How much is too much RAM usage?

I'm between 55-65% most of the time these days. Pagefile is enabled. When is the point I upgrade to more?

 

I always turn pagefile to like 1 GB (I always have alot of RAM and an SSD). Are you talking about yout T440s? I think you should consider a single 8 GB DIMM.

 

As long as i don't game/run VMs/power user stuff i can manage with 2GB.

 

Too much is when it impacts performance of your task to a level you can't tolerate.

 

Too much RAM usage for me is when the Windows 8.1 desktop at idle is using more than ~12%.

I don't have RAM installed to sit idle though: I want the remaining amount free to drive my photo, video and sound editing software optimally. This means not touching the storage subsystem except to load or save a file. It also means I can disable the pagefile.sys file which gives me a few extra cpu cycles per second too.

The OP doesn't state how much RAM he/she has, nor which O/S we're talking about. But the minimum for any system I have or put together for most clients is 16GB DDR3 1600MHz or higher. This is paired with the best O/S right now: Windows 8.1 x64 Pro.


When my workloads start to bring my systems to their knees, whenever the RAM usage is over ~67% for extended periods: this indicates to me that I need to double the RAM (if I can) on that particular platform. Why? Because at 67% or 87% the system is almost equally productive.

When I had 32GB RAM platforms (desktops) and saw those percentages being hit, I wondered if spending for more RAM (a new platform, really) would be worthwhile.

Within 10 minutes of having the new system setup it was obvious it was (but I didn't just add 4 or 8GB: I added another 32GB RAM). While the original system indicated ~80% RAM usage for a particular workflow - the new system was indicating ~65% RAM usage but the increase in productivity was at least a third more.


The point? Going by what Windows reports for % RAM usage is not that helpful to determine if more RAM will be beneficial. More than 4GB RAM was surpassed for simply the O/S in 2009. 2011 saw 8GB being the 'base' RAM needed for those platforms. For almost 18 months 16GB RAM has proven to be the best way to maximize the latest O/S's performance - including components like SSD's, integrated graphics and of course being able to run multiple programs concurrently (or browsers with 50+ Tabs open) without forcing the system into molasses mode.


If I'm running a single (lighter) program (like browsing) and the % RAM is over much over 25% - I can sometimes feel the system trying to keep up to me (and then I check the TM and say, 'ahh').

If I'm running a heavier workload (editing) with a single program; that ~67 to 69% RAM usage is where I feel the performance level off. No matter what I do (even if I push the system to over 90% RAM usage) the performance/productivity of the system barely increases over that 67% mark.

If I'm multitasking three (heavy) programs or more; the percentage drops to ~50% RAM usage before each program feels a little laggy.


The important part to note though: no workflow feels right with less than 8GB RAM. A multitasking workflow with less than 16GB RAM is agony.

With the new DDR4 platforms hopefully around the corner, along with 16GB RAM SoDimms, I can see 32GB being the 'base' RAM capacity for my expectations of how a system needs to run in the near future.

Yes, I have installed Windows 7 on an ancient Core Duo (desktop) with 1GB RAM and it 'ran'. However, making a system so unbalanced should be a crime against humanity (we don't live for centuries). While 2GB RAM would be infinitely better and 4GB RAM would seem 'perfect' for that setup - the O/S and platform is what determines the most balanced cpu/ram combo and that would still see improvements with at least 8GB RAM and any modern (even 'light'), workflow.


If you're keeping your system for at least the next 18 months or longer; maximizing the RAM capacity is the best way to make the most of your system over that time.

 

I agree with this. At what point that is, depends on what you do and what software you have, as well as habit such as how often you leave programs up in the background.

I disagree with tilleroftheearth that 4 GB was needed for just the OS in 2009. While that may have been true for OSX, which makes Windows Vista look svelte RAM-wise these days, it was not the case for Windows 7 or even Vista.

From my experience:
- On my work laptop with 8 GB RAM and integrated Intel graphics, performance seems to noticeably slow down once around 7 GB of RAM is in use. It's almost like clockwork, I think, "things seem slow", open Task Manager, and 7 GB of RAM is in use. I suspect the integrated graphics have an impact on this, and that if it had a dedicated card it could go several hundred megabytes farther before it got slow.
- On my homelaptop with 3.5 GB RAM and dedicated graphics, it's fine up till around 3.2 GB. Then it starts running into 32-bit Windows ceiling issues.
- When my laptop had 2 GB of RAM, and when I used a desktop with 1 GB, both with dedicated graphics, the slowdown started at 2 GB/1 GB RAM usage or slightly above. A few dozen MB of paging to disk wasn't noticeable, but a few hundred MB was very noticeable.
- I almost never use all 8 GB of RAM on my desktop, so I can't really say when it starts getting slow. XP x64 is lighter on RAM use than Vista or 7.

