Should I get 4 more gigs ram?

J

johnnyrebel87

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
187
My computer will be finished today, and I have 4 gigs 1066 gskill pi ram in it. Would I see a difference in gameplay if I add 4 more gigs? I will buy it if I will be able to tell a difference. I don't know if it would help. I will be playing all valve games, l4d, tf2 ,etc, and some cod and far cry 2. Thanks guys, I can't find any good articles on it, 4 seems to be the norm, but I can buy 4 more next week, just don't want to drop 65 dollars if it won't help.

Thanks guys,
Ian

btw, specs are phenom II 3.0, 4gb gskill 1066, 790gx biostar mobo, and sapphire toxic 1gb 4870 gpu.
 
4GB of RAM is still plenty for any current game on the market. Most don't even hit 2GB. I would hold off on that upgrade if it's just for gaming.
 
Short answer - no.

Long answer, if you are overclocking it will be less stable. The only reason for 8GB of ram is for Photoshop, video encoding/editing...things like that.
 
Another thing to consider when going over 4: you will need a 64-bit OS.
 
4 is fine for gaming currently. I can't really think of a game that runs better with 8.
 
I know ram is inexpensive as an upgrade, so it's enticing. I currently have 4gb of ballistix (ugh!) and I decided against adding 4 more for the time being.

Main reason is because I didn't want to risk wasting 2-3 weeks of my time fixing potential issues with the new sticks (compatibility, voltage, etc...) Also, I think it probably makes more sense to just purchase 8gb of higher speed/quality ram in a future rig-build.
 
I run two displays, I have a memory monitor on the second screen. I have had several games load up to 98-99% memory usage, basically maxing out my 4GB. GTA4, Stalker, FarCry2 I think, and a couple of others. But that is a combination of system resources + game. They all performed fine great, no complaints there. But would they have performed better if they could have grabbed more memory than I had? Maybe *shrug*.

As cheap as DDR2 is, I'd probably do the 8GB thing on a whim if I wasn't configured with 4x1GB modules currently and was playing games on a more regular basis.
 
Absolutely zero difference. Corsair did benchmarks recently showing very little difference in 3-6GB.
 
spicey said:
4 is fine for gaming currently. I can't really think of a game that runs better with 8.
Click to expand...

I beg to differ, Minesweeper would really take advantage of that extra 4 gigs!! :rolleyes: ;)
 
bigdogchris said:
Absolutely zero difference. Corsair did benchmarks recently showing very little difference in 3-6GB.
Click to expand...
You mean this one?
http://www.corsairmemory.com/_appnotes/AN811_Gaming_Performance Analysis_6GB_vs_3GB.PDF

Conclusion

These results show that using 6GB of system memory provides significant performance benefits in today’s
games when using the Intel Core i7 platform.

The analysis shows that 3GB of system memory is insufficient to run modern games, such as Warhammer
Online and Crysis Warhead, resulting in poor performance. The lack of memory when using 3GB of RAM
results in increased hard disk drive access, sometimes called thrashing. This causes in-game stuttering, which
reduces the minimum frame rate. The minimum frame rate is crucial for fluid gameplay since this determines
the overall ‘smoothness’ of a game.

In our tests the minimum frame rate in World in Conflict rose by 50% when we upgraded from 3GB of system
memory to 6GB of system memory. In Crysis Warhead the jump was far more significant, with the minimum
frame rate increasing by a factor of 3x when upgrading from 3GB to 6GB of memory. The Crysis Warhead
results also highlight the need for large amounts of system memory when using high graphical detail settings.
The results from Warhammer Online are similar to World in Conflict and Crysis Warhead and show a minimum
frame rate increase of 45% when upgrading from 3GB to 6GB of memory.

The message to enthusiasts who are looking to build a Core i7 system for gaming is clear – installing 6GB of
memory will provide significantly higher frame rates and a considerably smoother gaming experience.
Click to expand...

Because I think you have some reading comprehension problems...

Looking over the numbers. WIC, showed a huge jump but it was from playable FPS -> playable FPS. So in real world probably not hugely noticeable.

Crysis, shows some stuff. One is an min framerate jump from 18-23. That might be the difference between playable or not.

Another shows an 11-33fps boost. Definitely not playable to playable.

And then some Crysis scenarios with less benefit.

Warhammer showed a jump from 11-16. ewww. Playable to not playable at the settings they chose. ew.
 
I switched from 4gb to 8gb of ram. It only ran me $40 and multi-tasking went through the roof. Totally worth it.
 
Obviously it's a given you have to be in a 64 bit OS to go past 4 GB of RAM.

That being said, I went from 4 to 8 and have never looked back. 8 is the most my motherboard can handle.

Anyone that says it makes no difference at all doesn't know what they're talking about.

RAM is cheap. Why not max your capabilities out if you can afford to do so?

The only way you'd have "more of a problem" with overclocking is if you don't know what you're doing. If you set the voltages and timings right you will have no problems and you will be happy all the way around like you'd expect with any other hardware upgrade situation.
 
