When will 2X2GB of RAM become the norm?

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: spyordie007
Since we're all just throwing out arbitrary numbers I say 6 months!

Ummm... My numbers/dates aren't just 'thrown out'.

 

[jamesbond007]

To those who are running Vista:

I currently have a 3.4GHz P4/HT, 2GB DDR2, 7800GT...I think the rest should be inmaterial. I like to play BF2 when I get the chance and since school is coming to a close for the semester, I should have more time to play it. Long story short, since most 32-bit systems, like mine, can't take true advantage of having 4x1GB modules (4GB total), would it be worth my while to go with 2x512 and 2x1GB for a total of 3GB when I install Vista Business in a couple weeks? I'd mainly like to ensure smooth playback of BF2, not to forget my other regular apps like Adobe PS, Lightroom, Office, etc...

I THINK my system can handle Vista fine for another year or two before really needing a major system upgrade. My system is going on 2.5 years old and it's been a great machine thus far and with XP, has never given me any kind of problems. Plays and does everything I ask it to without lag and hesitation.

 

[spyordie007]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: spyordie007
Since we're all just throwing out arbitrary numbers I say 6 months!

Ummm... My numbers/dates aren't just 'thrown out'.

I wasn't specifically referring to your posts...

Although now that you mention it you said 14-22 months. I'm just nitpicking of course, but considering a base of 14 that's a ~57% variance

 

[bsobel]

Although now that you mention it you said 14-22 months. I'm just nitpicking of course, but considering a base of 14 that's a ~57% variance

Well, I can't give you a day, just a range with increasing probabilities. Until I see Santa Rosa adoption, it's hard to factor the notebook >4gig issue in. We won't have data on that for a few more months...

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: jamesbond007
To those who are running Vista:

I currently have a 3.4GHz P4/HT, 2GB DDR2, 7800GT...I think the rest should be inmaterial. I like to play BF2 when I get the chance and since school is coming to a close for the semester, I should have more time to play it. Long story short, since most 32-bit systems, like mine, can't take true advantage of having 4x1GB modules (4GB total), would it be worth my while to go with 2x512 and 2x1GB for a total of 3GB when I install Vista Business in a couple weeks? I'd mainly like to ensure smooth playback of BF2, not to forget my other regular apps like Adobe PS, Lightroom, Office, etc...

I'd be curious to hear if you notice the maps rotate more smoothly with the additional RAM available for them to stay cached in. I haven't played any of the BF series, but from what I understand, being one of the first guys onto the map is an advantage in multiplayer, correct? I wonder if SuperFetch would do this.


Speaking for myself, if I were currently using DDR2, I'd definitely grab another two 1GB modules for 4GB total, considering the dirt-cheap prices of DDR2 at the moment. Being on DDR1 and Socket 939, and not having a lot of money, I'm holding off for now. Maybe there'll be a quad-core rig with 8GB of RAM in my future someday

 

[Shawn]

2x1 is fine with me. I'd never buy a mobo with only 2 ram slots. I currently have 2x1GB and will probably add another 2x1GB in the future. My system will probably be long obsolete before i'd ever need more than 4GB.

 

[jamesbond007]

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Originally posted by: jamesbond007
To those who are running Vista:

I currently have a 3.4GHz P4/HT, 2GB DDR2, 7800GT...I think the rest should be inmaterial. I like to play BF2 when I get the chance and since school is coming to a close for the semester, I should have more time to play it. Long story short, since most 32-bit systems, like mine, can't take true advantage of having 4x1GB modules (4GB total), would it be worth my while to go with 2x512 and 2x1GB for a total of 3GB when I install Vista Business in a couple weeks? I'd mainly like to ensure smooth playback of BF2, not to forget my other regular apps like Adobe PS, Lightroom, Office, etc...

I'd be curious to hear if you notice the maps rotate more smoothly with the additional RAM available for them to stay cached in. I haven't played any of the BF series, but from what I understand, being one of the first guys onto the map is an advantage in multiplayer, correct? I wonder if SuperFetch would do this.


Speaking for myself, if I were currently using DDR2, I'd definitely grab another two 1GB modules for 4GB total, considering the dirt-cheap prices of DDR2 at the moment. Being on DDR1 and Socket 939, and not having a lot of money, I'm holding off for now. Maybe there'll be a quad-core rig with 8GB of RAM in my future someday

Well, on XP at least, going from 1GB to 2GB of RAM for BF2 was like night-and-day. There would be severe jitteryness in the smoothness of the graphics with only 1GB. Considering the fact that Superfetch essentially utilizes all RAM, 2GB would be gone in no time flat with BF2 loaded, or even before then.

