8gb, 16gb or 32gb?

My philosophy is pretty simple. I look at BestBuy.com. BestBuy.com tells me what the pleebs are getting. There are a fair number of machines available in store at Best Buy that have 8GB, and they start at a bit under $500. That means pleebs are getting 8GB machines without thinking about it. Associating with unthinking pleebs is unacceptable, therefore 16GB should be the [H] minimum.

edit: 12 is ok if you have a 1366 system.
 
RAM various from user to user. There are people who run 10 apps & 50/60 Chrome Tabs at the same time. I've been like that. I usually have multiple windows and huge number of Tabs.

Usage of PageFile can get eliminated. Makes this faster. Good especially, if you are trying to save your SSD.

Also, with moving standard Disk function like Chrome Cache to Memory can also make it faster.

Quartz-1 said:
Not actually relevant, because Windows 7 x64 can grant each 32 bit app up to 4 GB - they don't all necessarily run in the same address space.

The OP should look at his total memory usage and go from there.
Click to expand...
Depends on how many apps & how big apps you run at the same time.
Quartz-1 said:
Right now, I have 6 GB in use. Just the usual range of utilities and apps. And 44 tabs open in Chrome. Running C&C3 or Runes of Magic will max out my 8 GB
Click to expand...
Thats how I roll. Lots of Chrome Tabs.
breadman said:
I just went from 8GB to 16GB. Was pretty nice being able to make a ram disk for the chrome cache considering all I have is SSDs and little file writes as we know are not necessarily the best.

Beyond that the system itself just seems to feel a bit more snappy when alt-tabbing between stuff.

But being able to run a game, a couple remote desktop connections to other machines on my LAN, and have origin/steam blah blah blah open all while not missing a beat, is... well... sweet.
Click to expand...
What are you using for RAM Disk?
blood said:
:eek:
Click to expand...

jmarsiglio said:
I think consensus agrees on 8gb. Wait until it's cheaper.
Click to expand...
How much CHEAPER do you think this gen of DDR3 will get? In How much time?
pwrusr said:
What ram did you get? What program are you using for ramdisk?
Click to expand...
What are you using for RAM Disk?
Mugenx said:
Rule of thumb!

If you are making threads about how much RAM to use is, you probably don't need more than 8GB (the 4GB of today).

Better spend your money on an SSD. Believe me I got in on the 16GB hype train and got an SSD later. SSD > Memory over 8GB
Click to expand...
True. If they are asking, they are not really a Power User who is usually aware of how much he is using/ and how much his apps need.
lilfiend said:
idk why everyone insists on 16gb of ram, while i personally recommend it to a power user most people wouldn't run into an issue with 4gb, my little brothers computer has 4gb of ram and is running windows 7, uses about 1.5gb on average of ram, which leaves about 2gb of usable memory before windows goes crazy writing everything to the page file.

With how cheap ram is though i would still say 8gb is way better then 4gb because you can a small vm+7+ a game, if you plan on multitasking lightly to moderatly 8gb should be enough

16gb is really for people who want to do several things at once or can't get themselves to commit to closing anything (read 500 tabs in chrome/firefox) the only other reason would i can think of for more ram (besides this being [H] and ram being cheap) is 3d rendering or video editing
Click to expand...
Exactly! It depends on user habits.
ymc said:
8xCorsair Vengeance CMZ8GX3M1A1600C10 DDR3 1600MHz 8GB

My ramdisk software is qsoft. I tried many. This one is the fastest and it supports NTFS. :cool:
Click to expand...
Interesting. Which other ones do you recommend? Top 3?
 
Can you do 2x4 and then 2x8? Or will this cause slowdown? Should you just go with 4x4?
 
I am starting out with 2 x 4....i guess my best option is 4x4, but would 2x8 hurt if I mixed it with 2x4, will this be more slower then 4x4?
 
sawman5 said:
I am starting out with 2 x 4....i guess my best option is 4x4, but would 2x8 hurt if I mixed it with 2x4, will this be slower then 4x4?
Click to expand...
<grammar coach>fixed :p
no need to put "more" before slower :cool: </grammar coach>

But to answer your question, no it shouldn't make a difference you would notice. maybe in a benchmark, but it would be the same kinda difference if you loaded up all the ram slots with the same size ram. I would reccomend that you use the same brand name/series of ram if you do mix sizes though as there will be less of a chance of issues that way.

be sure to match speed (example: pc1600), voltage (example: 1.5v), cas/latency rating (example: cas 9) and brand/series (example: corsair vengeance with corsair vengeance).
 
Bought some of that 30nm Samsung low voltage ram. Sweet. I did go with 16GBs, but I could always take out half of the RAM, it was cheap, so I ordered a full 16GB (4x4GB) array.
 
Last edited:
Ordered 16gb of the samsung 30nm memory, the 2x4gb sticks are back in stock at newegg :)
 
your peak commit charge is more useful than your current memory used. even then, if you give windows your peak commit charge amount of memory, it may go off and try to use even more.
 