Alot of mixed opinions! I believe it's on sale right now...it's only for games. BTW I have a 26" monitor in the mail..don't know if that has anything to do with memory, and yes I am running vista 64 :) Anybody else have any more opinions? Thanks for the quick replies guys!
 
johnnyrebel87 said:
Alot of mixed opinions! I believe it's on sale right now...it's only for games. BTW I have a 26" monitor in the mail..don't know if that has anything to do with memory, and yes I am running vista 64 :) Anybody else have any more opinions? Thanks for the quick replies guys!
Click to expand...
I would expect resolution to have more to do with video memory, rather than system memory. But I can still imagine it having an effect.
 
ATM memory is cheap but might have to drop back to DDR2 800 speeds if you use 4 sticks.

As more 64bit games come along 8GB will become more recommended, like crysis and such. Many games now are still optimized for 32bit.
 
The answer is no. The reason is simple in that you just aren't memory bottlenecked. You'll be GPU bottlenecked and possibly CPU bottlenecked in almost every situation that would theoretically benefit from more than 4GB--it is just a practical reality.

I'm not saying you will never want it. It might be a good middle to end-of-life upgrade for your PC. Prices will be down at that point and you'll be able to accomplish the same thing using fewer sticks of ram with greater stability. You really don't want to max out your ram slots what you really want to do is wait until the memory is cheap enough, dump the old sticks and double your ram using the same slots.
 
Blackstone said:
I'm not saying you will never want it. It might be a good middle to end-of-life upgrade for your PC. Prices will be down at that point and you'll be able to accomplish the same thing using fewer sticks of ram with greater stability. You really don't want to max out your ram slots what you really want to do is wait until the memory is cheap enough, dump the old sticks and double your ram using the same slots.
Click to expand...

He might need to be careful doing that, Reading about my M3A78-T AM2+ board on newegg it says it supports up to 16GB of ram, but reading the manual shows it only supports up to 2GB sticks so 2x4=8GB. Dunno how the Biostar is but betting its the same.

Although in general I would agree.
 
The 3GB vs. 6GB debate is on the core i7 platform, which uses the new triple channel technology. OP is using dual channel, which makes it a moot point.
 
If you have a game that is using 100% of your memory at 4 gigs, you probably have a memory leak (I hear this happens with GTA IV). Yes, you could get 8 gigs, but a memory leak is going to fill all of that too. First you should patch the games that use up all 4 gigs of ram, and see if they still use up the full 4 gigs.

See also: http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1391712
 
I don't think you need more than four gigs right now... especially if you're still running a 32bit OS.
 
Just depends, do you have lots of money to spend? if so, sure, but if you have a budget, I would upgrade HHD , get a V Raptor or something.
 
lundrog said:
Just depends, do you have lots of money to spend? if so, sure, but if you have a budget, I would upgrade HHD , get a V Raptor or something.
Click to expand...

Aight
I don't, I just was wondering about buying more ram, as that's a cheap upgrade. Thanks everybody, I believe I'll wait.
 
With 8 you can do cool shit like make a ramdisk to use for pagefile, readyboost, and some high access folders like your Firefox profile. Wish I had 2x2 instead of 4x1...
 
IF you have the money, and IF you have Vista 64, sure, why not. You might want to save up for Windows 7, though, but what the hell.
 
64 bit - yes thats the whole point of it

32 bit - hell no you aren't even using all of your 4 gigs.
 
shiznit said:
With 8 you can do cool shit like make a ramdisk to use for pagefile, readyboost, and some high access folders like your Firefox profile.
Click to expand...
Eh? Isn't ReadyBoost's premise to utilize external storage (SD, Flash USB) if one doesn't have enough physical RAM?

8GB is pointless unless you have a specific need for it. That's the bottom line really.
Odds are that if you have to ask others whether you should get it, then you don't have a need for it yet. Save your money.
 
Thuleman said:
Eh? Isn't ReadyBoost's premise to utilize external storage (SD, Flash USB) if one doesn't have enough physical RAM?

8GB is pointless unless you have a specific need for it. That's the bottom line really.
Odds are that if you have to ask others whether you should get it, then you don't have a need for it yet. Save your money.
Click to expand...
I didn't say it was necessary, just that you can do cool things with it. ReadyBoost afaik is designed to be an intermediate between the ram and page file, caching tons of little files to take advantage of the near-instant access times of flash memory (or ram) compared to HDD but that don't necessarily need to be in the ram cache. It definitely helps if you don't have enough ram but it's not a direct substitute for it, there are things Windows will not cache in regular ram no matter how much you have, but it will cache them in readyboost. Making a ramdisk and then designating it as a ReadyBoost drive can really cut down on hdd IO and makes everything run smoother. It's really not that big a deal to make me go out a buy 4gb more ram, but if I was using SSD I would definitely do it and also put the page file on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top