A friend of mine put 4x1GB modules into his S939 board and his system is only able to address 3GB of it. What a bummer! Granted, he could just load a 64bit copy of Vista on there, but he's using 32-bit because of some hardware conflicts, at least that is what he says. Either way, at least he has the option of going 64bit. My processor does not have the EM64T flag, so I'm SOL in that department. That's why I was thinking 3GB would be the sweet spot for me. Even in Anand's article on Vista, 3GB is the new 2GB when comparing Vista to XP.

 

[Sunner]

When I bought the stuff for my current rig, I considered getting 4 GB.
After some consideration, I decided against it, it wouldn't have affected the budget of the rig by a whole lot, but I don't really fancy buying things that will give me little to nothing in terms of benefit.
I'd say most people will stay with 2 GB for a fair amount of time, though hard core gamers will probably move to 4 GB decently soonish.
And of course, professional users, but those tend to know what they need, and spec machines accordingly, and they'll end up with vastly differing specs depending on what they're working with.

For average home users, I still don't see a need for more than 1 GB, even with Vista chewing up a fair amount of RAM.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: pcslookout
8 GB will be the norm in a few months when newer power hungry games come out. You will need at least 8 GB ram to run smoothly and in a good comfort zone if you want anything else running even if its small in the background of Windows Vista.

A few months, meaning less than a year? I really doubt it. It's a game developers job to sell games, not RAM.

 

[Navid]

I would like to only fill 2 slots because of the limitations I have read are imposed by most motherboards on performance when using all 4 slots.
That was why I started this thread.

If it won't be long before I can benefit from 4G, I'd rather get 2X2G now.
If it will be more than a year, I will get 2X1G now and in a year, I will upgrade to 2X2G.

I do not do any photoshop editing.
I play games though.

 

[jlbenedict]

99% of computer users "need" no more than 512mb.
"Power" users are what: a small minority of the overall computer market?

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Navid
I would like to only fill 2 slots because of the limitations I have read are imposed by most motherboards on performance when using all 4 slots.

From what I understand, the difference between using 2 slots or 4 is 1T or 2T respectively, on my MB at least. In terms of performance is that a large difference? If it is I'd really like to save that $300 for another matched pair of 2x1gig and put it towards a new CPU/MB/2x2gig of DDR2.

 

[Smilin]

Getting very tight timings for today's high speed memory is difficult. Doing so on all 4 slots is sometimes not possible. You can use all 4 slots but be ready to back down from aggressive timings if you have stability problems.

Often the performance lost is gained by having more memory. It depends on a great number of factors though.

 

[Steve]

Originally posted by: jlbenedict
99% of computer users "need" no more than 512mb.
"Power" users are what: a small minority of the overall computer market?

As the demands of running the OS increase, so will this - in order to provide an average user's experience.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: jlbenedict
99% of computer users "need" no more than 512mb.
"Power" users are what: a small minority of the overall computer market?

That may have been true when Windows XP first shipped, however now the base os (not counting even the applicaitons) use more and more power. And while some will say that no-one should even need more than 512k, I'll point out that the cost per megabyte is MUCH less now and the equivalent memory for the cost is now much higher.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Smilin
Getting very tight timings for today's high speed memory is difficult. Doing so on all 4 slots is sometimes not possible. You can use all 4 slots but be ready to back down from aggressive timings if you have stability problems.

Often the performance lost is gained by having more memory. It depends on a great number of factors though.

Thanks for the response. Smilin.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Smilin
Getting very tight timings for today's high speed memory is difficult. Doing so on all 4 slots is sometimes not possible. You can use all 4 slots but be ready to back down from aggressive timings if you have stability problems.

Often the performance lost is gained by having more memory. It depends on a great number of factors though.

Thanks for the response. Smilin.

sure, np! You can sometimes get a hint of how difficult it will be to get agressive timings by looking at the traces on your motherboard near the memory slots. If you see lots of "squiggles"..several inches of a back and forth zigzagging of a line it means the mobo maker is trying to address a timing issue by lengthening a wire. A little bit of this is normal but if it's excessive they might be having a tough time getting it to work. First generation boards with a new chipset sometimes have more of this.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Smilin
Getting very tight timings for today's high speed memory is difficult. Doing so on all 4 slots is sometimes not possible. You can use all 4 slots but be ready to back down from aggressive timings if you have stability problems.

