Why Do You Need More Than 6GB of Memory?

I'd say majority users are good with 4 GBs, while there's some that could honestly use more. Then there's the ones who think they need more, but they really don't even break 2 GB usage, unless they get a memory leak.

It's like SSDs for me. I doubt I'd see any real gains from them, cept game load speeds. Course I don't pay attention to that either, since I have my 2nd comp running and I'm watching a tv show/movie/etc on it while my game is loading. I recently got off my Raptors and didn't notice any changes.
 
4GB has been pretty enough for myself, and even 2GB with Conroe didn't feel lacking that much, though that seem to becoming quite low nowadays. I'm not seeing any reason to upgrade more mem, until I switch to a newer platform. I think 6-8GB would be plenty for even most high-end rigs, though not counting the [h]ardest ones. :cool:
 
Running currently, but need more as SQL just loooooves the RAM. (not on in this screenshot) this particular box has no issues with recoding HD.

taskman.gif
 
If you're running an enterprise server, of course the more memory, the better. But you can record HD with a gig.
 
Yeah I was considering for a while the idea of getting 12gb of ram, especially at current prices. But I got a noctua cooler for my i7 920(copying your 3.5ghz setup, Kyle). and well, one of my dimm slots is taken so im limited to three sticks on tripple channel. So 6gb it seems.

Those wondering what a 21 year old student would want to do with 12gb of ram? Virtualisation. A lot of my classes in my IT Security program use Virtualisation.
 
Can't argue with Kyle's logic. I've been on 8GB for about a year now. Friends told me I was nuts. Proved them all wrong. ;)

It's nice never having to close programs or be able to batch encode DVDs for my iPhone (and soon my HTPC) while never skipping a beat in a game or doing whatever else I'm doing at that moment.
 
My big thing is I use the Adobe suite a lot and really liked the idea of being able to leave up photoshop, dreamweaver, flash, and premiere. Basically, I'd like to be able to have all my productivity software open at once, so I don't have to go through the startup everytime if I haven't used a program in a little while, and currently I use 2gb, just between firefox and my desktop monitoring software, and If I'm correct pcs won't ever use up all of the ram, it has to leave a 15% or so buffer, this theory is based on when I had 2gb my pc used up around 85% of the ram, and now with 4gb, it uses up 85% or so in the same applications. Plus 12gb 1600 with deals and such is less than 200, might start off with 6gb and add on later. plus I am a benchmark fiend and that high score always intrigues me.
 
Just wanted to chime in. I definitely find 12gb of ram useful. I do alot of encoding, gaming, and run multi monitors. Nothings better than being able to play WOW in a 1900x1200 windowed screen on my main monitor while encoding videos on my 2nd monitor with CS4 open while watching a DVD and normally having Visual Studio open with a project either being debugged or worked on. It is nice to know that if I want to have WOW and Warhammer both open, they don't even use 1/3 of my system ram. Now if only i could set default processor core affinity for each app! *grin*

I'm still running Windows XP 64bit, once Win7 comes out I'll be making the jump out of XP land finally. Hopefully things like TTS work in 64bit Win7, getting tired of MS Sam in XP 64! I also have my page file turned off completely and have never gotten close to 8gb of usage so I can only imagine the amount of things your doing Kyle. :)

Also wanted to note that I'm running on an Asus P6T Deluxe V2 with an i7 920 @ stock speeds running G.skill 2gb x 6 sticks at DDR3-1600 on stock volts.

system1.jpg


system2.jpg
 
If you run multiple virtual machines, you'll need lots of memory. I have Vista Ultimate as my host OS and VMs of OpenSuSe, CentOS, Server 2008, Windows 7, XP, Windows 98se, MS-DOS 6.22 /w Windows 3.11. I don't run these simultaniously, but if so, I'd need a lot of memory.
 
I love my 8gb whether or not running virtuals. Apps alone find me using 5+ GB in Vista. Throw in a VM or two and I could easily justify 12GB+. Admittedly, even a striped set of 640's seem to be a barrier only SSD could solve.
 
