Windows Vista, is 2GB really enough?!

P

penguin1

n00b
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
28
2GB is way more than enough for XP..

say i get the 64bit version of Vista Premium...

is 2GB sufficient? I read an article over at AnandTech saying that 2GB is honestly only barely enough for Vista.. and newer games will require as much as 4GB..

the current prices of DDR2 rams are cheaper this week than last week.. so i need to deicde soon.. do i get another 2GB ram?
 
Well, strictly the os itself - 2gb is sufficient. But if you're planning on doing alot of multitasking, image editing, encoding, etc etc etc. 4gb definitely helps out alot.

I just upgraded from 2gb to 4 last week on vista ultimate 32bit. Although I only see 3.3gb, that 1.3gb extra helps me out alot. Even though ultimate comes with both 32 and 64 bit dvds, I'm not ready to jump into 64bit yet..

DDR2 prices have hit rock bottom as of late, and some sources are predicting the prices will stabilize pretty soon. So I think you should just spend that 50 bucks and get another pair.
 
enyceexdanny said:
Well, strictly the os itself - 2gb is sufficient. But if you're planning on doing alot of multitasking, image editing, encoding, etc etc etc. 4gb definitely helps out alot.

I just upgraded from 2gb to 4 last week on vista ultimate 32bit. Although I only see 3.3gb, that 1.3gb extra helps me out alot. Even though ultimate comes with both 32 and 64 bit dvds, I'm not ready to jump into 64bit yet..

DDR2 prices have hit rock bottom as of late, and some sources are predicting the prices will stabilize pretty soon. So I think you should just spend that 50 bucks and get another pair.
Click to expand...

i dun do a lot of image editing, encoding or video editing but i do play many games... do u think 4gb will better prepare me for future games oor 2gb is enough?
 
people still run xp with 512mb...

what is enough depends on the user that is using the computer, if one doesn't take advantage of it one will not notice it's absence much.

That said, I've managed to load vista 64 to 3gb+usage, not including prime95 runs which I don't really do much while it's humming along.

Go with 4gb if you can afford it.
 
2GB is plenty for "normal" usage, but it depends what the machine is primarily being used for. I'm sure 4GB will soon become the sweet spot as 2GB has been for a while now.
 
Just as slade said, go for it if you can spare the extra cash.
More memory never ever hurts.
 
yea.. but i heard so many ppl saying that when running Vista on 2GB it noramlly only uses 30% or so.. wouldnt 4GB be overkill?
 
I have ultimate x64 and 2gb on my laptop and it works.....if i play any memory intensive games i close all nonessential programs and processes and it runs......on my desk top i had 1gb and definitly not enough...but yea 2gb gets me by...but i plan on eventually going up to 4 so i don't have to close almost everything on my computer....
 
2GB is plenty, Vista only uses more memory than XP (for the most part) because of Superfetch keeping more commonly used programs in memory so you don't have to launch them from the hard drive. If you play really memory-intensive games then you might want more than 2GB (Battlefield, etc)
 
penguin1 said:
2GB is way more than enough for XP..

say i get the 64bit version of Vista Premium...

is 2GB sufficient? I read an article over at AnandTech saying that 2GB is honestly only barely enough for Vista.. and newer games will require as much as 4GB..

the current prices of DDR2 rams are cheaper this week than last week.. so i need to deicde soon.. do i get another 2GB ram?
Click to expand...
I will admit to stuttering in BF2 when I have lots of programs open. This just means I can't get away with having WMP, Outlook 2007, Trillian, two IE windows with half a dozen tabs each, and maybe a couple Explorer windows open whilst playing like I can with CS:S.

BF2 is the only game I've had any issue with, though. Everything else runs excessively smoothly.
 
2 gigs is plenty. I run all of the brand new games and I've never had even close to an issue.
 
enyceexdanny said:
Well, strictly the os itself - 2gb is sufficient. But if you're planning on doing alot of multitasking, image editing, encoding, etc etc etc. 4gb definitely helps out alot.

I just upgraded from 2gb to 4 last week on vista ultimate 32bit. Although I only see 3.3gb, that 1.3gb extra helps me out alot. Even though ultimate comes with both 32 and 64 bit dvds, I'm not ready to jump into 64bit yet..

DDR2 prices have hit rock bottom as of late, and some sources are predicting the prices will stabilize pretty soon. So I think you should just spend that 50 bucks and get another pair.
Click to expand...


cool,i have the same board. you dont have any trouble running 4gigs?
 
First, even taking out the factor of Superfetch - Vista does eat up more ram than XP. Generally for all the bells and whistles. For example, just the sidebar alone can use up 20mb+.

Second, just as you said - memory prices are at a rock bottom. Might as well add another 2 gig, since even it can't hurt.

On my setup running vista ultimate, after full bootup and load - it used up about 40-50% of my 2 gig. Once I started to run some apps, it quickly increased.

Well anyways, if you're going to stay with 2 gigs - there's really no reason to go with a 64bit os. It's not like there are enormous amounts of applications/games that are optimized for it.
 
