Is 4 GB enough ram?

I was wondering about this but is having 4 GB or ram enough? Or do you need 6 GB or 8 GB? My Sony is capeable of having upto 8 GB but do I really need that much? Will I notice a difference in performance having 6 or 8 GB or ram on games or windows?

I seen some people put that they use 8 GB of ram but do they really use that much?

 

in general.......

To effectively use anything over approx 3.7Gb (search is your friend for an explanation, it's been hashed out to death) you need to be running a 64 bit OS *and* your CPU really should be PAE- and VM-extension capable.

Once the OS is taken care of, your apps/games then also need to be 64 bit to address the larger memory space.

 

Well I think some of you guys on this forums have 8 GB right? If so do you really need that much? Do you guys plays games on those systems that have 8 GB? Eather way I kinda wonder if I upgarded to 6 GB or 8 GB will it help me on my games or making windows load and run programs faster.


I know my system it self uses almost 2 GB since like right now using Internet Explorer it is using 1.74 GB or ram. If I run games like Crysis or Doom 3, etc I wonder if it would be better to have 6 or 8 GB.

 

newsposter,

not true:

See:
Memory Upgrade: Is It Time To Add More RAM? : Introduction


While simply adding more RAM to a 32Bit O/S is not enough for it to take advantage of it, it does make a difference depending on what game you're running.

On Win7x64 - I've been saying for awhile that 8GB is where the O/S is 'happy'. This article confirms that feeling (for me).

 

A good rule to go by is that chances are, if you do not know whether you really need more than 4GB of RAM, you don't.

 

Theres never enough.

 

Well if it does makes my programs and games run smoother and loads faster then that would be nice. Or will it not make any difference having more than 4GB? It seems like you guys said 64bit version can use more than 4 GB of ram but will I see a difference? Maybe some of you guys notice a difference when going from 4 GB to 6 or 8 GB and if you do was it worth it?

 

dustin broke,

open another browser tab and read the link I provided.

 

If you look at the charts on the link Tillerofearth posted, it shows a 2% difference in most cases between 4 and 16 gigs of memory. 2%! Sorry, that shows you really DON'T need 16 gigs or even 8. Typically you need 10% increase to really notice a change (doesn't apply to FPS).

Yes, in some cases it showed an increase, but generally, you will NOT see a difference between 4 and 8. Even in the cases they showed a big gain, the speed was so fast already that it didn't matter or was skewed. Do you need 110 average FPS as opposed to just 100 average fps? And in the other cases the massive increase was caused by them using a ramdrive, not necessarily because they had more ram being used.


Is 8 better? Of course, but you don't need it yet.
Is it advisable? If you have a need for it, want bragging rights, or just have money to burn, why not. For now though, 4 gigs is more than enough.

Why not wait for prices to drop and you have a need for it. Rather than paying more when you don't. You are better off buying an SSD.

 

Why do people keep asking this question? Even entry level computers have overcome this limitation. Because of that, RAM is one of the least things computer need to be concerned with.

 

Like others have said, just read this article: Memory Upgrade: Is It Time To Add More RAM? : Introduction

 

Looking at your signature g72 bb: never heard of a t8700. Is it an ES one?

 

Well I think the biggest reason people like me ask if I need more than 4 GB ram is since it's the most easiest upgrade you can do. Of cource changing hard drive or CD drive is not that hard but ram is the most easiest thing that will upgrade your system. I just wanted to know what others have experienced when they added more than 4 GB ram to there system.

 

The forum search is not working, but I found my post again with google.

See:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/har...ades/441911-8gb-vs-4gb-ram-faster-system.html


Contrary to what others are saying, I think that 8GB is the minimum for a system in late 2010/early 2011.

While maximum FPS don't increase dramatically, like the article states in the text; the minimum FPS and the general smoothness is greatly increased with 8GB of RAM vs. only 4GB. The article even goes so far as to state that 6GB is recommended if 8GB is over your current budget.

I'm not trying to get you to simply spend money needlessly. I'm simply trying to give you a clear picture of how important RAM is - if you're attuned to the benefits it can bring you.

Read the link I've provided in this response to see a more real world difference of 4GB vs. 8GB of RAM.

 

Well right now for a 4 GB stick that is DDR3 it costs $90 but will the same type of ram be cheaper in few years from now? Or will it never go cheaper than $90 for one 4 GB DDR3 stick?

