8GB vs. 4GB of RAM = Faster system?

This post is a direct result of my chance to compare my VAIO with 8GB of RAM and a Hitachi 7K500 notebook HD with the identical machine, except in stock form with 4GB RAM and a Toshiba HD.

For more details on those specifics:
See:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=441674


In this post, I want to share my upgrade to 8GB RAM and how it affects performance.

Summarizing the above link quickly, I set up a matched, clean Win 7 x64 install on both machines concurrently and timed several results. Most notably comparing the differences the HD's made to the performance offered by each system.

What I didn't directly mention in those posts was the fact that in the back of my mind, I was worried that the 8GB vs. 4GB RAM differences would affect the performance of the systems overall and I may mistake that as one HD's advantage or the other's.

So, before those tests were run and timed, what I did was install Win 7 x64 on each system with the same HD (the only differences now being the amount of RAM). Right up to the point where I ran CrystalDiskMark 3.0 beta 1 and found, quite surprisingly, that the RAM was being largely ignored in not only the CDM benchmarks, but also by the 'feel' the system had too - which was primarily determined by which HD was installed and not by how much RAM the system had.

I went further and loaded all the 'base' software like Office and also proceeded to do all the Windows Updates too. Again, the HD determined not only how fast the HD operations happened, but also how much 'snap' the system had too. Okay, the benchmarks stayed the same (within their error of margin at least) and the RAM did not make a difference to the tests I wanted to perform to compare the HD's against each other - great! I put the HD's in their proper systems and proceeded to conduct those tests as I originally wanted to - without worrying about skewed results from the RAM inequalities coming into play.

After, those tests were completed though, I wanted to see how far I could push each system before I could see a difference that the additional 4GB of RAM was making.

This is what I found. Many 'power' users already know the following; what this post does is offer new computer users a chance to realistically predict what a RAM upgrade will do for them.

I opened all the Office 2007 programs (8) and both computers just laughed at me - even the one with the much (30-40% or more) slower Toshiba HD.

I then installed my Outlook pst file on both machines (but didn't enable email support!) - keep in mind that this pst file is over 7GB right now - and again opened all Office 2007 programs. While the 4GB/Toshiba HD system was slower loading Outlook, once opened, it performed very similarly to the 8GB system - even while switching windows, saving .doc files running the help system, etc. - I then added a youtube video playing in IE8 - again - smooth sailing. Any added performance felt between the two systems was from the HD's they were running - the Hitachi would blink/flash it's access light, while the Toshiba would make it glow for a second or more each time a new part of any program was needed. But, RAM-wise, there was definitely no bottleneck.

I then tried my 'main' programs with the Hitachi/8GB RAM system; Outlook + 7GB pst file, PS CS4, Roxio MyDVD maker with 279 tiff images, Lightroom with a 185GB catalogue open and for good measure - all of the rest of Office 2007 programs open too. The 8GB system, while not as light on its feet anymore still had grace and charm. Mouse input lagged only slightly when switching windows and even when I started a LR conversion of 150 RAW files to websized jpgs - the other programs and even LR itself still maintained some sense of a direct connection with my inputs via keyboard and/or mouse. The most 'lag' I felt was switching to Word and started typing right away - there could be up to 4 or 5 words typed before I saw them on the screen, after that though, the system was again in-sync with me. This is not too bad considering the P8400 CPU that the system is based on, huh?

Although no speed records were broken converting the files in LR (because of the 'lowly' CPU), the 8GB RAM system did allow me to work in any program (above) I wished. Yes, each program is even faster if I ran one program at a time - but then, that is counter-productive - isn't it?

When I tried to replicate the above on the 4GB/Toshiba system, I was kind of surprised that the system slowed to such a crawl. Why? Because I've only had my 8GB RAM in the notebook for just over a couple of months and I was using my 4GB system like this just a dozen or so weeks ago! Wow - What a difference and how quickly we forget!

Yes, the 4GB system can open all the same programs and data files, but when it starts to balk is when you ask it to start doing something with that data.

