More RAM doesn't always amount to better performance

[TripOG]

i have 8 gigs of ram in here and all i use this for really is browsing the web and chatting tell you what i tell you i wouldnt go back down to four either way

 

[cartel]

disable your swapfile and you'll see how more ram is WAY better.

 

[TheTeZ]

ive got 8 gigs... while it may be a little un necessary, ( i got 4gb dual channel free) i enjoy it.
I agree, you wont see much of a difference in a program, but when you are running multiple program's / processes, constantly, it definitely helps, at any given time i am running 6 different applications, that i am switching between very frequently. ... granted the multi core processors help this as well

 

[jimbo45]

i have 8 gigs of ram in here and all i use this for really is browsing the web and chatting tell you what i tell you i wouldnt go back down to four either way

If that's all you are using your machine for -- well in another life I'd love to sell you Double Glazing or Life Insurance as I'd be RICH.

You could do your browsing on a 512MB netbook quite easily -- Web browsing is normally so I/O bound (even Video streaming) you could probably run your web browser totally in the CPU's Cache areas -- with Zero RAM for all the amount of processing required.

Internet browsing speed has very little to do with the amount of RAM in your system.

Hi The Tez
I did say one use for more RAM was if you want to run a LOT of concurrent applications -- but you need a LOT of concurrent apps to make use of much more than 4GB of RAM however do remember that most applications are currently 32 bit so you've still got "Adress mapping" translations to perform as the 32 bit apps won't see an address > 4GB.

Remember Windows is designed as a single USER system. On a Multi-user server type system where multiple users need their own "Address spaces" then RAM IS required as I posted previously.

Typically desktop single user applications (apart from some hi intensive graphical games / video editing) are so I/O bound anyway that even if you do incur an amount of paging you won't really notice it with the speed of modern processors. Most of the time your computer is just sitting there waiting for user input.

I still stand by my thesis that for MOST typical users increasing RAM significantly (especially much above 4GB) won't yield any significant performance gain whereas fast Disks most certainly will.

Future applications and computer architecture might well change this but as of the current state of the art in single user OS design I stand by the OP.

Cheers
jimbo

 

[bigseb]

This topic neatly touches on something that bugs me:

After startup my RAM usage lies at about 30%. Once I start working (I use Solidworks, Rhinoceros, occasionally other CAD/CAM software) the RAM usage creeps up to about 55%. Usually, if possible rather, I only run one application at a time. Sometimes however it's necessary to flip between three or four and I notice a dip in performance.

So here's my question to all of you: would it be worthwhile to exchange my 2x1GB RAM modules with 2x2GB RAM modules? Some say yes, some say no. My mind tells me it'll be slightly better but not mindblowingly so... I'd like to get some opinions before I spend money.

Bear in mind I'm actually very satisfied with my laptop, it's just that nagging lag...

 

[baarod]

This topic neatly touches on something that bugs me:

After startup my RAM usage lies at about 30%. Once I start working (I use Solidworks, Rhinoceros, occasionally other CAD/CAM software) the RAM usage creeps up to about 55%. Usually, if possible rather, I only run one application at a time. Sometimes however it's necessary to flip between three or four and I notice a dip in performance.

So here's my question to all of you: would it be worthwhile to exchange my 2x1GB RAM modules with 2x2GB RAM modules? Some say yes, some say no. My mind tells me it'll be slightly better but not mindblowingly so... I'd like to get some opinions before I spend money.

Bear in mind I'm actually very satisfied with my laptop, it's just that nagging lag...

To be completely honest -- it's your apps. The folks that put them out think they are the hot stuff but really they are just bit players. When you assume too much then there you are.

 

[bigseb]

To be completely honest -- it's your apps. The folks that put them out think they are the hot stuff but really they are just bit players. When you assume too much then there you are.

You think you can be a bit clearer... 'cos I have no idea what your point is...

 

[bigseb]

Ok... upgraded from 2GB to 4GB... lets see...

 

[smarteyeball]

More RAM = less pagefile usage.
Less pagefile usage = less HD thrashing.
Less HD trashing = less time waiting.

You should notice a difference with a few resource hungry apps open.

 

[Victek]

Ok... upgraded from 2GB to 4GB... lets see...

.
I noticed a difference when I upgraded from 2 to 3 gigs in Vista 32 bit. Later I went from 3 to 4 gigs so I could restore dual channel mode, but the difference wasn't noticeable.

 

[bigseb]

.
I noticed a difference when I upgraded from 2 to 3 gigs in Vista 32 bit. Later I went from 3 to 4 gigs so I could restore dual channel mode, but the difference wasn't noticeable.