 

It costs a whole lot less than that: Newegg.com - G.SKILL 8GB (2 x 4GB) 204-Pin DDR3 SO-DIMM DDR3 1333 (PC3 10666) Laptop Memory Model F3-10666CL9D-8GBSQ

It is a great buy at this price. It might not ever go cheaper until DDR3 is obsolete.

 

Even though I've seen them at about $60, I bought mine at $400 (and it was worth it too - 2x4GB modules).

Just look at DDR2 RAM prices - they're all more expensive.

Buy them now - even if they'll go a few dollars cheaper, you'll have had some use out of yours for a few weeks/months, right?

 

:yawn:

Memory and cpu performance will always be constrained by mass storage.

nit-pickers, enjoy yourselves. Especially for a low single digit percentage 'gain', hardly worth the expense when there are other places to spend $$ to gain system improvements. Including buying a new system. Or a faster hard drive.

what about 'in general' do you not understand?

 

newsposter,

my 'nit-picking' gives me a two year old system (VAIO) that performs better than when I bought it.

As a matter of fact, it is also the reason that I am still using it now (instead of having to trade in every few months).

While you can stick with your 'in general' recommendation - I'll enjoy what I know increases my productivity by a lot more than just a 'low, single digit percentage gain'.

See:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/har...ades/441911-8gb-vs-4gb-ram-faster-system.html

 

p8700 my mistake

penryn 2.53 dual core same as all others on g71 and g72

 

It is not worth it unless you are going to use applications that can use that much ram. If you are looking to make your games faster it wont help and if you want your programs to run faster you should get a SSD.

 

'estimates' based on opinion and feel are still opinion.

 

The applications don't have to use the RAM directly - if a temp file affects the apps responsiveness.

SSD's won't make your programs run faster at all - they'll just launch a little faster. Not the same thing.

 

Okay, ignore my 'estimate', but how would you account for up to a 71% performance increase on these facts?

See:
Benchmark Results: 32-Bit : Memory Upgrade: Is It Time To Add More RAM?

 

Well $90 for two 4 GB stick is a good price but will that work on a system that uses PC3-8500 DDR3-1066 204-pin SODIMM type rams? I know there are faster DDR3 rams but I don't know if the one that was $90 for 8 GB total will work on the Sony.

 

Yes, they will work.

They'll simply downclock to whatever your chipset supports.

btw - you haven't jumped on these yet?

 

Yes they will - any time there's any kind of disk access. If by "little faster" you mean 5x faster, then yeah I agree.

No idea what's with the Tom's Hardware review. I played lots of games on max settings with 4GB and never had any problems. Assassin's Creed 2, Fallout 3 new vegas, Bad Company 2, WoW Cataclysm.... all max details and even a single 5870m chews through most of that easily.

 

Unless you're comparing platforms four or more generations apart - nothing is 5x faster in computerland.


This thread asked what examples of productivity an SSD showed. Note how very few and far between those very specific examples are:

See
http://forum.notebookreview.com/har...4-examples-productivity-increase-ssd-use.html



Work is not done on a storage subsystem - it is done by a CPU in RAM.

Where will an SSD make the most 'productivity' difference? When used solely as a scratch disk/temp file location (and, preferrably when in RAID0 configuration).

 

5x faster ? What kind of application you are referring to ?

 

I don't know. To recommend 8GB seems a bit steep for the average user. I am a decently heavy basic windows app user with a little multitasking and have never had an issue with waiting on virtual memory or "disk thrashing". I put 8GB in my desktop mainly for virtual machines. Even on my laptop with 4GB I run a couple virtual machines with little to no issue running XP and Server 2003. Maybe for 7 and Server 2008 I might need more.

I used that 32-bit approach in that article actually with my first Eee PC (Eee 701 and 900) where I had 2GB RAM, and allocated 512MB for RAM disk (gavotte). It worked in that case where they used slow as snail snot SSD's. Again though, I don't see that it is really necessary.

 

Honestly, the only reason why I went from 2GB to 4GB of RAM is because I saw a very good deal on a 2GB stick when DDR3 prices were very high and didn't seem to be going down. Call me crazy, but for single-digit so-called "performance gains," spending $90 doesn't really seem like a good idea. For that amount of money, there are far better places to spend it on: a better screen, an SSD, a nice ergonomic stand, a great set of external peripherals, a better CPU if you need it, or heck, on your next laptop when 8GB is standard and a lot cheaper.

 

i have 8gb on my system mainly for video video editing. however outside of that and multitasking, i really cant see much benefit to my 8gigs.
if you like running stuff in the background and alt-tabbing while in games, using a lot of tabs in a 64-bit browser, having many programs open at the same time - then you may want to try increasing your ram.
the article that tiller points to shows some minimal increase in performance in gaming and other programs, but imho this gains atm are quite insignificant as others have also pointed.
however at the price 8gb kits are selling now, id say they would be an upgrade to consider even if you have no immediate use for that much memory atm.

