6GB or 8GB RAM?

I need to decide between 6GB 1333MHz DDR3 System Memory (2 DIMM) or 8GB 1333MHz DDR3 System Memory (2 DIMM). Please help me decide which to get. I'll be multitasking but only with internet browsers, maybe iTunes and text documents. Maybe I'll also have a game open. Please give me pros and cons I guess of each and help me to decide. Thanks!

Edit: This is in a laptop not a desktop.

 

6GB's should be plenty. I have 6GB's in my MSI, and I can have Chrome, 2 word docs, and Just Cause 2 open and still have 2GB+ free.

 

Great, thanks! Anyone's thoughts and opinions would be greatly appreciated!

 

You'll manage fine with 6gb. If the upgrade to 8gb is only a few pounds or so then you may as well but beyond that there isn't much point. If you feel you're running out in the future then you can always add more, and it will probably be as cheap, if not cheaper tha buying it now.

6gb:

pro-costs less
con-less memory, only async dual channel (makes a grand total of 0.0001% real life difference)

8gb:

pro- more memory, possibly slightly more future proof, true dual channel operation, OCD factor (if you're OCD like me, then using a 2 gig stick and a 4 gig stick at the same time would drive you insane)
con- more expensive, you might be able to get better later and for less money

 

Considering how dirt cheap 8 GB RAM is, why not?

Plus with my usage, 6 GB was not enough. I always has 20+ FF open, my idle RAM was 2.53 GB. Playing SC2 and a spawn heavy map, it easily tops 5.3 GB.

 

Lol, ya, if 8GB's is only a little more definitely go for it.

 

Go with 6 gb for your purpose. Unless you do intensive audio, video, and/or animation production (or any programs that lets you load an infinite amount of objects or instances for that matter), you should be fine with 6 gigs. Most mainstream games don't exceed 4gb.

 

With the usage you're describing 2 GB should be more than enough. 4 is overkill. 6 is a limit breaker. 8 is just tacky.

 

It's like.. a 10 dollar difference in the US between 6GB and 8GB haha. May as well go with 8.

@Huai, 2GB is really not that much. I've seen firefox use over 2GB on its own. RAM is so cheap you may as well pile it on.

 

6GB is more than enough for the usage you describe. You can always upgrade if you need more in the near future. However, keep in mind if you plan to keep it for a long time - long enough for the RAM technology to index to the next one, you will find yourself having to pay a premium to get older generation RAM at that point of time.

If I plan to keep the laptop a few years and I see RAM technology moving to the next generation in mainstream laptops, I would upgrade my RAM at that point of time.

 

If you're running the latest/current platform (i5 or better) and Win7x64 then 8GB is my recommended* minimum.

If you're running an i7 26xxQM or higher, then I would say 16GB is my recommended* minimum.

Recommended* that is, if you want the most 'balanced' system.

Balanced to the O/S capabilities and the raw horsepower the cpu has for the most responsive, multi-tasking platform possible.

See:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/8070026-post90.html


What most people don't understand with RAM is how Windows reconfigures and optimizes itself with more RAM. You can further this optimization by disabling (completely) the swap file too.

Also, the 'free' RAM with your normal usage scenario is not indicative of whether you need more RAM or not (although it is one such indicator). If you want a more responsive system, more RAM is the first thing you should be considering (given a 64bit O/S). Especially if you're multi-tasking - and - gaming simultaneously too.

The O/S is the first thing that will limit how much RAM can be effectively used and how 'balanced' your system is/feels.

(Win7x64 is the best 64bit O/S currently available and even with 64GB+, I don't see an i7 2700 cpu 'choking' on the RAM - especially if it is O/C'd to ~4.5GHz or more).

The next thing that will limit how much RAM can be effectively used is the platform itself - an i7 27xxQM or i7 28xxQM can really use as much RAM as you can throw at it (32GB or more RAM is not out of the question for one of these processors/platforms - given the workload to justify that kind of hardware, of course). A dual core i5 or i7 can still use 16GB RAM effectively, but then the cpu itself is what is holding back your productivity, not how much RAM is installed in the system.

The storage sub-system is the final piece that will determine your systems 'feel' or 'snappiness'. With a properly configured/partitioned/setup 7200 RPM HDD (or better, the Seagate XT Hybrid), or, for the best overall 'snappiness'; a current SATA3 SSD (Intel 510 Series 250GB model or a Crucial M4 256GB model).

(A 5400 RPM drive used as an O/S drive on a current platform (even with 8GB RAM) is criminal (HP DV7 6197 - I'm looking at you!!!)).

