Defying the RaM myth...

[Kitros]

I understand that the only things that go into RaM are TSRs, and instructions for each program... and RaM does NOT house actual files...

Speculation:

If all you are doing is gaming, then all you'd need is 128mb.

If you are rendering or editing, it seems all you need is ~384mb.

The only reason you'd need >1gb is if you had a server that is performing multiple tasks with mulitple programs at a time.

Testing:

so... if someone has some time, I would like to see if this is true.

-Render or edit something that is intensive enough where it is believed that RaM is important on a 500-800 mhz machine, and then try it on a ~1.4 ghz machine with similar specs. Use 256mb on each and time it. Then, use 512mb on each and test it. I guess 1gb wouldn't produce different results....

What I noticed was it took the same amount of time on the same machine with different RaM amounts, adding some effects to an mpeg file. The difference was quite noticeable between the 2 different cpus.

Anyone else have any thoughts on this?

...or am I completely wrong? ( ya gotta prove it though! )

 

[Rainsford]

Hmm, I'd say you're wrong. My proof? I paid for my 512megs of RAM and I damn sure need it Really though, I'd rather have too much than not enough, especially because it's so cheap right now. My first 128 megs cost as much as the last 384. Stupid economy.

 

[jhu]

ram does hold program data and cached files that are frequently used (depending on the os).

 

[wfbberzerker]

<< If all you are doing is gaming, then all you'd need is 128mb. >>

more like 256. and thats just win98. if you are in win2k or winxp, then 256 is the minimum

 

[Brutus]

<< I understand that the only things that go into RaM are TSRs, and instructions for each program... and RaM does NOT house actual files...

Speculation:

If all you are doing is gaming, then all you'd need is 128mb.

If you are rendering or editing, it seems all you need is ~384mb.

The only reason you'd need >1gb is if you had a server that is performing multiple tasks with mulitple programs at a time.

Testing:

so... if someone has some time, I would like to see if this is true.

-Render or edit something that is intensive enough where it is believed that RaM is important on a 500-800 mhz machine, and then try it on a ~1.4 ghz machine with similar specs. Use 256mb on each and time it. Then, use 512mb on each and test it. I guess 1gb wouldn't produce different results....

What I noticed was it took the same amount of time on the same machine with different RaM amounts, adding some effects to an mpeg file. The difference was quite noticeable between the 2 different cpus.

Anyone else have any thoughts on this?

...or am I completely wrong? ( ya gotta prove it though! ) >>



Well did you do anything to force your computer to utilize the additional memory, like disabling virtual memory? Change your settings to utilize the memory for user programs instead of system process caching?

Just curious what else you did besides pop an extra chip in... For instance, take 256 MB ram and completely turn off your swap files. Open Photoshop, 3DMax, and work for about 3 minutes until it crashes from running out of memory. Put in a Gig of ram and keep it disabled and your performance increase will be infinite...