I have triple channel 3x2GB = 6GB, it is NOT enough for Photoshop! Go 16GB i will do the same this month, if needed you can add up.
 
OldMX said:
I built a Photoshop / Premier box for a friend loaded with 32GB of ram, and man, it really kick ass.
Click to expand...

and i bet it would of kicked ass with 16G as well..

If they are not doing any pro work..they will barely use 8G unless opening a boat load of massive 50Mb TIFF files or something
 
I think my entire hard drive is only 17 GB used. lol

With an SSD it makes even less sense to go mega-RAM these days, IMO, with some obvious exceptions.
 
Ram is dirt cheap (at least until the next earthquake). I just picked up 32G ddr3-1600 for under $115 shipped @ newegg yesterday. Why not go 32GB? I honestly would use 32GB more than I'd use a $200 videocard. Upgrade from 4 * 4GB ddr3-1333 should be significant I think :) (MOAR VMs!)
 
Robstar said:
Ram is dirt cheap (at least until the next earthquake). I just picked up 32G ddr3-1600 for under $115 shipped @ newegg yesterday. Why not go 32GB? I honestly would use 32GB more than I'd use a $200 videocard. Upgrade from 4 * 4GB ddr3-1333 should be significant I think :) (MOAR VMs!)
Click to expand...

/\ This

I picked up 4 8GB kits of samsung a few months back for $30/kit. came out to about $119 with free shipping.
 
Have 16GB, currently 11.7 GB used. Running intellij, thunderbird, firefox, IE, and a fedora VM with 1GB allocated to it, along with a whole bunch of other crap. I can fire up a game without closing any of these applications. When I actually played Diablo 3 still, I ran it in windowed mode and just minimized it when I was finished playing.

Yes, it is possible to use 16GB if you want. I wish I had 32 GB. No single game will use 16 GB, but gaming is a poor rational for buying more memory. Buy more memory so you can run more programs at once. memory = freedom.
 
Robstar said:
Ram is dirt cheap (at least until the next earthquake). I just picked up 32G ddr3-1600 for under $115 shipped @ newegg yesterday. Why not go 32GB? I honestly would use 32GB more than I'd use a $200 videocard. Upgrade from 4 * 4GB ddr3-1333 should be significant I think :) (MOAR VMs!)
Click to expand...

because if you dont use it, it is still wasted money that could of gone to beer or something...
 
Windows 7 and 8 will use unused memory as cache. You can see this by opening the Resource monitor. You will notice that some memory is "In Use" and the rest is in "Standby", and there is little or no "Free" memory.

It's not like Windows XP where unused memory sat around doing nothing. Since Windows 7, all of it is used intelligently.

EDIT: even with 24GB I still have very little "free" memory that isn't being used at all

memoryt.png
 
Standby is the same as free.....but nice try... it is unused memory......

bottom line is, if you never go above say 8G of PHYSICALLY used memory, you will never use 16G or 32G.. and again.. it is wasted money
 
MrGuvernment said:
Standby is the same as free.....but nice try... it is unused memory......
Click to expand...

You're half right. Standby is available for apps when they need it, just like Free memory. But you're wrong in saying it is unused. Standby memory is in fact being used as a cache. All of this memory management started in Windows Vista, but it didn't work worth a dam until Windows 7. So it's been around for a while now, and it works pretty well now. And it creates this cache in two ways.

#1 SuperFetch

If enabled, the OS will build a cache that it believes will be used based on past behavior. Time of day and day of week are factors and the algorithm attempts to learn the users behavior and anticipate what will be needed and when. This feature is disabled on SD drives. But is handy for mechanical drives.


#2 Cache recently used memory

I'll explain this one in terms of VMware, but the principal applies to things like textures in 3D modeling, large graphics, etc... The cache also helps with performance with voice recognition programs like Dragon Naturally Speaking.

In VMware, when a VM is suspended, the memory is marked as available for other applications. What Windows 7/8 does, is move that memory from In-Use to Standby. If another program needs that memory it is given up, but if nothing asks for it then it remains in Standyby. Next the VM comes out of standby it is almost instantaneous since it is still in memory and doesn't need to be read from disk. Even if you have and SSD, the cache is still faster. And with mechanical drives the difference is dramatic.

The cache will hold small things too, but its when the large files are cached that you will notice the big difference. And the more memory you have the more of an impact the cache has.

I think this would even apply to games, where textures and maps are cached. But I've not tested it..

Now the benefits may not be worth it to you, but memory is definitely being utilized beyond the minimum amount of memory the applications demand. If you work with VM's, graphics, 3D modeling, CAD, etc... I think you will notice the benefits much more than if the system is used for casual activities, like web browsing, etc...
 
Also people seem to forget, that a little more than standard Photoshop users already need more than 8 GB for good work behavior.
A casual gamer may have 8 GB enough and safe some little money (its not even much at the end).
If he does much multitasking it is even better to go 16 GB.
 