So far so good... definitely an improvement... only thing is on my system page it says total RAM is 4GB then in brackets 3GB usable... huh?... I read in another thread about a poster that had the same problem so I'm off to find that now... see what I can do to fix it...

 

[Victek]

So far so good... definitely an improvement... only thing is on my system page it says total RAM is 4GB then in brackets 3GB usable... huh?... I read in another thread about a poster that had the same problem so I'm off to find that now... see what I can do to fix it...

.
Are you running the 32 bit (x86) version of Windows 7? If so it's normal for the OS to only be able to use part of the fourth gig of ram - memory addresses are needed for hardware, such as the memory on the video adapter.

 

[bigseb]

.
Are you running the 32 bit (x86) version of Windows 7? If so it's normal for the OS to only be able to use part of the fourth gig of ram - memory addresses are needed for hardware, such as the memory on the video adapter.

32bit... but it should be at 3,25GB... not a hell of a lot more I know but that's not the point... The Sly Assassin reckons this is because of WEI and I have to do a fresh install... looking for a better solution...

Any ideas?...

 

[Victek]

32bit... but it should be at 3,25GB... not a hell of a lot more I know but that's not the point... The Sly Assassin reckons this is because of WEI and I have to do a fresh install... looking for a better solution...

Any ideas?...

.
For more precise information open the task manager, switch to the performance tab and see the total available memory entry. I've attached a screenshot from my system showing total memory as 3326 kb, which is about right for a 32 bit OS with a 512 meg video adapter.

 

[bigseb]

.
For more precise information open the task manager, switch to the performance tab and see the total available memory entry. I've attached a screenshot from my system showing total memory as 3326 kb, which is about right for a 32 bit OS with a 512 meg video adapter.

No mate... even there it shows my total physical memory as 3070MB... somewhere 250MB have gone astray...

 

[Victek]

No mate... even there it shows my total physical memory as 3070MB... somewhere 250MB have gone astray...

.
Do you have a dedicated video card, or motherboard graphics? If you have mobo graphics you may be able to adjust the amount of shared memory in the BIOS. Posting a list of your hardware may give us a clue.

 

[bigseb]

.
Do you have a dedicated video card, or motherboard graphics? If you have mobo graphics you may be able to adjust the amount of shared memory in the BIOS. Posting a list of your hardware may give us a clue.

Have graphics card with 256MB... tell me what info you need and I'll give it... would really like to get to the bottom of this...

 

[MUff1N]

Have graphics card with 256MB... tell me what info you need and I'll give it... would really like to get to the bottom of this...

A 32bit OS can only address 4Gbs TOTAL...this includes any & everything that uses Memory!
Look at what your graphics card is using in "Shared Memory" & this will more than likely show you where the extra has gone. That's where mine is being used which is good because it's needed by my games.

If you look in Resource Monitor it will show you what is using what for the most part.
My "Usable" RAM is 3325 with Hardware using 771Mbs.

 

[bigseb]

A 32bit OS can only address 4Gbs TOTAL...this includes any & everything that uses Memory!
Look at what your graphics card is using in "Shared Memory" & this will more than likely show you where the extra has gone. That's where mine is being used which is good because it's needed by my games.

If you look in Resource Monitor it will show you what is using what for the most part.
My "Usable" RAM is 3325 with Hardware using 771Mbs.

Ok... my graphics card has 256MB dedicated memory... that means it shouldn't dip into my RAM... or did I get that backwards?... as far as I know of the 4GB RAM I have installed 3,25GB should be available to use with a 32bit OS... of that 3.25GB the graphics card uses none as it has its own RAM... that's what I've had explained to me... right or wrong... please help... willing to learn...

 

[Victek]

Ok... my graphics card has 256MB dedicated memory... that means it shouldn't dip into my RAM... or did I get that backwards?... as far as I know of the 4GB RAM I have installed 3,25GB should be available to use with a 32bit OS... of that 3.25GB the graphics card uses none as it has its own RAM... that's what I've had explained to me... right or wrong... please help... willing to learn...

View attachment 15356

.
Unfortunately, a 32 bit OS can only address a total of four gigs. The 256 megs on your video card is using part of that four gigs. That means 256 megs of you ram is unavailable. It's sitting there in your computer but can't be used because Windows does not have enough memory addresses to map it. There are other devices in the computer that also have memory address space set aside for them. The total address space dedicated to hardware is unavailable to the OS. That's why a system with four gigs of ram can only use 3+ gigs. I hope this is more clear. The only way to resolve this is to switch to a 64 OS - it can address a much larger amount of ram.