SSD or 8 GB of Memory: Researching Reasonable Upgrade Options

From X-Bit Labs

SSD or 8 GB of Memory: Researching Reasonable Upgrade Options - X-bit labs

 

Agree. Although i have 8gig ram i can hardly feel its benefits outside of premiere pro and after effects.

 

I like 6GB + SSD as the sweet spot.

But I agree most won't feel any benefit beyond 4GB, heck 3GB is enough for most people

 

The only people who ever need above 4GB of RAM these days are people who run video/photo editing applications, or those who run virtual machines. Otherwise, anything above 4GB is useless.

Meanwhile, the benefits of an SSD are noticeable every single time you turn on your computer or run any application.

 

I only bought 8 Gigs because A. It was very cheap, and B. I wanted to see 12% memory usage in 64 bit Windows 7 Lame reasons, I know.

 

Hardly lame; and as good a reason as adding an SSD. Still, an increase in memory can definitely increase your computers efficiency (provided it's not already at it's maximum).

On the other hand, adding an SSD can result in an even more dramatic increase in speed, but that's only as long as you don't factor in it's price. Despite the incredible advantages of a good SSD, adding RAM is still the single more economical way to speed up your computer.

 

Basically they are saying that most users do not need more than 4GB. I can go with that. They also say that SSD's are a good upgrade for most people. Sure, I can go with that too. But what I don't like is them making a false dichotomy out of SSD or 8GB.

 

Really boils down to what does the user need/want. Of course if they have more money than brains they will buy both. A smart user will buy what is most beneficial for the money. I went from 2 GB on my Vostro to 4 GB and the effect was dramatic. SSD only made it even faster.

 

Usually the people with brains have the money to do both.

On my next system builds I am planning on using 16GB RAM as standard and possibly RAID0 SSD's as PS's Scratch Disks (instead of VRaptors).

Only testing will tell what I'll decide to do eventually, but from everything I've seen and tested on SSD's, this seems to be the best choice for my use.

As the SSD's burn up / fry - I can simply replace them (or not) and continue working. Better than what I have tried now with trying to get them to enhance my productivity as boot / apps drives (which they don't enhance; at least not on my current mobile systems).

 

I Know many people with lots of money and as much brains as a park bench. Fortunately, they can afford to pay someone to do the thinking for them.

What would you do with all this power/speed?

What? That's about the only absolute you can get from an SSD at the present time.

 

But notice you put money before brains.

PS CS5 can use all the RAM and CPU you can throw at it. If I can finish my work faster, I can spend more time on this forum!

As a photog; I need a fast drive and lots of storage - currently nothing beats the XT hybrid in my experience.

I'm not interested in slightly faster bootups (I'm still setting up other equipment anyway), nor in a slightly more snappy 'feel' (I'm already there) for a lot more money. What is the most frustrating point though is that in my high write usage scenario (avg. ~ 100GB/day writes) the SSD's all slow down to below mechanical HD levels. While also taking away any 'snappiness' they had too.

 

Just checkin'. There's only a few fields where that much RAM would be a necessity.

Aren't SLC SSDs better suited for that scenario? Granted, they are significantly more expensive than their MLC brethren, and perhaps not a cost effective choice at this point anyway.

 

Definitely not cost effective and I don't think a 500GB+ SLC version is available?

More to the point, although they may be able to 'take' the abuse I'll throw at them, SLC drives have been surpassed performance-wise by current MLC drives anyways, so I would be using yesterday's tech for very little benefits (in my specific use).

 

enabling trim helps but eventually die out.

 

Thanks, but as I've stated before (with my SandForce based Patriot Inferno 100GB SSD):

http://forum.notebookreview.com/6849325-post114.html

 

Yeah 6GB and a SSD is the sweet spot, cant go wrong especially if your into multimedia.

 

@OP: I thought it was pretty obvious to anyone who used a computer with an SSD, unless you're doing something serious that really requires more RAM. In any case, it's good to restate it - repetition is the mother of learning.

In fact, for regular computer use, I find 3GB just fine too. For gaming, anything above 4GB is a waste. Loading times and overall "smoothness" with SSD in games, is clear as a night and day compared to what I had before (regular Momentus 250 GB 7.2k)

 

I think a much better test would be to look at ram SPEED instead of amount. Most programs don't use that much RAM but they'll benefit from it if it's faster.

 

6GB of RAM and a Seagate Momentus XT!