With 8GB of RAM I would estimate my maximum productivity increased by at least 60% - if my CPU was more powerful, I would be even more productive. The problem is keeping the CPU 'fed' constantly and consistently so that you can keep being at 'maximum' productivity as long as possible.

If your computer usage requires opening and editing large files, running one or more VM's or even simply matches what I'm using my VAIO for, then increasing your RAM will increase your productivity - if your processor allows you to keep working in another program, while processing one or more other programs/tasks in the background.

So, be honest how long and how often you push your computer to its RAM limits - if doubling your RAM can offer even a 30% increase in your productivity - depending on the cost, you may be better off upgrading your notebook instead of looking to buy a new one.

Hope this helps.

Cheers!

 

The results were predictable. If you needs require the RAM, ie manipulating a lot of files or a lot of large files, more RAM will help.

Otherwise, there is no noticeable difference.

 

surfasb, we know, but a lot of newer or less experienced users see my systems and ask me if they should have this for their next system too.

When asked what work they require their computers to do, they respond with 'work'?

So this was a post to all those others out there who feel the need to ask the question, but might not have the tech guy/gal to give them a straight answer. (And heaven forbid they ask a commissioned salesperson)!

 

Yeah, people are kind of in the dark as to what they need when talking about technology so it's pretty easy for a salesman to overkill a customer's needs and double the initial budget of a guy.

Nonetheless it's an effective test for RAM ^_^ One thing which would've been perhaps good to tell the "average Joe" was to make test comparing different RAM speeds(667 vs 800 vs 1067 vs 1333) and perhaps if possible a test between DDR2 and DDR3 because heaven forbid the amount of people who ask "is DDR3 better than DDR2?".

 

Forever_Melody,

Thanks for the comments.

As far as I know, to a user, different memory speeds will be unnoticeable?

This is because although it may be faster 800 vs. 667, the 800 Mhz speed chips will also have higher latency so in the end, its a wash.

Toms Hardware did a good review that even when overclocked significantly, different RAM timings made very little practical impact, except maybe for bragging rights.

See:
http://www.tomshardware.com/picturestory/511-memory-scaling-ddr3.html

 

Nice, now if only you can do the same with dual core vs quad core.

 

Yeah I know the speed isn't significant, but lots of people are fooled so I thought perhaps gathering all the "RAM tests" in a same spot would help people out. A DDR2 vs DDR3 test would also be nice to finally make people realize that the difference is marginal currently.

Btw f4ding, dual vs quad has been done already, but in respects to gaming not to mention that CPUs are very vast in their tasks so you'd need a specific test for each thing.

 

Technically CPU's are actually specialized task processors, as everything is a calculation that is processed, which is arithmetic, our brain is more of a general purpose and very powerful processor. I read somehwere that the theoretical conversion from brain operations to GHz, the brain would be a 168GHz powerhouse, but it's not specialized because even a 386 was able to do math calculations far faster than the average human brain ever will or could. I also heard that to "render" reality, the brain synapses theoretically add up to the equivalent of 10GB's of RAM in computers.

 

I love facts like those and... I just knew 8GB wasn't enough!

 

It was not completely right, it wouldn't be in exact down to the last byte, but more or less they said it probably would be alot more and that 168GHz is not being generous at all, it would be more.

 

I find the memory part a bit hard to believe... Most of us have trouble remembering a phone number for more than half an hour without writing it down.

 

Well RAM is "random access" memory and you'd be surprised how much stuff one can fit into your brain before you forget it and other stuff is "re-written:" over it. For example, I can easily cram 10 chapters' worth of Biology for my final and forget it the next day

Nonetheless, your brain and a computer aren't exactly the same so a 1 to 1 comparison will never be 100% accurate with the analytical tools and methods we have today.

 

Contemplating 8GB for my upcoming dm3t purchase. Cheaper than doing it myself in this case.

<------ Uses photoshop. A lot.

And ariel is hot. Redheads FTW.