 

2009 and 4GB RAM was enough to get some work done (on a mobile system) - but Vista? Even with 16GB RAM it was not svelte, lol... What it was, was stable and mostly reliable - but it felt like molasses compared to everything we've had before or since.

The snappier the O/S is the more reason to give it more RAM - Win8.1x64 thrives on it. Nothing has ever felt this responsive, for so long (whether we're talking over weeks or for each grueling work 'session' of 20 hrs or more).

Again; (two years ago I tried this?)... 1GB RAM and Windows 7 on ancient (for today) hardware was an eye opener of how far we've come (both hardware-wise and O/S wise).

I'm sure Windows 8.1 will be even better with just as old hardware.

That is no reason to purposely throttle and bottleneck the system you're using day in and day out for a mere couple of hundred dollars (spread over 2-3 years).


The point of my post should have been obvious: using more than about 2/3's of your RAM (or any component, for that matter) does not increase your productivity (or help with the 'snappiness') of your system. Using 100% of your RAM is not the goal (or 'number' to indicate you need more installed).

Having some left unused is where the performance, productivity and responsiveness of your system is at it's optimum.

 

Eh, it is true that it's best to have some left over. The 2/3 is a ballpark figure though, not a fixed rule. Your system will be similarly as snappy with 80% RAM in use as 67%, assuming you aren't losing a lot to integrated graphics or other causes. Which is why I'd lean more towards "if you notice your computer getting slow and you tend to not have much RAM left" as a rule of thumb, not "if you often are using 2/3 of your RAM"... because if you often use 2/3, but never use more than (for example) 85% and never get slow downs because of it, you don't really need to upgrade.

Vista is the least svelte Windows OS to date, but my Mac-using friends tell me it's actually more svelte than recent versions of OSX (10.7 and 10.8 for example. 10.9 may be better with the memory compression it has). I used Vista with 2 GB of RAM in 2007, and the RAM wasn't really an issue (though it probably would be with Vista today, what with two service packs and more resource-intensive software). I'm very much a Vista hater, but Vista with 4 GB is not unreasonable (particularly if you have 32-bit Vista), and 8 GB should be perfectly workable. It may not look like it because Vista is super-aggressive with Super Fetch, which only made Vista look even more RAM-hungry than it really was, but Vista doesn't need 16 GB of RAM for everyday tasks. I know two people personally who were using Vista with 4 GB in 2013, and didn't have RAM issues (although the one who had 2 GB in 2013 did until upgrading to 4 GB). One of them is still using Vista with 4 GB today.

I can't believe I've actually made a pro-Vista post. This must be the first time that's happened in all the time I've been a member of NBR.

 

Maybe because of the systems I use have integrated graphics that I feel this issue then? Hmm...

I was pro Vista too when it was the only game in town (XP and XP x64 were useless to me; stability-wise).

And OS/x? Doesn't matter what version we're talking about; that is not a real O/S. Too many limitations and compromises to consider it even today. MS Windows is the standard for a reason. I'm just used to using things that allow me to work as I want; not work as I'm told.


I think the most important point to make is that while 4GB RAM may be enough for some people, any system sold in the last 2 or 3 years will be better with 8GB or more. Especially with the newer O/S's and even more so with SSD's installed.

RAM is the only place other than the cpu where 'work' is done on any computer - given a fixed cpu; the more RAM you have the more productive the system as a whole will be.

 

You run heavy video, photo, and sound editing but use integrated graphics????

 

In my book it's a combination of the two factors:

a) When you perceive the system to feel "sluggish" to you, the end user.

b) When it makes sense from the sheer $$$ perspective to upgrade.

Personally, I'm a strong believer in maxing out the RAM in any system that I own. With that said, I'd be lying if I said that my use ever gets near 25% on the two 32GB machines that are currently in my possession. However, I don't do any serious video editing or anything *that* intensive at home...

My $0.02 only...

 

I do heavy duty photo editing and RAW image conversion; sound and video is only very basic/supplementary and so far, a gpu does not help me appreciably in my workloads. At least, not when the cost of $$$ and power usage is taken into consideration (for about two dozen workstations - desktops).

For my notebooks the ineffectiveness of a gpu is even more pronounced. Especially for the impact on battery life.

 

LOLOLOL

And OS X is not a real OS? What the hell you smoking? If OS X is not a real OS, then Windows 8 is even less so from productivity, UI/UX, and intuitiveness standpoints. Windows 8 in its native interface is about as useful to a power user as iOS. And as far as professional content work is concerned, if anything OS X is just as prevalent if not more common. All the Adobe stuff work pretty much the same in Windows and Mac. Same goes for the CGI suites like Maya and Cinema 4D. But Final Cut Pro and Logic Pro aren't on Windows and Macs are just more prevalent in the biz overall, that's why you see so many pros and editing/VFX houses use Macs or Hackintoshes. If you're trying to break into the industry it's expected that you'll be on a Mac of some sort since they're the industry standard.

