aint gamed on it, telling others on 64bit OS who do game that it dont make a difference.

I can tell you for a fact, I had to go from 1GB to 2GB years ago to play F.E.A.R on XP-SP2 at my choosen settings.

The game took all my Ram and Page File and stuttered, so I stopped playing and ordered new at the time 2GB Corsair kit and game ran sweet.

Now that was a long time ago and the game is no longer the most taxing but it was one of the 1st to be proven by reviews to run better at higher settings if 2GB Memory was fitted.

BF2 and CoD2 were 2 other games benefiting from 2GB if high settings.

I would like to see at least 10 reviews that show 4GB over 2GB in Vista64 makes no difference.

 

[Yellowbeard]

FWIW, no one here yet knows the OPs usages. If he checks email surfs the net, 2gb is plenty obviously. Some users that have in fact experienced good performance increases under heavy usages and have pointed out the obvious, Vista loves RAM and 4gb is dirt cheap.


It's kind of pointless to toss about advice without more facts. So, let's look back:

I'm currently running Vista on an E8200 with 2Gb RAM. Would I see any considerable performance gains by doubling this in all areas?

It depends on your usage. What do you use the system for, what is your complete system specification now, and have you had performance problems related to running out of memory?

Is 4Gb a must for 64 bit Vista?

No, it is not a "MUST".

In short, as cheap as 4gb of memory is, if you have the $$$, now is a great time to buy it. But, if you don't "need" 4gb then you may see very little if any improvement.

 

[Lanz]

Yeah 1gb to 2gb does make a difference in games, as BF2 for example uses about 1.7GB when on high. But as far as I know, there still is NO game (that i have seen) that takes your system over the 2GB peak commit charge. Meaning that you wont see more fps.

Dont get me wrong, 4GB is good for Vista64, but its not essential and you certainly arent missing out of any real performance not having it (unless you run multiple apps)

When you alt-tab or quit games, your desktop will come back quicker with 4GB, thats all good, but actually in-game, you wouldnt be able to tell the difference.

 

[helmutcheese]

I agree with the above (Yellowbeards post), and you can see uptill the point someone (not the OP) inputed about me being "presumptuous" I was more calm and aiming towards the OP's post

I also said someone surfing Pron wont need 4GB.

I may not encide as much as years gone by but as I have already stated, 4GB means my HDD is Tamer and Raptors Seeking away LOUD.

Even with 4GB, you will always at some time PAGE.

 

[Yellowbeard]

I also said someone surfing Pron wont need 4GB.

I disagree! If you are doing it right you need 4gb!

Oh, and someone stated that

You'll get the same fps in games just so long as you dont page to disk, which doesnt even happen with 2GB.

This is incorrect It pages to disk even with 4gb.

In my limited testing with Vista 64bit and 4gb of memory, Crysis and Sins of a Solar Empire, after game loading and with no game play, total system memory used is about 2.1gb. Obviously, it will run and will use less memory with a 2gb set up. But, we still don't really know what the OP is doing with his machine so it's a bit pointless to discuss it.

 

[helmutcheese]

Yellowbeard must be streaming No! to eat into 4GB

WOW 2.1GB used doing nothing in game, wonder what happens when you are in big open space with lots of baddies/action.

3GB+ ?

 

[Yellowbeard]

Yellowbeard must be streaming No! to eat into 4GB

It's ONLY for official research and testing memory usage.

WOW 2.1GB used doing nothing in game, wonder what happens when you are in big open space with lots of baddies/action.

3GB+ ?

The way Vista reserves memory I have no clue. It may not go much higher than 2.1gb. And, obviously the games will run with 2gb of system memory. I have not yet compared to see how it will affect the gameplay. I doubt it will do much for FPS as memory rarely does. But, 4gb may help the disk I/O and page file or virtual memory usage.

 

[reflux]

Not sure if it has already been mentioned but in the current issue of Custom PC magazine they tested 2GB VS. 4GB, in a 32-bit OS. It made barely any difference in their application benchmarks, but they advised that it would be helpful if you had lots of large photoshop images open or tons of tabs in FF.

As for gaming, they reported that large games of CoH or SupCom would stutter now and then, and with the increased amount of RAM it felt much smoother, although this was difficult to represent in a benchmark.

Anyways, saw this and I bought some. I may only run XP 32-bit, but its a good deal and I wanted some RAM that had proper cooling on it.

 

[Mattus]

I dont give a monkey's, he doesnt even have a 64bit OS or game so he does not have much input into this 1000x dupe topic until then.

What? You seem to be under the impression that gaming is the only thing you can do with your PC that uses memory. The OP asked which performance gains he would see in all areas. You can't rubbish someone's opinion because they don't play games.

It amuses me that you can't see why anybody would need RAM other than to play games, you seem to think that a 64-bit OS does something magic with memory which makes it incomparable to 32-bit, you come up with nuggets of wisdom such as this:

4GB is so cheap if you dont want to buy it, dont bother moving from XP as you obv aint into the latest.

... and yet you still claim to be:

sick of the useless info given out.

 

[james.miller]

Yeah 1gb to 2gb does make a difference in games, as BF2 for example uses about 1.7GB when on high. But as far as I know, there still is NO game (that i have seen) that takes your system over the 2GB peak commit charge. Meaning that you wont see more fps.

HL2 with the cinematic mod - crashes if you only have 2gb of ram.

 

[helmutcheese]

@ Mattus, dont make up BS, I did not say anything about the OP's use or only gaming, my arguement was with another poster and I stated that, so your are hours late.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it m8. (seems as if your are smoking something anyhow)

 

[bledd]

massive difference, it's like going from 512 to 1024 in xp