This is why you never rely solely on benchmarks.
With the cost of RAM going up of late, it might be worthwhile to know whether you really need so much. And what type. I’ve heard the results before, but haven’t read of anyone doing an actual test of it. I wonder what the results will be under Vista?
Analysis: How Much System Memory Is Really Enough?
How much memory is enough? That’s a question that’s bothered me — and thousands of other computer users — for years. And so far, I haven’t seen too many answers that have really satisfied me.
It’s especially important because, while the type of memory — whether it be DDR, DDR2, or some other — is locked in stone by which motherboard and processor your system works with, you get to choose the amount of memory that comes with a new machine (and add to it later).
However, it’s not easy to figure out how much is enough — computer memory is situational. What you’re doing and the software you’re using to do it are the deciding factors in determining the optimal memory size for your computer — and they can change from PC to PC.
The picture that’s posted is slightly misleading – in that picture, the benchmark only needed a gig of memory – the other graph in the article, from the video editing test, is probably a more accurate show of the results of the test.
I’ve found OSX can chew up more memory than XP. At least there’s better return on the memory investment as far as system speed. I bumped up an Athlon 64 from 1 to 2 Gigs and saw little real time difference. Photoshop filters did render a bit faster on large files. I don’t know crap about games, or how memory effects them. I only work with computers and don’t play with them.
The graphs in the entire article are very misleading (just like most PC Magazine graphs). The axis on the left is not fixed at zero, so the change when adding more memory is grossly exaggerated. Going from 512MB to 1.5GB, for example, gives a 9% improvement in performance. Because of the scale distortion of the graph, on the graph this looks like a 66% improvement. So triple your RAM, and instead of rendering a video in 35 minutes, it will only take 32 minutes. Whoppee!
The only noticable difference that more RAM will make is in improved multi-tasking performance. If you load lots of apps at once, more RAM will prevent some from being paged to disk, and this you will definitely notice.
This memory thing is being tossed around with som clarifying needed…
I’ve often (at least once…) heard JCDvorak tell this in Twit – No more benefit after 1Gb – It’s true. But only if you use your PC to open mail, surf the net and type away at Word, and the ocasional game. I’m working at a printing service bureau, and usually I’ve got Photoshop, Freehand, Corel and a bunch of folders open at the same time. I’ve used 1 Gb for a long time, but the bare minimum for this kind of work is 2Gb and I’m terribly regreting the fact that I didn’t go for the whole 4Gb. Heck, just for Photoshop you’ll need 2Gb and more, if you serious about it.
It’s also true that OSX is a lot different at memory management. I maintain a Mac alongside my Dell just for those pesky files and CDs that don’t read nor open under XP. Even though itś an older machine (760 mhz G4 @ 768Mb ram) sometimes it opens that Freehand file with a lot of embedded pictures in a fraction of the time it takes on a XP. I’ve read an interesting article in Anandtech about this that states the same of the Mac http://anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2232
It’s a bit dated but holds true to this issue.
PS.Just skip to page 8, even though it’s good reading…
I’ve heard having hideous alien-like themes decorating your tower or laptop increases memory performance by the jigawatt.
since I use mac os x at home and xp at work I can say that memory does make a difference. when I got my first mac (Many moons ago) I played the memory ladder game. buying bigger & bigger chips over the life of my mac. with my iMac & Macbook I went full tilt and bought 2 gigs for both. I didn’t want to go piece meal again. I also only buy from cetain companies
GO CRUCIAL!
yet another “It depends” article
Weird, RAM prices going up. Impending Vista release. Vista needs alot of memory. I see a connection here. Reminds me of gas prices.
90% of persons Wont need ALOT of ram, past 1 gig.
what adds to that amount is the USE of graphic scanning, decodeing, rendering, and so forth…
Wich seems abit funny, but most people dont realize that 90% of grpahic processing is DONE in the CPU and ram, BEFORE being sent to the GPU to be rendered into a display.
I have been using 512MB DDR2 533mhz (divided on two memory modules) this is not addressed in the article. I wonder how much faster my system runs compared to the non DDR2 one reviewed?
I have 4 gig, Windows will only use a small portion for a single program without it’s own memory management. Adobe provides it for Premier and Photoshop. No one else does so XP allocates your ram. You get a large block, of which 80% is allocated as virtual ram, even though you have plenty of free actual ram. Windows also allocates 800 meg of my 4 gig to work with the P4 CPU as a dual processor machine, leaving 3200 meg for my software.. I agree, 2 gig is plenty in XP, but who knows what MS will do on their next system. I have even heard they mi8ght use a real memory management system.