Last edited:
NeghVar said:
If you run multiple virtual machines, you'll need lots of memory. I have Vista Ultimate as my host OS and VMs of OpenSuSe, CentOS, Server 2008, Windows 7, XP, Windows 98se, MS-DOS 6.22 /w Windows 3.11. I don't run these simultaniously, but if so, I'd need a lot of memory.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's the thing, I usually need to run a bunch at the same time. And lets not forget that i'll eventually need to run virtual routers and switches. And then there's also my own fiddling arround. Like hosting virtual servers lol. Lets just say that being able to run all my virtual machines i need for school/personal use as well as play games+ music/ watch videos would be nice. 3gb of ram restricts me a lot. Im sadface that my cooler means i wont be able to run more than 3 dimms in tri channel, or 6gb so far. I hope they come out with 12gb 3x4gb dim kits soon :D
 
I will be upgrading to 12gb when I upgrade to SSDs on my I7 machine later this year.
 
actually, coming from the server world, one can only chuckle about 6GB and the likes.
SAP tells you, that for a current build 8GB of memory is the absolute minimum for a server. Have some clients do different tasks on the database, and a 40GB pagefile will not be uncommon. They've essentially quadrupled their ram needs with the inclusion of Java, thank you very much indeed.
In one brochure, talking about SAP on windows environments and optimization, they are talking about typical servers and 1TB of RAM in the same sentence! Pure Sparta!
I can only sympathize with Kyle though. I have 6GB in my current machine, though I rarely use more than 2-3, I simply HATE to have to wait for programs when they're swapping. My next machine will have atleast 12gigs, maybe even more - not decided yet if I build it on a server board with dual CPUs and FB-dimms.
 
photomerge = fail
autopano pro FTW


Cong Sat said:
I can kill 4gb with no issue. I run a wide-format printshop primarily for Arch/Eng plans. In AutoCAD I don't seem to flex the system to much. When I get into the fine-art/photo wide format color that's when all hell breaks loose.

Photoshop kills my system. Try doing a Photomerge with a dozen 8 megapixel photos. At times interpolating a picture for a poster kills the system. Processing the photo for printing will max out the RAM. At times I have to go and place the bitmap image into InDesign to print. InDesign seems more efficient at printing than Photoshop. Granted that these are extreme situations, ie 42" x 120" photo/print.

For the most part, 4gb is OK for everyday use in my situation. More would be nice though. I've seen some crazy workstations from guys that do vehicle wraps use.
Click to expand...
 
Running 6GB DDR-2 here on one machine, mostly for VMs and I'm finding I need more ram now on this Core 2 Quad.
Overcommiting memory for VMs sounds like a nice idea untill you really start using it.
I could go all the way to 16GB if I could, but decent 4GB DDR-2 sticks are very expensive, it would be cheaper to go Core i7 instead.

But for my regular needs, I find 4GB to be just fine.

I can only guess that one reason games don't tend to use more ram is because a lot of users are still running 32 bit systems, so games are optimized to use less memory, even if running a 64bit version.
 
8GB on my C2D machine is comfortable, so I'm not dropping to 6GB when I move to i7. Formerly I justified unused RAM as the cheapest way to cache frequently used disk space, which improves load times ...but then I got the 64GB X25-E, and it doesn't suck ;)

Keep in mind I'm not authoring content, but I do like my "main rig" to be responsive.

Thing is, if you look at prices on 6G DDR3 2000 kits, choosing between (6G RAM + fast SSD) vs. (12GB RAM + regular disk) becomes a wash. Of course prices for both DDR3 2000 kits and fast SSDs will be half that in 6 months. So what I'll probably do is run 6GB + SSD for a while, and then jump to 12GB when higher DDR3 speeds are less of a premium vs. mainstream DDR3. Also, a higher capacity and faster SSD may become available soon e.g. ioXtreme

If you need 12GB, forget all that - take a hit on RAM MHz if you have to, but get the RAM you need. Servers are the classic example (good luck finding 1866MHz FBDIMMs ...at least until i7 SkullTrail comes out LoL)

Kyle - with a right click on those task bar icons, there is the option to launch an additional instance of a program. Personally, I found this more intuitive than "Quick Launch", though "intuitive" is obviously subjective.
 
I'd change the thread title to "Why you MIGHT need more than 6gb or ram". If only because it applies to a select minority.

IMO Win7 has much better memory handling than Vista, which makes memory requirements to be lower for the first time ever. This may not be apparent with plenty of ram, but people with 1 or 2 gb will notice the difference.

I have tested my pc with 2 to 8 gb of ram and for what I use it, 4gb is the best choice.

In the end it all comes to the type of apps you run and how much you multitask. The scenario Kyle paints may not apply to many of us today, but surely will in the near future.
 
I'm an Editor for a video game company, and I currently have 8GB of ram in my main editor.

If I render anything in After effects CS4, the ram gets maxed out instantly, as the program opens up 6 instances of itself to render.

If I render anything in Adobe Media Encoder, and still continue to edit, I will have about 85%-95% of the ram being used. This happens almost on a daily basis, as I have to continue capturing from the game, as we render out stuff for the ESRB, (They like to see every part of the game).