 

Seeing how I run VMs, 6 GB suits my needs in my i7 Desktop but barely lol.
Depending on your needs more is generally better but not everyone can afford a sportscar on an compact sedan budget. In every era of technology ram and processor speed/cores increase. There is no escape from that.

 

My typical memory usage is around 5GB to 6GB. I run 08R2 as host OS, and Win2k, WinXP, Ubuntu as guests. Whilst I run 2 instances of WoW game (sometimes need to run 3).

Can't suffer from little 4GB anymore

 

From what I understand, OSX, Win7, and (to an extent) Vista will allocate RAM even when you aren't using it. It's using this space for system tasks, application pinning, indexing, and other background tasks. It will basically use all the ram it has, finding a use for it whenever possible. It does this to prevent wasting resources.

Check your "active" versus "inactive" RAM usage if this is reported, or see if you have any page faults (this is reported in the OSX task manager, I don't know if it is in the Win7 / Vista TM). 0 page faults = you've got plenty of ram.

 

Explosivpotato,

We're not complaining about RAM usage here - we're saying that when running a heavy duty application, or, several concurrently, the more RAM the better.

Yes, OS/X, Win 7 and Vista do try to cache as much as they can into unused RAM by using mechanisms to predict what you'll need 'next' as you're using your computer.

Win 7 is much better than Vista, but OS/X takes it to a different level. Almost like using a different computer depending if you have just rebooted vs. if the computer has been used for a day or two with no reboots in between. My guess is the difference in the response is the fact that on Windows, we need/use A/V so the caching OS/X does is that much more effective.

 

Tiller-

Yes, I was just making the point that you can't always equate "used RAM" with needing more RAM. The number of page faults is much more accurate.

Good explanation though. I used an old PowerBook for years and I would only shut it off for OS updates for exactly that reason. Having a machine with an uptime of >30 days was the norm.

 

Linux is great at using "RAM", it allocates it efficiently.

 

As a side note:

As far as I recall, back in the old days there was a notion that adding more ram would actually slow some operations. The reason behind it was the small size of CPU cache. Supposedly when you had more RAM, caching would be less efficient. I still remember trying to code a program so it fully fits in the 32k to 64k CPU cache memory of the era for maximum speed

 

4GB is enough for me.. i use 3.2 GB at most. But its good to know what 8GB can do... u also need less pagefile so your comp is a little faster.

 

12 GB would make me happy lol

 

Yes! I remember those days well. I upgraded to 512MB (unheard of back then) and was shocked the system ran slower, same when I was able to max out the 2GB systems in their respective 'peaks' - slower overall, but in my case the extra RAM did help in the end.

That's a good point about the pagefile.

When my notebook system is fully configured, it will be running a 512MB pagefile. With 8GB, you don't need more (or less!).

 

Though for different reasons, there still remains one operation that will slow down with more RAM:

Hibernate.

 

Well, that's if you are using all that RAM when you hibernate. If you've got 24 GB of RAM installed but are only using 700 MB, Hibernate shouldn't be bad. If you're using 22 GB of 24 GB, don't hibernate!

 

For some reason, either Windows Vista/7 doesn't dump the Superfetch cache contents when you go into hibernation, or it just needlessly writes unused memory to disk. It's been tested many times by many reviewers over the years - the same computer, running the same programs, consistently goes into hibernation faster with 2GB of RAM than with 4GB of RAM.

I'm guessing it's the former because Windows XP hibernates much more quickly than Vista/7 on the same computer, but at any rate, for hibernation intents and purposes, you're always using all your RAM.

 

That's why I disabled hibernate on my system. Sleep works fine for me.

 

I leave hibernate enabled as 'insurance' against trying to get the last few seconds of battery life out of the system and, instead of finishing that step of my project, I lose everything.

Of course, I don't have to use hibernate if simply booting up is faster.

 

I keep hibernate on... no problem here..

 

Still, I think the most significant improvement here would depend on the program and whether it was optimized for quad core. In fact, I'd go as far as to say it would be that combination of these two that would net the greatest improvement in computer performance to date. All the other aforementioned components--save RAM--appear to be only baby steps to that end.