If you value 'snappiness' in your systems, if you value 'snappiness' in your multi-tasking and if you value the 'snappiness' a properly 'balanced' system offers, then upgrading the RAM to the highest your platform supports is the easiest and cheapest way to do it.

To me, your question is not '6GB or 8GB RAM?' - it is '8GB RAM or more?'.

8GB RAM became 'standard' for me back in 2007 with Vista x64 - you did buy a current platform (and you want to use it fully), right?

Hope this helps?

 

For your usage 4GB is more than enough.

More than 4GB will not make your system any faster. It will cost more money and use a bit more power though. It will also slightly increase your hibernation times.

 

looking at how cheap those 4GB RAM sticks are these days.... i don't really see any reason to be confused between 6 or 8GB....
definitely go for 8GB...........

 

OMG... u got some pretty high standards.....
your recommended "minimums" are what i would say "more than enough to unleash the beast"

 

Excellent post, well written and well detailed! I agree, been working with 8GB since late Vista/early Win7 days.

 

Since we are talking about having an x64 OS so you can even use over 4GB, you might as well go with 8GB.
6GB is a 'comfort zone' of sorts from what I gathered for x64 OS and all of the uses you described... but of course since we are talking about 2GB extra, better to have more than less.

If you go with the 8GB route, you won't regret it either way.

 

What you are saying runs completely contrary to my understanding of how ram is used by the OS, but I am certainly willing to be educated. Can you cite any sources for this information? How exactly does windows "optimize" itself by having more RAM available? The linked article is just another forum post by you that points out that the incremental improvements of SSD write and read speeds are not noticeable after a certain point.

Ram needs an electric current to maintain state. AFAIK all those extra 12 gbs of ram are going to do is drain your battery a tiny bit and not contribute anything beyond the first 2-4 GB that are actually holding meaningful data.

For the same money that 16 GB of ram will cost you (roughly $275) you can get a 256 GB SSD which will cut all your application and OS start times in half.

 

Links? Sources? lol... just a few decades of playing with this stuff and judging it in real world scenarios (mine).

Sorry you couldn't see the relevance of the link I posted.

The raw performance a system has is directly related to the cpu+ram combo. Given a 64bit O/S.

An SSD does not increase your performance as it is the 'storage sub-system' part of a platform and does not directly affect a system's raw performance in most workstation type workloads. Granted; it will increase your 'snappiness' level, but that is a high price to pay (~$275+) for a simply 'snappier' system.

With a Win7x64 system with the pagefile disabled (and hibernation file... I find there is no need of these files/services with greater than 16GB and possibly even as low as 8GB RAM installed in a system), Windows is 'allowed' to use free RAM as it wishes - without the I/O penalty of hitting the storage sub-system (a penalty seen even on an SSD based low RAM platform).

With the same O/S but with the pagefile usually 'needed' by the 4/6/8GB or less systems, the responsiveness is obviously impacted in my use.

With Windows free to load (and keep/use) almost everything in RAM with 16GB+ setups the performance benefits far outdistance the lowly SSD for the same (and even higher) $$$ spent (given the appropriate workload).

A storage sub-system that is properly partitioned/setup above almost any current 7200 RPM HDD (notebooks) is more than sufficient for most work station class workloads and does not affect 'productivity' as much as most here think.

I am not saying that an SSD won't increase the apparent performance of a system: I am saying that it is the last thing I would be doing to increase the 'real' performance of a platform for the most bang-for-the-buck when I am upgrading just 'one' thing on my platform.

'Work' is done only in the CPU+RAM combo at the hardware level. An HDD/SSD is simply where that work is stored when the CPU+RAM 'engine' has finished the required output.

Don't mix up apparent performance ('snappiness') with a real performance upgrade along with an increase in 'snappiness' too. An SSD gives the former and given the O/S, platform and workload - additional RAM above 4/8 and even 16GB provides the latter.

See:
Will an SSD Improve Adobe Lightroom Performance? | Computer Darkroom

While the above link doesn't mention any 'snappiness' increase/decrease depending on the RAM/SSD combination, it does clearly show that a storage sub-system is not the bottleneck that most people think it is.

The link also shows clearly what I have stated here and in various other posts on similar subjects/debates:

The platform is the defining factor in the 'performance' or 'productivity' of a system.

Next comes RAM capacity/size.

Followed closely by CPU choice.

(Here, I am talking within the same cpu 'family' - for example; all i7 27xxQM's - the lowest i7 27xxQM with more RAM will outperform the highest i7 27xxQM with low/minimum RAM).

Last is the storage sub-system and even then, it is very dependant on the actual workload we're talking about. The link provided shows that LR (as most workstation programs do) responds much more to the platform/cpu/RAM combo than what HDD/SSD you have installed (given a current HDD or above...).