We work with Uncompressed 1280x720 60p video. Imagine how much ram you could use if you were working with 2k (2048x1080) DPX video for a traditional movie, or 4k (4096x2048) RAW video from a camera like the RED One?

So yeah, Video Professionals need more ram. I'll be upgrading to some 12GB core i7 next spring because it costs less money to upgrade yearly than it does to pay me for just waiting around.
 
I come Very Very close to maxing out my 4GB of RAM when I have 3 or 4 things open and running in the background. Pushing my machine to 6GB or more gives me that extra room to run even more stuff.

In all honesty unless you are a media power house or ADD junky that NEEDS everything open at once, 4GB is a safe cap to go for. Just learn to close programs that you don't need and you'll do fine.

I'm waiting for the next paycheck to upgrade to 8GB anyway :)
 
after purchasing my Canon 5d MKII I learned that 8GB wasnt enough.

What I would give for 24GB in my wifes and my system when it comes to opening and editing multiple RAW files.
 
I was initially annoyed at this topic. Later I realized that I was annoyed not with the topic, but with the word "need."

At this point in time almost none of you need (or may ever need) 12GB of RAM.

WANT on the other hand... 12GB could be nice in some situations of heavy multitasking.
 
In the future the CPU will have so much onboard cache that we won't need ram at all. Introducing the new Core i30 with 200 GB of L3 cache.
 
I've been using Vista 64 with 12GB for about 4 months now, on a routine basis I have close to 4 GB in use while working. I frequently need to load VM ware sessions and do some occasional photoshop or mod work - loading these quickly bumps to 5.5 GB of RAM on a routine basis.

In all likelyhood I could have gotten by with 8GB but that doesn't work well with triple channel, and for the price difference it was better to run 12GB and have the capacity for running additional VM's (I virtualize servers and desktop sessions on a routine basis).
 
Right now with Firefox, WMP12 and a few basic items open I'm sitting at 1.2GB used with 4.8GB free and even if I open something like WoW etc it won't eat a great deal more generally leaving at least half of it unused.

I've no doubt that there are many reasons to need more so if you need it then you need it although as far as I'm concerned the minimum amount for an i7 user should always be 6GB as quite frankly 3GB is too small.

Still always had a nagging feeling the more space we get in terms of storage the more bloated the programs get over time without any reason other than being lazy and badly developed....any one remember the Doom floppies ;)
 
Kyle,

Thanks again for the great site and forum!! I haven't posted in a long time but I am still an original viewer for the past decade??. Anyway my 2 questions,

1. Does setting up a RAM disk make sense for the large RAM setup?

2. I still have problems with memory leakage which I have to cold boot to fully cure. Predominately with MCAD applications and trading (Tradestation) applications. This has been a problem since forever and over 5 machines/systems from 98 SE days. Current system is 920 I7, 6 GIG DDR3, RAID 0, VISTA 64.
Question, is there a good method to limit memory leakage effects. In my experience, the leakage definitely increases with increased machine time on. Also, only a main board reset fully solves the problem.

Thanks
 
Striph said:
Also wanted to note that I'm running on an Asus P6T Deluxe V2 with an i7 920 @ stock speeds running G.skill 2gb x 6 sticks at DDR3-1600 on stock volts.
Click to expand...

Posting screenshot of a 920 running stock clock! Better watch your back around here. ;)

Living Weapon said:
Kyle - with a right click on those task bar icons, there is the option to launch an additional instance of a program. Personally, I found this more intuitive than "Quick Launch", though "intuitive" is obviously subjective.
Click to expand...

I have actually gotten accustomed to using the Windows Key and typing the name as my hands are many times on the keyboard instead of the mouse.

Stoly said:
I'd change the thread title to "Why you MIGHT need more than 6gb or ram". If only because it applies to a select minority.
Click to expand...

I do not care what you would change it to.
 
bigtex11 said:
Kyle,

Thanks again for the great site and forum!! I haven't posted in a long time but I am still an original viewer for the past decade??. Anyway my 2 questions,

1. Does setting up a RAM disk make sense for the large RAM setup?

2. I still have problems with memory leakage which I have to cold boot to fully cure. Predominately with MCAD applications and trading (Tradestation) applications. This has been a problem since forever and over 5 machines/systems from 98 SE days. Current system is 920 I7, 6 GIG DDR3, RAID 0, VISTA 64.
Question, is there a good method to limit memory leakage effects. In my experience, the leakage definitely increases with increased machine time on. Also, only a main board reset fully solves the problem.

Thanks
Click to expand...