 

This is a great deal! I've also might run in to it, if they ship to Norway ofcourse. I'll check that later today!

 

I want to be very clear here: I am not recommending 8GB RAM for 'average' users. I'm simply giving all the information I can about what greater than 4GB's of RAM can get you.

On that note, it is up to the reader to properly apply the information presented to their own specific situation.

The Tomshardware article that people are conveniently dismissing shows performance improvements more than a two generation jump on platforms.

All one has to do is decide if the applications/games that benefitted the most from the extra RAM is what one is currently using too (or, the usage is similar enough to be just as advantageous).

Too much information? Maybe.

But better than too little, right?

 

For someone who keeps their computer on, 8GB of ram provides other benefits. I have noticed that Windows 7 will cache as much stuff on the RAM as it can. This is only useful if you use lots of programs and files repeatedly between shutdowns.

 

Take your pick

 

Obviously, average is less than minimum!

Simples

 

On a laptop with an SSD the one downside I see is if you tend to use hibernate you're consuming 8-16GB of precious SSD space.

 

You could sleep instead to ram...........

 

Well yeah sleep, but that requires power. I'm just saying that some people prefer hibernate for whatever reason and it would just be wasting precious SSD space. I actually hibernate my netbook mainly because I frequently close the lid and then don't get back to it for another day or two sometimes and if it were in sleep the battery might have drained.

 

If I put my laptop in sleep, it can stay like that for over 24 hours. How long it can last I don't know, but it is at least 24 hours. You should test how long your netbook lasts.

 

I setup my system to go to sleep when the lid is closed and would hibernate after 4 hours(only when using battery). That way, I am on average would only need to hibernate once a day. W7 use compression when doing hibernation so the actual storage used is not as bad as it sounds. I have a 6G system which can come out of hibernation in less than 17 seconds. My 7k320 at most can have a sustained sequential read of around 70MB/s so at most it would be using around 1.5GB space. Not a major concern for my usage.

BTW, there are other advantage of sleep over hiberation, in addition to the almost instant wakeup. Hibernation would flush the cache W7 built up which would make the system that comes out of hiberation to be 'slightly' less responsive than coming out of sleep.

 

I measured the power draw (using my not so accurate kill-a-watt) and it is probably just under a watt during sleep. Considering I have a 54WHr battery, that's technically 54 hrs on a full charge to a full discharge. Obviously less if I've used it a bit.

 

I'm not sure how long my laptop can remain in hibernate, but I am sure I don't want to run a series of tests it to find out. If I intend to shut if off for much longer than half a day, I simply shut-down completely.

Yes, watts per hour. The rest of that stuff is inconsequential.

 

The computer can remain in hibernate as long as it can remain shut down and still keep a charge (probably over 30 to 60 days for most systems).

 

Ram drops in price until a new standard replaces it.
DDR1 got cheaper and cheaper, then DDR2.

As DD2 became the standard, DDR1 production slowed and prices went up on DDR1. As DDR2 production ramped up, prices continued to fall.

The same happened when DDR3 came out.
The same will happen when DDR4 comes out.

For now, DDR3 is going to continue to fall. Granted natural disasters and such can create spikes, but in the long term it will continue to fall until DDr4 production overtakes DDR3 production.

No need to rush out and buy DDR3 for fear of a permanent price hike.

 

No, that's not guaranteed. The DRAM market is pretty volatile as-is.

 

Unless North Korea invades the South and takes over Samsung!

There is some truth to that. When I built my first AM2+ AMD rig in early 2009, I got 8 GB DDR2 800 desktop memory for 25 each 4 GB set after MIR. During the summer time I was looking at purchasing another 16 GB for various systems, but every month the prices kept rising. I kept on thinking I'll wait for a sale, I'll keep waiting, until 4 GB DDR2 800 desktop memory hit 120 with usually 10-20 dollar MIR. Now the prices have receded a bit, but still nowhere near the 25 dollar mark.

 

Your machine should remain in hibernate indefinitely because it's powered off. All RAM contents written to disk. That's the advantage of hibernate.

 

It's not 100% linear, like I said certain things do present spikes here and there.

Memory is as volatile as gasoline, even the time of year effects the price.
It still follows a pretty steady trend for the most part. What you saw as specials and exclusives now, will be the norm next summer.