Often the performance lost is gained by having more memory. It depends on a great number of factors though.

Thanks for the response. Smilin.

sure, np! You can sometimes get a hint of how difficult it will be to get agressive timings by looking at the traces on your motherboard near the memory slots. If you see lots of "squiggles"..several inches of a back and forth zigzagging of a line it means the mobo maker is trying to address a timing issue by lengthening a wire. A little bit of this is normal but if it's excessive they might be having a tough time getting it to work. First generation boards with a new chipset sometimes have more of this.

Geez! I guess I'll have to break out the night vision goggles. My backplane PCB is a stylish black. I can't help but think that $300 for a new 2gig set is a waste. That's almost half way to a E6800 and a third of a QX6700. I just finished looking at the Bioshock site, and the devs are wondering whether or not to include single core support. Time DOES march on!

 

[SoundTheSurrender]

Originally posted by: n7
Considering how nice Superfetch is in Vista, i'd say quite soon.

Then again, most people here seem to prefer sticking with outdated OSes, so it's hard to say for sure.

I'd rather use a solid older OS then a newer buggier hog.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: pcslookout

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: pcslookout
8 GB will be the norm in a few months when newer power hungry games come out. You will need at least 8 GB ram to run smoothly and in a good comfort zone if you want anything else running even if its small in the background of Windows Vista.

We are about 14-22 months from that being the norm. I do agree we will see alot more 4gig machines soon, but the 32bit factions are going to cause a bit of a buildup there before the world bumps up higher.

More like 1 to 2 months.

An update:

Ok, well it's May 14st. By your estimation, by July 1st 2007 8gig will be the normal/average amount of memory on new machines. Instead of arguing, I guess we can visit this in 46 days.

Also, I noticed you still haven't answered my question: I am curious what your qualificatons are to make this prediciton?

 

[Noema]

Originally posted by: pcslookout
8 GB will be the norm in a few months when newer power hungry games come out. You will need at least 8 GB ram to run smoothly and in a good comfort zone if you want anything else running even if its small in the background of Windows Vista.

This is ridiculous. Even in this board filled with enthusiasts, most people have only 2GBs, and I'd say less than 1% is running Vista x64.

It will take at least the 14-22 months bsobel mentioned because it's not only the fact that 8 Gigs is still quite expensive, but also you need to jump to 64-bit for that.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: SoundTheSurrender

Originally posted by: n7
Considering how nice Superfetch is in Vista, i'd say quite soon.

Then again, most people here seem to prefer sticking with outdated OSes, so it's hard to say for sure.

I'd rather use a solid older OS then a newer buggier hog.

To be fair Vista is not very buggy in my experience. It's not up to MS to fix the code in every app to work with the OS.

Hell, even Mac OSX with a very strict and closed set of hardware options has tons of bugs.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: Noema

Originally posted by: pcslookout
8 GB will be the norm in a few months when newer power hungry games come out. You will need at least 8 GB ram to run smoothly and in a good comfort zone if you want anything else running even if its small in the background of Windows Vista.

This is ridiculous. Even in this board filled with enthusiasts, most people have only 2GBs, and I'd say less than 1% is running Vista x64.

It will take at least the 14-22 months bsobel mentioned because it's not only the fact that 8 Gigs is still quite expensive, but also you need to jump to 64-bit for that.

Many users don't want to jump to Vista yet because XP still works for them and they may not have the system resources for the best Vista experience.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: pcslookout

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: pcslookout
8 GB will be the norm in a few months when newer power hungry games come out. You will need at least 8 GB ram to run smoothly and in a good comfort zone if you want anything else running even if its small in the background of Windows Vista.

We are about 14-22 months from that being the norm. I do agree we will see alot more 4gig machines soon, but the 32bit factions are going to cause a bit of a buildup there before the world bumps up higher.

More like 1 to 2 months.

An update:

Ok, well it's May 14st. By your estimation, by July 1st 2007 8gig will be the normal/average amount of memory on new machines. Instead of arguing, I guess we can visit this in 46 days.

Also, I noticed you still haven't answered my question: I am curious what your qualificatons are to make this prediciton?

Hey PcsLookout, 8 days to go... How is that prediction coming along? Care to admit your FOS yet?

 

[n7]

Haha :laugh:

In 8 days, the world will change, & RAM will be free; therefore his prediction will come true