1. I have never used a RAM disk on my desktop, so I don't know.

2. Don't know that either. Seems like the people making the software should fix that crap.
 
krotch said:
In the future the CPU will have so much onboard cache that we won't need ram at all. Introducing the new Core i30 with 200 GB of L3 cache.
Click to expand...
I don't see this happening for awhile...if ever. CPU cache will always be way more expensive than RAM.
 
I'm currently running 8GB on my main home machine now with Vistax64 Ultimate. I am loving not having to worry at all about a pagefile, or having to make sure that all of my other programs are closed before firing up a game.

I would never go back to only 4GB (or lower).
 
Yeah another reason for more ram.

One thing i've noticed with my beta testing of windows 7 beta and RC. Windows 7 scales its ram usage to the ammount of available ram. Oh my 1gb of ram equipped acer laptop its limited to about 450mb on idle. On my 3gb i7 desktip, it idles at just a hair over 1gb. So the pattern I see is if you ahve more ram, windows will use more of it for itself instead of caching parts of its code on the hard drive, which definately helps speed up loading and operation. Same rule applies for memory management in software i believe. Again. If software can access more ram instead of depending on pagefile or caching itself on the hard drive(same thing i guess) then you are going to notice a difference for sure.
 
When I switched from my Q6600 to my i7-920 I went from 8 to 6GB and I miss the other memory. I'll be updating to 12GB next time I see a real killer sale or mem prices drop lower.

For me I use it for VMs. I could run another 3-4 with that other 2GB of memory I don't have any more.
 
My next system is going to go for the 12GB of RAM, mostly because it sounds like a massive upgrade. "I went from two giggle bits to TWELVE BOOYAH!" such thing.. I'll probably get back into running virtual machines which sounds like fun!

Also I have recently installed Windows 7 RC1 on a 1gb system and it ran very nicely total RAM usage at idle as 50%..
 
I can think of many reasons.

Most folks aren't running SSD's these days, but now that they are coming to market, and with their very high transfer speeds, I would assume more RAM would make such devices perform better. Many manufacturers such as FusionIO that have high transfer speeds actually recommend an additional amount of RAM per SSD installed.

Windows 7 allows Virtualization of Windows XP. But this adds an additional 2GB of RAM system resourece need from what I have read. So if you are going to virtualize, you will need more RAM. Maybe to play an old game or something, although there isn't a game I haven't got to work on Windows 7 yet.

Have you ever loaded up anything like the Unreal Tournament 3 map editor? The last time I did that, I wished I had 24 GB of RAM.

Tactile feel. I have computers with 4GB and 8GB of RAM. Otherwise they are the same. I can tell the difference on the machines because of the smoothness of the performance.

As for games, many of them are not using the full amount of RAM because they are not compiled with the large assets tag. Many of them probably don't need to, but many of them could use it. Ever wonder why some games with level have to take a moment to stop and load when you have plenty of RAM left for them to preload content into? How about the developers gets to work on using it properly.
 
I really don't see the need for the average joe to have more than 6gb unless you are doing video editing, massive photo editing and the sort. Most games can't even use that much, as they aren't 64 bit code. 4gb is fine for those not running i7 platform.

Disclaimer: I have 6gb in my Vista x64 core2quad system.:D
 
Regarding precaching, with 8gb in my system, I have noticed that it seems as though I use enough variety of programs frequently enough to where Vista still has to use I/O to load many of my programs. I still like my 8gb, but I believe that the memory management could still improve from that of Vista, or maybe 24gb would compensate for better memory management :) Have not tried Windows 7 yet.
 
Just because you never use more than 2-3GB of ram does NOT mean that you won't benefit from ~8GB of ram. Windows uses all free ram as disk cache, so the more free ram you have the more disk cache you have. Since windows has superfetch, it will pre populate the cache with stuff it thinks you will be using (based on your history). With more room for cache then superfetch can do a better job and the whole system is a LOT faster. Since disk cache is nothing more than a copy, it can be immediately freed if an app actually needs to use that memory, so there is no penalty for using the ram as disk cache. Of course this is less of a benefit (but still a benefit) with SSD's as they are so fast anyways...
 
I've had 8 gigs for almost a year and a half now, and while I do get the warm fuzzies from seeing it used for superfetch, or occasionally need it for heavy multitasking, VMs, etc. I'd be lying if I said it was anything more than a "meh, why not?" upgrade. After all, going from 4 to 8 was I think 60 bucks at the time :-P
 
8 gig on my vista64 install at home, I dont think I ever get over 4 gig used.

this is with EQ2 playing (cpu hog in itself), streaming HD to my ps3 for the wife/kid to watch (transcoding on the fly too), and at least one other misc app running. dont see any hiccups in eq or the video streaming.

if I remember, will post a screen shot tonite when I get home.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top