Hope this answers all your concerns about my views/post?

 

For people that use heavier applications that need a lot of memory it makes a lot of sense to upgrade to 8GB.

For the light user, like the OP seems to be, who uses a couple of browsers, itunes, watches a video and plays a game there is zero benefit in using more than 4GB.

 

8gb all the way. I have many firefox tabs open,itunes in the backround and play LOL with that i get low memory warning with 4gb ram installed. Go with the 8gb your mind will be at rest in the end.

 

True, Firefox is a memory hog.

 

Agree with the above... I made due with 4GB on my old laptop up until the thing crapped out. While it wasn't a powerhouse the upgrade to 4 made a difference but I doubt a light user would notice the difference.

That being said if its cheap enough go for the upgrade to 8. If not stick with the 4 and if you decide later 8 would help you can upgrade

 

Totally agree.

@tilleroftheearth: Not everyone run multiple instances of VM or do heavy video/image editing on daily basis, you might want to READ what the OP actually do before you recommend your "standard". Recommending 16GB RAM to him is like recommending a casual gamer getting a 580M SLi who plays farmville or plants vs zombies.

 

Agreed as well. I've played some intensive games on my T500, with browsers and other programs open and I've never even been close to an out-of-memory warning. If such a setup results in low memory, it's likely due to some programs with memory leaks rather than the actual need for more than 4GB of memory.

 

Yes, links and sources, as in concrete metrics, not your personal unverifiable evidence of several decades prior to adoption of either SSD or 8 GB DDR3 RAM modules. No need to get sarcastic

And what exactly will it use that RAM for? What data will be stored in there? Unless you're doing massive data manipulation there is simply no use for that RAM (or for page files). The simple matter of fact is that for office and web usage with 4 GB of RAM, Windows will never hit the page file at all, SSD or otherwise.

Don't mix up real world performance ('snappiness') of an SSD versus potential but unused power of a large CPU / RAM combination.

Adobe Lightroom is a specialized CPU and Ram intensive application. 3D modeling, Video Editing, and very high res picture editing is one of the very few specialized applications that actually do require high CPU and Ram. In real world usage you'll be lucky to get to 5% CPU utilization, but you'll hit the SSD every time you open a new email, document, or app.

Imagine the 16 GB PC as a Semi truck, and a 4 GB as a pickup truck. If you need to move one dresser drawer both will get you there at the same time bu the Semi will burn a lot more fuel. If you're moving the entire furniture store (a specialized application) then you need the Semi, otherwise it's a waste.

Since you didn't want to dig any benchmarks up, I did:

Tom's hardware showed that there is very little benefit (<2%) for applications that are not ram intensive, virtually no improvement beyond 4 GB. This is true even for Photoshop, but with a higher threshold (12 GB) which corresponds with higher requirements.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ram-memory-upgrade,2778-8.html


Compare this with load time improvements using an SSD - the slowest sampled SSD still produces load times that are 5 times shorter than the fastest HDD. Once Word or Email client starts up, they won't benefit from SSD any further, but they won't use more than a few hundred MB RAM either.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4341/ocz-vertex-3-max-iops-patriot-wildfire-ssds-reviewed/3

 

I don't think you're reading critically enough.

I didn't recommend him anything. He asked for more opinions and to 'help him decide'.

I think I gave enough information that he can do that now for himself.

Also, I think that link I provided more than 'proves' that RAM does increase performance - contrary to what Phil states and you agree with?


huai,

I'm not being sarcastic and I'm certainly not going to argue with you.

Okay - real world usage is 5% and less cpu utilization? I don't know what kind of super computer you're running - but even the most powerful systems I have used required up to 70% or more cpu utilization simply doing Windows Updates.

My points stand.

Given a certain level of storage sub-system (a current and properly setup/partitioned 7200 RPM drive) the platform, the cpu and the RAM are the only thing that directly affect true performance.

If you think the 'snappiness' an SSD offers is real performance, then we're simply talking about about different things.

 

That's the first thing we can agree on. However both things come with a price, and given the trade off between snapiness and not having to hit the disk when working with large data sets I think the OP would benefit from snapiness.

 

huai,

Alright, then let's build on that.

In my usage scenario and many of my clients workloads too, the SSD has not proven to be a component that drastically changed the system/platform except for an improved bootup/shutdown time (sometimes up to twice as fast - but only booting once or twice a day...) and/or slightly faster program launches (again usually once per program per boot session...). Keep in mind that both mine and my clients systems were already using/running a current and properly setup/partitioned HDD.

So, your turn.

What are you comparing an SSD 'upgrade' from? And what performance upgrade (increase in productivity) did you notice?

 

Er, we're done here, OP got their question answered.