 

A 'real O/S' runs programs that make me money. OS/x does not do that.

Get it?

I don't care what 'everyone else' runs. Or how they run it. My business, my choice, my solutions and my profit (no apple tax for me, thanks).

 

Actually just last week, someone at my university sold a start up they had, well, started, two or three years ago for like 4 or 5 million bucks. The four people that worked there all had MBPs. They needed the terminal and Linux had issues with upgradability in terms of how things would break each time a newer upgrade came out and how you'd have to spend half the week getting all libraries to work again.

So I dunno what programs they ran, but they sure as hell made money on OS X. I can understand and respect that it is your business, your choice and all that, but I think you should respect the fact that some people need OS X to run their stuff. Just because you don't find it useful, doesn't mean that is how it universally is.

Back to the topic, Meaker has it bang on. When your productivity suffers because you have run out of memory, that is when you upgrade. Not before. Also, usually when usage is over 85%, you could start seeing large amounts of swap space being used, depending on the software you are runnning. That's a case where you haven't run out of memory but should probably still upgrade.

 

Was curious and checked: I`m using 3.5GB right now just surfing the web with a few tabs open.

 

That will vary from person to person based on what else is running. I have W8.1 and with 10 chrome tabs open and a HD movie playing on VLC, my usage is 2.9GB. Idle is 2.4GB.

 

Ever since Vista/7 Ram usage has changed so that windows pre-fetches a ton of stuff to RAM that it thinks you may use. So its not so much about RAM use its more about Page File use that you should be worried about.


As long as your RAM is not hitting max and your getting a lot of page faults your fine.

4GB is more than enough for a normal user, I would go with 8GB+ on a gaming machine, even though games really rely on VRAM the most.

You should not have to upgrade to achieve these numbers any standard system will come with this much RAM or more these days, but if you are in doubt and need the upgrade its cheap and usually quite easy to do.

Most times people thing RAM is the solution, saving the $$$ and upgrading there HDD to a SSD would probably be the better call.

 

You guys keep defending low RAM capacity - sure; it's not the end of the world, the system will run, after all.


To use a car analogy; if our systems were (wanna be) race cars (I'm not talking about pedestrian use here...) you guys would be saying to use regular gasoline.

When unleaded premium race gas gives you the edge on the quarter mile ('snappiness' on our computers),

A cooler running, more powerful and efficient and therefore less stressed engine, unless we want to use all it can offer (less reliance on the storage subsystem and the pagefile.sys file and therefore less cpu stalls waiting for the next batch of data to load into RAM where it can finally be worked on...)

And the performance edge that the other guys don't have while they save $0.05 a litre. In each race!


RAM is not the solution: balance is the solution. RAM is one cornerstone. But an equally important one though.

 

I feel 4 GB of RAM is okay for your average joe schmoe (just surfs the web, Youtube, Office usage). For more advanced users, you are easily taking 8-12-16 GB RAM. And there are the people who use Photoshop/CAD/Maya, etc professionals who need every MB of RAM they can get their hands on, where 16-32 GB is the minimum.

 

I know, I was surprised when tilleroftheearth said that, given his attention to detail & love of optimisation! (Although, now having read his reply post describing his reasons for using integrated then that's fair enough - he knows what makes sense for his business cost performance wise.) But, when I upgraded the graphics card in my laptop I had to disable integrated graphics to get it to work, and as a side effect I found that simply flipping through photographs was just so much faster than when using integrated graphics, I would say the photos refreshed twice as fast. I know that's not video editing or photograph editing, but I reckon there's a parallel there. (I guess storing the photos in VRAM is a huge performance boost over storing them in system RAM!)

In terms of RAM required amounts. I saw no benefit moving from 8GB to 16GB, and I just use my laptop for gaming, office, and browsing - but from experience I know 4GB is not enough for that. The only small occasional theoretical benefit I got from increasing to 16GB is that if I keep my computer running for a long time, then the memory gradually fills up with cached RAM (sometimes 10GB of cached RAM), thereby theoretically speeding up frequently accessed files. I have an SSD, and saw the biggest performance boost in general computing tasks by upgrading to an SSD. So, I reckon 4GB for simple web browsing & simple office apps, 8GB for gaming & intense web browsing, 16+GB for other users that run VM or photo & video editing.

 

As a engineer who has to play with numbers in the field (and hate doing so): Any amount above about 4G is "enough". No amount is "too much".

And you guys thought the 32G on your workstation was too small? Try coding for GPU compute and see how tight it feels.