8GB vs. 16GB DDR3

Got 24GB, turned off pagefile and use VMs and all that. Runs great and smooth. I think 24GB is a little over kill though. I thought the same when i got 8GB and now that's considered standard. Ram is cheap so its a good time to upgrade anyways. :)
 
NoOther said:
I am extremely confused by your argument because you are basically contradicting yourself here. You don't want someone to buy cheap 16GB of RAM because you might not need 16GB of RAM, but you went and bought 2133 RAM when you don't need 2133 RAM to OC?

I mean you should be happy with that RAM, but you could have been just as happy with 8GB of 1600 RAM for less than half the price.
Click to expand...

I'm not telling people to not buy 16GB of ram. I was trying to figure out what would be the best size for my systems needs.

I like high quality low CAS, low voltage ram. That is my personal preference for over clocking my RIG. I'm very happy with my new Gskill RAM and the only other 8GB kit that I would like more would be the Gskill 4x2GB 2400mhz kit at CAS 8 1.65v, at $600 it's over my budget for 8GB of high quality ram.
 
Just curious how the quality relates to performance between "high quality" and other ram. What constitutes high quality ram? High cost? Low CAS latency?

Is there a difference between high performance and high quality ram? I'm trying to understand how quality enters the equation. Either the ram works as advertised or it doesn't.
 
speedlever said:
Just curious how the quality relates to performance between "high quality" and other ram. What constitutes high quality ram? High cost? Low CAS latency?

Is there a difference between high performance and high quality ram? I'm trying to understand how quality enters the equation. Either the ram works as advertised or it doesn't.
Click to expand...

These days there are fewer benefits then in the past. But if you are going to do extreme OCing, then it starts to come into play as you get to much higher clock speeds. But for most general OCing, it doesn't really impact it too much. As long as you get RAM from quality sources like Corsair, OCZ, G.Skill, etc., it should handle OCs well.
 
I appreciate the info. However, there was no distinction between "high" quality and "high" performance. I suspect that quality = performance. Or does the source dictate quality? Still trying to understand where quality figures into the equation. IE, can cheap G.Skill DDR3-1333 ram still be considered quality compared to expensive G.Skill DDR3-2400 ram?
 
speedlever said:
I appreciate the info. However, there was no distinction between "high" quality and "high" performance. I suspect that quality = performance. Or does the source dictate quality? Still trying to understand where quality figures into the equation. IE, can cheap G.Skill DDR3-1333 ram still be considered quality compared to expensive G.Skill DDR3-2400 ram?
Click to expand...

"Quality" is pretty subjective. It depends on what you really mean by that. Generally speaking the higher performance RAM will be better quality. The quality for RAM comes from the batch of chips they use. Usually the underperforming chips they put in their value RAM series, then the mediocre go in the base line RAM, and then the higher performing chips they put in their high end RAM. In the middle of the pack you get a lot of variation in the quality of the chips on the RAM, so it can be a little bit hit and miss with how much you can tweak or OC them. But with the way the current Intel CPUs overclock, this isn't usually as much of a problem. If you buy the middle of the pack RAM, like a Corsair Vengeance 1600Mhz kit, it should perform well for almost all your OC needs.
 
What are you guys using to monitor your RAM usage? Just windows task manager?
I have 6GB, and trying to decide if I should get more or not...
 
With just Steam and Chrome (1 window with 8 tabs) running, I am using 4782 MB of ram. Windows is making use of the rest of my ram through caching though. Out of 24567 MB of ram, Windows is using 18619 for cache, and only 1234 is actually free. More cache means a faster system.

GotNoRice said:
I can guarantee that you never saw a 32-bit program use more than 4GB of ram.
Click to expand...

I've seen them try. Then I have to open the program again.
 
I have 6GB of mushkin running at 1600mhz 8-8-8-24 in triple channel. I've been thinking of upgrading to 3x4gb...is it worth it/necessary?

I'm on x58 and would like to get more juice out of my i7-930 and ram. Currently running at 3.2ghz.

 
yixi said:
I have 6GB of mushkin running at 1600mhz 8-8-8-24 in triple channel. I've been thinking of upgrading to 3x4gb...is it worth it/necessary?
Click to expand...
It really depends on your usage patterns.

If you are doing things that require more memory, go for it.

Still, as has been said here and numerous other threads, RAM is stupidly cheap. I went to 16GB for the hell of it and have been happy with that decision as I've started to use VM's more often.
 
Agree ram is mega cheap right now
I'd use 4Gb for normal users (Win 7 64bit) runs well for most
8Gb for more power users (video/photo work)

Over 8Gb I can't see any improvement unless you're really pushing it
There is some from 4 to 8 but we're at very comfortable levels for ram now (unlike in the past)
 
I was sometimes low on memory and occasionally crashed due to running out when I had 12GB of ram. This was almost always due to batch processing in Photoshop. I also had a 4GB ram drive, so it was more like I had 8GB of ram.

I's also pretty terrible to try and edit a .psd that is larger than your available ram...
 
I got 16 GB in my MBP and I couldn't be happier about it. At the time, I paid like $120. Must have been a shop bug, but they delivered anyway. If the sticks are cheap and you have use for more memory, go ahead and upgrade. It's an easy decision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top