How much RAM is too much? 32gb? 64gb?

[Jeff7181]

Jeff7181, while I agree that servers indeed are "the game as it should be played™", they are clearly not the playground of most posters in this thread.

True, but we're talking about may an extra $40 to get 8 GB vs. 4 GB. In my mind, there's no reason not to spend that $40.

 

[taltamir]

True, but we're talking about may an extra $40 to get 8 GB vs. 4 GB. In my mind, there's no reason not to spend that $40.

less then 20$ actually.
Going from 8GB to 16GB (assuming you have 2x4GB) is 40$.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...66&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&Order=PRICE&PageSize=20
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...69&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&Order=PRICE&PageSize=20

 

[BFG10K]

Are you talking about SuperFetch here? If not, do you have a link?

Not super-fetch, disk caching. Any OS with dynamic memory allocation will have it to some degree, whereby data loaded into the RAM is not immediately released unless something else needs it. I’ll bet even Windows 95 had a simple version of it.

Super-fetch is slightly different in that it actively fetches data from the disk pre-emptively so that when you need it, it’s already there. It does this by analysing boot and usage patterns. This form of caching has been around since XP.

With all the comments I’ve been reading lately about people not knowing this, I’m starting to wonder if a lot of the “my SSD made a huge difference” posts are actually erroneously attributing SSD performance to disk caching.

 

[taltamir]

With all the comments I’ve been reading lately about people not knowing this, I’m starting to wonder if a lot of the “my SSD made a huge difference” posts are actually erroneously attributing SSD performance to disk caching.

How can that be? replacing a HDD with an SSD does not improve your disk caching. You need more RAM or a newer OS.

 

[BFG10K]

How can that be? replacing a HDD with an SSD does not improve your disk caching.

Because their methods of testing don’t always remove the disk cache from the equation. In those instances they attribute the fast performance to SSD when it’s actually coming from the RAM. The masses don’t know better, which adds to the mass hysteria about SSDs.

I’m not saying an SSD isn’t faster than an HDD, but some of the claims I’ve seen are extraordinary, to say the least. Like the guy in PC Gaming who claimed Fallout 3 loaded 20 times faster.

You need more RAM or a newer OS.

It’s interesting you made that comment because it leads to another point. I’ve also seen people performing total system upgrades (which included faster CPUs and more RAM), and then inferring the SSD is the cause of the performance gain.

It might well be, but you can’t make such an inference because other things have changed. The CPU can impact loading times of files based on archives that need to be decompressed, for example.

 

[mrpiggy]

Well you can have too much RAM in a laptop or other portable device if battery life is a concern. RAM is always drawing current so double the RAM memory and double the current = shorter battery life. It's not a ton compared to some other computer electronics current draw, but it is not insignificant as the RAM can't be put to sleep or anything like some other devices can be.

 

[Jeff7181]

Well you can have too much RAM in a laptop or other portable device if battery life is a concern. RAM is always drawing current so double the RAM memory and double the current = shorter battery life. It's not a ton compared to some other computer electronics current draw, but it is not insignificant as the RAM can't be put to sleep or anything like some other devices can be.

Unless having that extra RAM means stuff isn't being swapped to a mechanical HDD.

 

[mrpiggy]

Unless having that extra RAM means stuff isn't being swapped to a mechanical HDD.

Well perhaps in the context of "My laptop has a couple SODIMM slots, so I better fill them with the biggest one I can buy; just because I can!"

 

[Cerb]

Because their methods of testing don’t always remove the disk cache from the equation. In those instances they attribute the fast performance to SSD when it’s actually coming from the RAM. The masses don’t know better, which adds to the mass hysteria about SSDs.

I’m not saying an SSD isn’t faster than an HDD, but some of the claims I’ve seen are extraordinary, to say the least. Like the guy in PC Gaming who claimed Fallout 3 loaded 20 times faster.

First load, with a bunch of mods? That's an exaggeration, for sure, but it's definitely drive-limited, with mods. The first game load for me takes about 10-15 seconds, with a C2D and Samsung F3 1TB, and 8GB RAM.

Second or later load, after a CTD (ah, Gamebryo...)? It should barely need to touch the drive, and it rarely takes mine longer than 5 seconds. The real drag is that the initial splash sequence can't be skipped, and an SSD won't help that.

P.S. Timed it at 12 seconds for firs load of most recent save (94 hours), <2 seconds for any save after closing and re-running the game.

I'd like an SSD, but until a >=256GB one is downright cheap, it's not worth it for me (at current prices, CPU+RAM+mobo would be far better), largely for the same reasons you've noted, both in this thread and others. Also, that I like only having one drive, after meany years of using multiple ones for performance. It would be nice, but I generally lose less than a minute/day to the HDD.