 

@tiller
good comments as always, but you gotta admit 99% or maybe more, of us dont use our system the way you do. ssd's would be of greater benefit to the majority imo.
also, i personally would not risk ssd's in raid0 especially with your usage profile and especially since your using it for work.
just my 2 bits

 

Ya shure.

 

I'll agree I'm hard on SSD's.

I have given up on RAID of any kind for a long, long time. I'm not sure why you are commenting on that? Was I sleep-typing or something?

 

Coz you typed this:

 

SSD's would benefit the average user the most... but no average user cares enough to spend that huge amount of money for it.

 

4 GB of RAM is good enough for 98% of all users today. I would invest in the SSD.

 

As I said, it would be more appropriate to look at faster RAM as opposed to more RAM.

 

Except that most of the time, faster RAM won't actually help. Most programs that people use bottleneck on I/O, whether from the user or disk access. And even at the really high end, most people bottleneck on CPU speed long before RAM speed.

 

Since when does your CPU bottleneck RAM? I do agree with I/O though, you're right.

 

I mean that your RAM is waiting for your CPU to finish it's computations to give it the data it needs to put back into the RAM. Also, since CPU manufacturers are moving the memory controller on-die with the CPU, the limits of the RAM speed that can be driven now depend on the CPU. For example, Clarksfield i7s support DDR3 RAM running up to 1333 MHz. Arrandale i-cores only support 1066 MHz DDR3.

 

Ah, I understand. I must have misunderstood =p

 

Hungry Man I think some average users will go for SSD's once the advantages are explained to them and if they have the money. Many people want what they perceive to be the best or what will give them the best experience over the longterm.

I've got 8GB of 1066mhz ram and an SSD. Yes, my ram runs at 800mhz but that is besides the point.

6GB is a sweet spot and i might have stopped there if i didn't need to open my laptop to upgrade the ram. Once my laptop was open i decided i might as well go for 8GB in case i decide to go for 8GB down the line and then need to open my laptop again.

I agree with the Joker it's also nice to see memory usage as low as 12-14% in W7 64bit. It also had no negative effects on my battery life.

Also, there is a question of dual channel symmetric ram. A forum member (i think it was der_mali) reported that those with dual channel symmetric ram with 4500 graphics can expect to see a 30% boost by having dual channel symmetric ram.

 

I've tried multiple SSD's, and can't say I'm thoroughly satisfied. For a desktop, it's a hard decision, because 7200RPM HDD's are pretty quick to begin with. I see the "snappiness" in general from SSD's, but when I go back to a fast HDD, I don't long for that "snappiness". For a laptop, unless you really don't need the storage space or have two drive bays, it's hard to justify IMHO, unless you have the money to burn for a larger SSD.

Regarding RAM usage, Win 7 utlizes as much as it can, which is a good thing, which means it's optimized for speed. Lower RAM usage doesn't mean much more than you probably have more than you need.

 

Don't you mean an easy decision? The ability to expand should make it a no brainer.

Don't think that's possible.

 

Not really. I've been using an Intel 80GB G2 in my desktop for at least six months. I'm pulling it out and putting in a Samsung Spingpoint F3 1TB (only $55 shipped from newegg! Woot!) and putting the SSD in my netbook. Not to mention issues with it, like performance degradation, programs hanging at launch (kind of defeats the purpose doesn't it?), and having to secure erase it periodically to get performance back.

I don't get any real noticeable improvement over a fast 7200 RPM desktop HDD. I can't see justifying the cost.

You can have as much RAM as you'd like but if you don't utilize it then what's the point?

 

Worse than that, unused memory increases system overload and very slightly slows the machine down so you're actually worse off.

Some of the benchmarks in that article demonstrate this, but the effect is usually undetectable.

 

Just as an aside, that's actually only Intel. AMD has already been doing that for the past 7 years.

Yes, but unless you are doing 3D games that performance difference isn't going to mean anything.

 

I thought 8GB didn't have any negative impact on battery life as when i did my testing it didn't seem to before.
Anyway, i've been doing some testing on my Sony TT and it does seem to get better battery life with 4GB than it does with 8GB. With 8GB my max battery life was 13hrs 05 minutes and 4GB with one single stick it shot to well over 14hrs. The only difference was the ram amount.

 

I guess you are using Windows to predict battery life. As you probably know that is the least accurate way.

Battery Bar is a bit better. For it to be accurate you would have to run it for at least a couple of hours.

 

Well you must have super-fast 7200RPM HD or a really slow SSD then. The performance gain I got both on m17x and Thinkpad is amazing. Doing anything on my old m11x with 7.2k HD feels like giving a birth... it never ends. I got absolutely no issues... it still boots as fast as before, nothing is hanging for me and just works way more quiet then the regular HD.