8 is the "new 4".. So its the minimum

16 is the new power user standard and with prices the way they are, its pocket change in the grand scheme of the overall picture
 
jlbenedict said:
8 is the "new 4".. So its the minimum

16 is the new power user standard and with prices the way they are, its pocket change in the grand scheme of the overall picture
Click to expand...
I guess I'm ahead of the curve with 32GB :p
 
I wouldn't say 8 is the new minimum. While running Windows 7, gaming barely reached 4gb usage. Running Windows 8, it easily uses 500mb less. So 4gb is still recommended minimum for smooth overall performance, and 8 for completely unhindered performance with perks (SuperFetch).
 
Tsumi said:
I wouldn't say 8 is the new minimum. While running Windows 7, gaming barely reached 4gb usage. Running Windows 8, it easily uses 500mb less. So 4gb is still recommended minimum for smooth overall performance, and 8 for completely unhindered performance with perks (SuperFetch).
Click to expand...

I would also say 8 is indeed the new minimum. Ram is cheap and most people at this forum are power users. There are times where I maxed out 8GB when editing mutiple raw photos. There are also times where I can easily exceed 4GB by keeping my browser open then firing up a game.

Main reason I have the overkill of 32GB is because I've been wanting to try out ramdisk and future projects with mutiple VMs are a real possibility for me.
 
pwrusr said:
I would also say 8 is indeed the new minimum. Ram is cheap and most people at this forum are power users. There are times where I maxed out 8GB when editing mutiple raw photos. There are also times where I can easily exceed 4GB by keeping my browser open then firing up a game.

Main reason I have the overkill of 32GB is because I've been wanting to try out ramdisk and future projects with mutiple VMs are a real possibility for me.
Click to expand...

I think it also has to do with being easier to upgrade when you have 4 slots. 2 x 4 is easy to upgrade and cheap for another 2 x 4. If only 2 slots, its still cheap to do 8gb's.

I know what Tsumi is saying in that 4gb's is plenty for the average user. Even more then average users dont use more then 4gb and have installed 8+.

I have 8gb's on all the comps except 2 which have 16gb.
 
I'm dating myself a bit, but I can clearly remember paying $50.00 a megabyte so at today's prices it seems almost free.....:p

For "Mom and Dad" non-gaming systems, I'll sometimes use 4GB to save a few pennies. With a 64 bit OS, 8GB seems pretty reasonable, considering price. If I were building a new system for myself today, I'd put 16GB in to be sure.
 
BlindedByScience said:
I'm dating myself a bit, but I can clearly remember paying $50.00 a megabyte so at today's prices it seems almost free.....:p

For "Mom and Dad" non-gaming systems, I'll sometimes use 4GB to save a few pennies. With a 64 bit OS, 8GB seems pretty reasonable, considering price. If I were building a new system for myself today, I'd put 16GB in to be sure.
Click to expand...

I remember buying an 8MB (yes megabyte) RAM Module at a super sale at Computer City in 1994 for $305. I thought I stole it for that price!
 
GreenGoose said:
I remember buying an 8MB (yes megabyte) RAM Module at a super sale at Computer City in 1994 for $305. I thought I stole it for that price!
Click to expand...

I remember buying the 20 pin(?) memory modules that had the metal legs on them and you had to insert them onto a card.
 
pwrusr said:
I would also say 8 is indeed the new minimum. Ram is cheap and most people at this forum are power users. There are times where I maxed out 8GB when editing mutiple raw photos. There are also times where I can easily exceed 4GB by keeping my browser open then firing up a game.

Main reason I have the overkill of 32GB is because I've been wanting to try out ramdisk and future projects with mutiple VMs are a real possibility for me.
Click to expand...

From a value standpoint, 2x4gb kits are definitely a much better value than 2x2gb kits in general, so I will usually recommend getting a 2x4gb kit. All I'm saying is that 8gb is not really necessary. I was alt-tabbing in and out of GTA IV with Firefox with ~8 tabs on 4gb of RAM. The switching was instantaneous, so more than 4gb really is not necessary for most users.

Also, most users do not edit multiple raw photos. In fact, most users probably don't even know what a raw photo is, they probably just use jpeg or whatever their camera uses. Your example is invalid, as you're not a typical user. Your username says it all, you're a power user.
 
IMHO:
4GB = typical use, web/email/Office
8GB = above + Photoshop
16GB = above + multiple VM's

>16GB unless you're running a server you're wasting money.

Task Manager post-XP added fancy words such as "Cached", "Available", and "Free" but "Free" isn't really the free number. My work system has 8GB. According to Task Manager I have 3014 cached, 4794 available, 1872 free.
According to AllCPUMeter, I have 4794 free.

My home system has 16GB but that's because I typically run at least 2 VM's simultaneously and I like to give each of them 4+GB each. I could probably get away with 8GB, I'd just have to limit my VM's to 2GB. Any Windows flavor 64bit, especially Server.....really runs better on 4+; that's why I went with 16GB.

Unless you, today, are running VM's - stick with 8GB and put the money towards a bigger/faster SSD or a better GPU.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top