![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Any advantage on 8gb vs 4gb ram on Win7 64bit?
- Thread starter Ladic
- Start date
MrGuvernment
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Messages
- 21,878
no.
if your not using 4G you wont use 8G, if your using 4G, yes more ram will help.
ihave 8G in my rig and windows on boot still barely uses over 1G of ram, same as when i had 4G.
if your not using 4G you wont use 8G, if your using 4G, yes more ram will help.
ihave 8G in my rig and windows on boot still barely uses over 1G of ram, same as when i had 4G.
GotNoRice
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2001
- Messages
- 12,049
There is a component of windows called superfetch and it exists in both Windows Vista and Windows 7. It will cache frequently used programs into memory so that the applications are loaded from memory instead of your hard disk. The more memory you have, the more superfetch will be able to cache, and more programs will potentially load faster.
But beyond that consider that there is a basic limitation of almost any 32-bit application in that it can't access more than 2GB of ram even on a 64-bit operating system. Unless you are running 64-bit apps it is very doubtful that any program you are running will take advantage of the extra ram.
But beyond that consider that there is a basic limitation of almost any 32-bit application in that it can't access more than 2GB of ram even on a 64-bit operating system. Unless you are running 64-bit apps it is very doubtful that any program you are running will take advantage of the extra ram.
bigdogchris
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2008
- Messages
- 18,730
8GB to me is going to less for you in 7 than in Vista since 7 doesn't cache as much as Vista did. Programs load a little slower in 7 than Vista.
For Vista, 4-8GB is nice, for 7, i'm not going to say don't go 8 but unless you absolutely need it for programs, I doubt it's going to be fully used for SuperFetch caching.
For Vista, 4-8GB is nice, for 7, i'm not going to say don't go 8 but unless you absolutely need it for programs, I doubt it's going to be fully used for SuperFetch caching.
bigdogchris
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2008
- Messages
- 18,730
I guess it depends on what programs you use, how often and how large they are. I've noticed 7 seems to cache after you've opened then closed the program. With Vista, it would just start filling right up after you rebooted. I haven't seen 7 do that.
Maybe I'm just not doing enough on the system for it to have to. I have 2.2GB available of 4GB and this system has been up for almost 5 days. Vista would take me right to 0 available withing a few minutes of booting. I guess it depends per user, per programs used.
What I do know is it's definitely a hell of a lot less aggressive with it's caching, and that's what I mean when I make my Vista/7 comparisons on the usefulness of memory. Like I said earlier, not all programs are launching instantly on my 7 system and they did with Vista so I know they're not being cached.
I had read an article awhile back that benchmarked Vista using 2, 4, 8, and 12gb of RAM.
There was an improvement from 2 to 4 everytime, but 4 to 8 or even 12 did not really make much of a difference and actually slowed things down a bit in a few cases as the RAM was not as fast as the 4gb (timings). They recommended only upgrading if you have programs that utilize it, no sense just for a "speed" factor.
There was an improvement from 2 to 4 everytime, but 4 to 8 or even 12 did not really make much of a difference and actually slowed things down a bit in a few cases as the RAM was not as fast as the 4gb (timings). They recommended only upgrading if you have programs that utilize it, no sense just for a "speed" factor.
I guess it depends on what programs you use, how often and how large they are. I've noticed 7 seems to cache after you've opened then closed the program. With Vista, it would just start filling right up after you rebooted. I haven't seen 7 do that.
Maybe I'm just not doing enough on the system for it to have to. I have 2.2GB available of 4GB and this system has been up for almost 5 days. Vista would take me right to 0 available withing a few minutes of booting. I guess it depends per user, per programs used.
What I do know is it's definitely a hell of a lot less aggressive with it's caching, and that's what I mean when I make my Vista/7 comparisons on the usefulness of memory. Like I said earlier, not all programs are launching instantly on my 7 system and they did with Vista so I know they're not being cached.
I know MS changed superfetch so it waits a while after you boot to start loading things into memory, I haven't heard of any changes to make it 'less aggressive' - don't see why it'd be less aggressive if it's still using all available memory for caching. Maybe your 7 system just hasn't had time to learn your patterns? I'm guessing here because I haven't seen any information on 7's superfetch yet...
DeaconFrost
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2007
- Messages
- 11,588
I would think it would be the law of diminishing returns. As you go from 2 to 4, and then 4 to 8, etc, you'd see less and less of a difference. That being said, no one else can answer that question, OP, but you. If you aren't approaching using all 4 GB now, then 8 GB isn't going to do a thing. If you are using 4 GB, or need extra memory to devote to VMs, it might be worth it to you to go to 8 GB. I did, simply because it was cheap.
Lateralus
More [H]uman than Human
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2004
- Messages
- 18,544
But, but...it's so cool to be able to say you have 12GB! I'm considering upgrading to 12 just for the 1337-ness that will come from being able to put it in my sig.
YeuEmMaiMai
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2004
- Messages
- 34,392
more ram comes in handy when you are ripping DVDs but the application has to be large address aware.