 

Bra, 2 sticks at 4GB each cost $$$$, enought to buy a Netbook maybe. You have to be practical as is the cost worth the extra miliseconds?

 

Again, it's not that your system will respond faster overall but only during heavy load. If you do any WORK (or research) with any sort of memory intensive programs, you will save more than just milliseconds and it could be worth the cost. For the rest of us, don't waste your money.

 

in maybe 2-3 years, assuming my dv7t is still working, im getting the largest ssd drive i can buy... or maybe two so i can raid them... that would kill the performance gain any ram upgrade would do

ps, i've only used 60% of my ram during max load. i dont game often but when i do, ram utilization jumps to about 60%. the rest of the time, im at around 30%. and i have 4gb only

 

A netbook is not good enough to browse the net for me (I can read faster than the slow computer can render the page).

Of course more always costs big $$$ but this is what you get:

Cheers!

 

I have to agree with you on your specific situation.

Since you're not really pushing your computer with large projects/files or apps that can use the entire RAM as cache (effectively), then, assuming your computing needs don't change in 2 or 3 years, an SSD will give you a big performance boost relative to adding more RAM.

You don't need to wait 2 or 3 years though and you don't need two SSD's - an Intel G2 160GB model will make your computer feel like it can last for another 10 years.

Cheers!

 

^ im too cheap to pay the 'early adopter' prices of ssds. so im totally going to sit on the sidelines and watch the prices fall LOL

 

When I upgraded my ram from 2 gb to 3 gb I was disapointed that i didn't see any difference towards gaming, but I should have expected it, its not like a new gpu or cpu...

 

Bra? Yeah, i'm with you "homeslice"...

A netbook? Yeah sure and get a gimped FSB, processor, and general chipset. It`s also about what the guy needs, not just how low you can go cost wise.

 

Memory intensive being the key words. And you were doing so well until the last part. Since it's never really a waste of money if your system is capable of using that memory. On he other hand, if you only have a 32 bit system then I would tend to agree. But it's highly unlikely you can say for certain you will never ever use more than 3gb of memory.

 

With Windows 2000 the minimum was 128 Megs and now with Windows 7 we are at 1 Gig. So an 8 fold gain in 10 years. At a linear rate of growth our 4 Gig systems may be the minimum in only 5 more years.

Not a reason to run out right now but food for thought........

 

I was running Windows XP with 128MB...

 

Gotta love numbers, you can twist them to tell just about any story.

Windows 95 only required 4-8 MB of RAM. By your logic, Windows 2000 was a 16 fold gain in only 5 years.

Let's face it, if you look at the bigger picture it's clear that software requirements have been growing at a decreasing rate over the years.

 

I'm upgrading to 8GB as soon as the prices drop on 4GB sticks and the 1.35/1.2V DDR3 sticks are out.

 

That is the reason I stated if the need continues to grow at a constant rate! Also consumer Windows versions up to ME were just a shell out of DOS, not a true OS. Too truly count memory requirements we really should look at NT and above as that is the true Windows versions that are also a true OS.

Well ME was really an incorperation of DOS and Windows but that was quickly abandoned for the NT kernel in XP. God I hate dating myself.

You are correct though, software and even OS growth is slowing. Unless some new features, such as true AI etc., show up we hopefully will continue to see OS demands slow in thier growth.............

 

I got you beat. I was running XP with 64MB...

 

Dang, now you got me wishing i had my ThinkPad T21 back since i now know how to replace a laptop monitor. You shoulda seen how well it ran on it, 800MHz Pentium 3, i used to love playing Motocross Madness 1, all the way from 1998 on Savagel 8MB GPU.

 

Hehe, I had an 8MB Savage 4 and a 440Mhz PIII in my desktop...

It wasn't as good as the ATI Rage and Voodoo cards though, so it wasn't as popular among gamers.

 

Thanks for all the info in this thread! I decided against upgrading after reading all of your opinions...