Ironically, the people I know that benefit most, and also those for whom I will force one upon when they upgrade, are all "internet == big blue E" types , with pathologically storage-limited programs, typically tax and accounting software (<100MB files going from "not fragmented" to 50K+ fragments in a month, and they get read, entirely, when loaded...it's sick just how slow it can be).

 

[taltamir]

Because their methods of testing don’t always remove the disk cache from the equation. In those instances they attribute the fast performance to SSD when it’s actually coming from the RAM. The masses don’t know better, which adds to the mass hysteria about SSDs.

I’m not saying an SSD isn’t faster than an HDD, but some of the claims I’ve seen are extraordinary, to say the least. Like the guy in PC Gaming who claimed Fallout 3 loaded 20 times faster.

Plausible, also in reverse (if they test the SSD first and then the HDD they get improved HDD results).
Its worth clarifying this to people.

 

[Jeff7181]

Well perhaps in the context of "My laptop has a couple SODIMM slots, so I better fill them with the biggest one I can buy; just because I can!"

Or in the context of, "I'd like my computer to perform well, even if it means spending an extra $40 on my $800 computer."

 

[BFG10K]

First load, with a bunch of mods? That's an exaggeration, for sure, but it's definitely drive-limited, with mods. The first game load for me takes about 10-15 seconds, with a C2D and Samsung F3 1TB, and 8GB RAM.

Second or later load, after a CTD (ah, Gamebryo...)? It should barely need to touch the drive, and it rarely takes mine longer than 5 seconds. The real drag is that the initial splash sequence can't be skipped, and an SSD won't help that.

P.S. Timed it at 12 seconds for firs load of most recent save (94 hours), <2 seconds for any save after closing and re-running the game.

I timed it on an SSD and Caviar Black – 8.5 seconds on the HDD, and 5.5 seconds on the SSD for the first run. All DLCs installed, high resolution texture pack, Project Purity saved game after ~200 hours of gameplay.

He claimed 1 second on the SSD and 20 seconds on the HDD, so it’s obvious his SSD “test” was coming from the disk cache.

He also had a Caviar Black like me, so I’m thinking his SSD wasn’t the only thing that was upgraded between the tests. Fallout 3 uses compressed archives (some over 1GB in size) so the CPU could also be a factor there.

 

[Cerb]

Here:
All DLCs
Fallout Redesigned (was Project Beauty)
Streetlights
DC Interiors Project
Fellout (Xepha's has tinting now, and I can't find an old version)
Xepha's Darkened Interiors
Shadows and Dust
Clean-Deluxe GOTYE
DarnUI (also: hi-res world map, new map icons, pitt gal stats)
Kikai Equipment
R.H. Ironsights
Weapon Mod Kits
MMMF
FWE
Fallout Remastered
GNR Enhanced
CASM
Misc. equipment add-ons, Type3 and armor mesh replacers, and a small subset of NMC's textures (VRAM is precious, but fuzzy rocks and pavement are irritating)
Auto-aim fix (redundant w/ FWE, but it's still in my load order, and this load order works)
FO3Edit merged patch
Custom auto-aim fix (some FWE guns still rise, so set distance to 100k, and something else I forget, now)
And, to top it all off, my whole FO3 folder is compressed, which I wasn't even thinking of at first (it definitely helped when my data folder was >30GB and >40k files, but now it's just 14GB and 8k files, so it's probably doing nothing but saving space).

 

[Revolution 11]

I think the amount of RAM that is too much is RAM you don't need. No matter how cheap the RAM is, if you are never going to use it, you are wasting money. A person who merely uses browsers and plays music on their PC does not need 12 GB of RAM.

That said, most computers don't have enough RAM, in my experience. I have ancient Pentium 4 computers that seem to run twice as fast if I increase the RAM from 1 GB to 4 GB. Clearly, 4 GB is the new floor limit for RAM (for most people) since a 32bit application is able to use up to 2 GB of RAM. Depending on the OS and background software bloat, another 512 MB to 1.5 GB of RAM can be used (on my computer). Getting at least 6 GB of RAM would go a long way towards preventing disk swaps.

8 GB of RAM is now the price of what 4 GB used to be a few years ago. Even with Windows XP, I could use the extra 4 GB for a RAMdisk. That Samsung 30 nm low-profile RAM looks very tasty....

 

[dave_the_nerd]

If that's the case, worry less about your 8GBs of memory and revamp your storage configuration.

"x25m g2 80gb + wd20ears"
...Very old school

That's not just old school now, but "very" old school? Well, shit.

If the rock I live under trips your high horse, we can go out for a beer.

 

[Magic Carpet]

8 GB of RAM is now the price of what 4 GB used to be a few years ago. Even with Windows XP, I could use the extra 4 GB for a RAMdisk.