YeOldeStonecat
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2004
- Messages
- 11,330
BINGO!
Add the above point, with "What programs do you run?" Some heavy applications will run better, most will not. Impossible to answer this question without knowing what you run.
I find 8 to be the sweet spot. Anything more is silly and anything less is still very acceptable, but 8 just seems like such a nice perfect ceiling. It's obviously more than 4 but just big enough that it's still outside of the "holy crap you have how much RAM?" factor.
MrGuvernment
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Messages
- 21,878
??? More cpu power would be good for ripping DVD's?
or you mean create a ram drive and store the images / files on there?
4G/8G or not wont affect the speed of a DVD rip, your DVD drive and CPU and harddrive would affect that more.
I went to 8G cause it was cheap aswell, but then i also found knowing i had more ram, i started to get into VM's and have alot open and not have to worry if i was getting close to using 4G or not.
RAM is like how big the desk is at your office. Having more (larger desk) doesn't speed you up , it just makes you more efficient (reduces potential bottlenecks) at working on multiple projects (think stacks of paper). If you have a tiny desk you spend more time shuffling papers and putting papers on the floor than getting real work done. Superfetch throws a wrench into the analogy a little but the concept is still sound.
Not only have I been running 8 Gb of memory for over a year, but I have also have had the Page File disabled for that time. Not only have I not had ANY out of memory reports, but I've not had memory errors reported of any kind and applications do open quicker and the system is generally snappier!
Now this is something I do not recommend to everyone, but if you are dead set on running 8 Gb of memory this this is something you may want to look into!
Now this is something I do not recommend to everyone, but if you are dead set on running 8 Gb of memory this this is something you may want to look into!
DeaconFrost
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2007
- Messages
- 11,588
You'll find most, if not just about all people telling you not to bother with it...as it won't speed up your PC at all. With Vista and W7....just leave it alone.
Unknown-One
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 8,909
32bit applications that have the Large Address Aware flag set can access up to 4GB of RAM on a 64bit system. If you only have 4GB of RAM total, than you're eating into its available address space with your other apps and the OS itself.
I would go with about 6GB to be safe.
firas
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2006
- Messages
- 2,458
Kyle started a similar topic
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1428126
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1428126
GotNoRice
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2001
- Messages
- 12,049
Honestly, how many applications are large address aware? I don't know of a single game that is.
You can't even play World of Warcraft and fly around Northrend at max settings without the game crashing because it tried to use more than 2GB.
This is not true. The OS and other apps don't "eat into" available address space; each process on a 32 bit addressable architecture sees 4GB of memory that can be addressed.
Wow... someone else that uses the same analogy! This always made perfect sense to me.
most all laptops at best buy are shipping 64bit vista with 4gb of ram now if that tells you anything. for more reference, my gaming/htpc is running 4gb of ram in win7 and its fine for games too. for most everything it seems that 4gb is the new standard and 8gb will only help in those special situations
I strongly agree with your assessment of 8 being 4 more than 4.The advantage of 8 from 4 is 4 more.
But, but...it's so cool to be able to say you have 12GB! I'm considering upgrading to 12 just for the 1337-ness that will come from being able to put it in my sig.
I have 12 GB of RAM
You're RIGHT, I does feel L337!!
swatbat
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2001
- Messages
- 13,056
Big advantage I see of having 6 or 8 gigs is because of the virtual xp mode that is an option on 7 professional and ultimate. I know I'm going to end up using that some for various things and the extra memory lets me assign more to it(haven't loaded it on my 7 machine yet but it is comming).
I also multi task a lot and have seen my vista 64 machine run out of memory(it has 4 gigs) a few times. One of the big reasons I went with more for my new build.
I also multi task a lot and have seen my vista 64 machine run out of memory(it has 4 gigs) a few times. One of the big reasons I went with more for my new build.
Lateralus
More [H]uman than Human
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2004
- Messages
- 18,544
I have 12 GB of RAM
You're RIGHT, I does feel L337!!
Yeah, but you can't be truly L337 without a 6.5 GHz i7, 25TB of SSD storage, hexagonal CrossSLIFire and dual 65" LCDs. So get to it!
Serious question though. Do you feel that you would be limited by having 6GB? I don't doubt that there are people that need more, but I tend to have a crapload of stuff open at the same time and I've never run low on system memory even with the page file turned off.
As long as I can have a ton of apps open + a VM or two + launch a game and not run out of memory, I'm good.I was a little disheartened when I went from 8GB in my primary rig to 6GB as I didn't want to go "backwards" in any way from my Q6600 rig, but the i7 system is faster as a whole (obviously) and I've never missed that extra 2GB. I initially wanted 12GB but the Corsair Dominator kits were nearly $300 ea. at the time and I felt having $550+ worth of memory would be a waste when there's no way I would use it all, not to mention it would lower the ceiling on my overclock. The HDD more than any other component has become the obvious bottleneck and that's why I recently purchased a Vertex and X25-M.