 

Thanks Phil, yes i was looking at the max predicted times. I've checked over WWAN now, battery life over WWAN is much more important to me. I used it over WWAN with 8gb earlier today and have used it long enough over 4GB now to convince me right now that for me a single 4GB stick seems to better. This means for me removing the extra 4gb ram permanently.

This also means for me forgoing that 30% boost but i'm not a gamer anyway.

 

That's really interesting. I wouldn't have guessed the difference would be that noticeable.

Also raises the question. How much of the difference is due to powering 1 stick as opposed to 2. And would 2 x 2GB consume more power than 1 x 4GB.

 

2x2GB will definitely consume more power than 1x4GB, but this won't make a difference in overall power consumption unless you're running in an ultraportable and require that extra few minutes of battery life. Changing the brightness of any notebook screen will save much more power than the difference between sticks of memory.

 

With 8GB RAM (2x4GB) in both an Asus and a Sony (DDR3, DDR2 respectively) I did not see a difference in battery life worth worrying about - less than 10 minutes (watching a youtube video or a flash heavy website will easily change the time remaining on battery power more than the additional RAM will).

Of note is that the Sony (18.4") has only a less than 2 hour endurance, while the Asus (13.3") lasts over 6 hrs with the same type usage (internet/email/read pdf's). And they both showed the same (non) differences with 4GB vs. 8GB RAM installed.

Of course, that was comparing them with 2x2GB and 2x4GB sticks (in both cases, both ram slots were used), so maybe that makes a difference?

What I know for sure is that 4GB systems are not as optimized as 8GB systems when using Win7x64 (I'm just talking O/S 'snappiness' here - not productivity, nor in a multi-tasking scenario) so the 5 to 10 minute differences I saw would not make be go back to 4GB RAM ever.

 

Curious to know why you said that.

 

Well, with 4GB RAM, I think Windows 7 x64 is artificially limiting itself from loading all it can into RAM and it relies on the hard-drive (either accessing the files directly or through the pagefile) enough for me to notice the little delays.

With 8GB RAM - it seems to just load without these artificial restrictions and it responds much more in real time to my inputs.

Once programs are launched/used/closed a few times, these differences are slightly masked between 4GB and 8GB systems (especially when the respective RAM limits are reached), but the 8GB systems feel much more lighter on their feet for longer, even after they have been heavily used.

 

More RAM = More cache I suppose. 8GB may never be fully utilized but you'll still see an increase in cache.

 

As i wrote before I have used the 8GB inside my Sony TT for quite some time. When i first checked when i first did the upgrade i didn't notice anything worth worrying about, a 5-10mins different max. I obviously checked with 2x2GB and 4X4GB. It could be the single stick that has improved things as i never checked with that before.

The only reason why i was testing again is that i've been using WWAN quite a bit and nothing i could do could get my max battery life over WWAN over 8hrs with the settings i wanted to use.

I used it for about two hours over WWAN with 4GB and the advantage seemed to be real as after 1hr with 8GB it was showing me at lot less battery life etc.

Of course my Sony TT is an ultraportable, SU9600, 1.8 256GB Samsung SSD, 59.5w battery, GS45 chipset. I run it in silent mode which undervolts the CPU and have the Intel drivers set to max power savings. I also use power saver.

 

Rachel, do you notice any difference in snappiness between 4GB and 8GB?

 

Phil I've checked my boot up times, i've had my laptop on for a while so it's not a cold boot but it's exactly the same. The only thing i could be noticing is my shut down times. It might be ever so slightly faster with 8GB but i would need to get a stop watch out for that. Plus it doesn't make sense either. Everything else though appears to be exactly the same for me. I do have an SSD as well though.

Edited to add:
I will check my shut down times and edit them in.

OK i put my 8GB back and tried a few times and my shut down times are actually the same 8 secs and my boot up time is the same. Everything else feels the same.

 

I must agree with Tiller on the 8GB of Ram - have that in my Sony FW - saw a nice improvement in response when multi-tasking between large Excel files (30MB with several hundred calculations running in the background) and large (190MB+) PowerPoint files.
Bouncing back and forth between is quick and efficient with 8GB. With 4GB I would have some minor pause (nothing dramatic), but pause none-the less. For what I need it to do - it works and I too would not go back to 4GB. Since it's a desktop replacement, I'm not as concerned about the battery life (that's why use the netbook when travel/business trips).