I wish, 32-bit Windows had the ability to make use of 4gb+ RAM.

 

[N4n45h1]

I wish, 32-bit Windows had the ability to make use of 4gb+ RAM.

I wish for the same thing. The computers at work have had 8GB+ RAM for the longest time, but almost all of the computers (minus mine and a handful of others) are running 32bit...

 

[Gillbot]

I think the amount of RAM that is too much is RAM you don't need. No matter how cheap the RAM is, if you are never going to use it, you are wasting money. A person who merely uses browsers and plays music on their PC does not need 12 GB of RAM.

That said, most computers don't have enough RAM, in my experience. I have ancient Pentium 4 computers that seem to run twice as fast if I increase the RAM from 1 GB to 4 GB. Clearly, 4 GB is the new floor limit for RAM (for most people) since a 32bit application is able to use up to 2 GB of RAM. Depending on the OS and background software bloat, another 512 MB to 1.5 GB of RAM can be used (on my computer). Getting at least 6 GB of RAM would go a long way towards preventing disk swaps.

8 GB of RAM is now the price of what 4 GB used to be a few years ago. Even with Windows XP, I could use the extra 4 GB for a RAMdisk. That Samsung 30 nm low-profile RAM looks very tasty....

By that same thought though, most people should still be on P4 systems because they can still readily browse the web and play MP3's or freecell fine.

 

[tweakboy]

I'm planning an Ivb upgrade on BF. Hopefully win 8 won't require pro to get 32+ gb, though I have no problem if I must get that.

Dont worry about that. Windows 8 is like Windows phone 8 ,,,,, same thing on tablet and other devices

As far as desktop wise, why should I use 8 ,,,, with no start menu and button and jumplist,,,,,, its gay now,, You move big tiles around ,, I just wanna go to music ,, Im blind so I need that banner saying music,, stupid OS,, will never install it.. I wont install nothing,,, oh and did I mention the syncing with XBOX , I h8 box,,,,,,,,, most of the crap I dont need... its a smart phone windows 8 phone,, they both look the same,, Microsoft can kiss it,,,,, W7U is a solid and their best OS tested with MAC and Linux and what not,, so I will stick with that,, I dont need Metro ,, plus I already get apps with Chrome Store ,, thx gl

 

[Soundmanred]

,,,,,, its gay now,,

Really?

 

[bryanW1995]

Reality: 4GB - 8GB

Anandtech answer: RAM is cheap, so stock up on as much as possible, even when the gains are literally 0.0%

If there were no gain then I would certainly not recommend more RAM. Heck, I ran a Vista 64 rig at work with 1gb of ram for a year. However, unless everything that you do NEVER has to access the hdd/ssd, you can at least benefit from additional RAM by making a RAMdisk.

 

[bryanW1995]

Not super-fetch, disk caching. Any OS with dynamic memory allocation will have it to some degree, whereby data loaded into the RAM is not immediately released unless something else needs it. I’ll bet even Windows 95 had a simple version of it.

Super-fetch is slightly different in that it actively fetches data from the disk pre-emptively so that when you need it, it’s already there. It does this by analysing boot and usage patterns. This form of caching has been around since XP.

With all the comments I’ve been reading lately about people not knowing this, I’m starting to wonder if a lot of the “my SSD made a huge difference” posts are actually erroneously attributing SSD performance to disk caching.

That was certainly not the case in my rig(s) that have ssd's installed.

 

[Emulex]

ssd performance is LATENCY- why the X25-V which writes slower than a modern 5400rpm drive is effin fast (.001ms versus 14ms) - and NCQ where the drive is faster when pushed harder which the laws of physics deny a hard drive

 

[Magic Carpet]

I wish for the same thing. The computers at work have had 8GB+ RAM for the longest time, but almost all of the computers (minus mine and a handful of others) are running 32bit...

ASRock has some kind of utility that makes that RAM available but I haven't tried that. ASRock XFast RAM. Anybody have experience with it?

 

[Revolution 11]

By that same thought though, most people should still be on P4 systems because they can still readily browse the web and play MP3's or freecell fine.

Heh, maybe most people should be on P4 systems b/c that is what they do. But technology moves on and we continue to get increases in performance/efficiency/cost in CPUs on a regular, roughly predictable basis.

Most people continue to buy CPUs (as part of retail-sold computers) because their computers will eventually die and they buy a replacement or because someone in their family now wants their own computer.

BTW, there was a noticable difference even in browsing between the Core 2 processors and the P4. There is less difference between the Core 2 and the SNB/IVB processors for basic tasks.

The same is true of RAM. Going up to 4 GB will improve the computing experience. Going up to 8, not so much. More than that is currently unnoticable.