For people I've helped with computers-- hardware and software support, I recommended them the following:

If playing games... - 1 GB minimum for XP, 2 GB minimum for Vista

For graphics intensive games or games that have a lot of data to load... - 2 GB min. for XP, 4 GB min. for Vista

If doing photo editing, video editing, similar... - 2 GB minimum for XP, 4 GB minimum for Vista

For menial tasks (internet, word processing, etc.)... - 512 MB to 1 GB will suffice for XP, 1 GB minimum for Vista will suffice (Home and Premium only)
 
I Dunno...But I'm not worried.
For the Record: Superfetch will use ALL available Physical Memory...All of it.
Many, Many times I look at task Mgr and see 0 Physical RAM available. I have 8GB of RAM.
I have NEVER had an issue with Vista not freeing up RAM as needed. and Outlook with a 2 GB PST opens INSTANTLY (Like, Click, it's open)
Games, Apps, Everything runs smooth like butter...Even when I have 4 of everything open.
Quad Core + 8GB RAM =FTW
 
penguin1 said:
2GB is way more than enough for XP..

say i get the 64bit version of Vista Premium...

is 2GB sufficient? I read an article over at AnandTech saying that 2GB is honestly only barely enough for Vista.. and newer games will require as much as 4GB..

the current prices of DDR2 rams are cheaper this week than last week.. so i need to deicde soon.. do i get another 2GB ram?
Click to expand...

I run Vista Hom Premium (32bit though) on 2GB of memory and I have had zero issues so far. That being said I use my PC for gaming almost exclusively so if you are going to be doing lots of other stuff (picture / video editing or the like) you may want to go for 4GB.
 
For todays games, 2GB is definitely enough for both XP Pro and Vista. Of course you want to close off applications before running those CPU intensive games. Not only the applications take up memory space, they also use up precious CPU power. Also aren't only XP 64bit and Vista 64bit can use physical momery greater than 3GB?
 
Actually that's incorrect. XP can use 4GB, however memory mapped i/o often consume in the area of half a GB of address space, meaning realistically you can use up to 3.5 GB in XP.
 
jimmyb said:
Actually that's incorrect. XP can use 4GB, however memory mapped i/o often consume in the area of half a GB of address space, meaning realistically you can use up to 3.5 GB in XP.
Click to expand...

What about in Vista 32bit?
 
Is it better to get 2GBx2 or 1GBx4?

2GB RAM mostly has higher timing than 1GB RAM of the same clock: ie 2GBx2 CL5-5-5-15 at 800Mhz vs 1GBx4 CL4-4-4-12 at 800Mhz, correct?

So at stock CPU clock, which is better? If planning to OC, which is better?

Can I set 2GBx2 or 1GBx4 at 1T timing?
 
RB30 said:
Is...timing?
Click to expand...
think of it this way, timing are fixed. It takes x nanoseconds to retrieve the info from the ram chips. As you increase the mhz, it takes more mhz for that amount of time to complete. Thus the higher timings on faster ram.

While 2GB sticks are densor, it really shouldn't change the rams available timings.

For overclocking you want to minimize stress on the northbridge, and 4 sticks puts more stress on the NB than 2 sticks. So stick with 2x2GB.

As far as speed goes, 800 FSB = 200Mhz = DDR2-400 | 1333 FSB = 333Mhz = DDR2-666/667 | 1600 FSB = 400mhz = DDR2-800. Very few quads can clock above 3.6Ghz, so do you really need more than DDR2-800?
 
Thanks!

I was asking about 1T or 2T.... 'cause in AMD S939, you can set 1T for 2 sticks of RAM while 2T for 4 sticks of RAM. 1T is a bit faster than 2T. So I am wonder if 2GBx2 can be set to 1T?
 
RB30 said:
Thanks!

I was asking about 1T or 2T.... 'cause in AMD S939, you can set 1T for 2 sticks of RAM while 2T for 4 sticks of RAM. 1T is a bit faster than 2T. So I am wonder if 2GBx2 can be set to 1T?
Click to expand...
nothing DDR2 is going to go below 4t, and thats if you have good sticks.
 
GLSauron said:
nothing DDR2 is going to go below 4t, and thats if you have good sticks.
Click to expand...

You got the wrong idea. I wasn't asking about the Timing sets. I was asking like in AMD S939 motherboard BIOS there is a '1T/2T Memory Timing' option. If you have 1GBx2 RAM sticks, you can set it to 1T for faster speed, while if you have 512MBx4 RAM sticks, you have to leave it at default 2T otherwise the system will not boot or will be unstable. I don't know if Intel type motherboard has this kind of option. I have seen 2T for 1GBx2 for C2D, but I don't know if 1T is possible.

Probably you guys never have an AMD S939 MoBo so don't know what I was talking about.
 
enyceexdanny said:
I just upgraded from 2gb to 4 last week on vista ...32bit. Although I only see 3.3gb, that 1.3gb extra helps me out alot.

DDR2 prices have hit rock bottom as of late, and some sources are predicting the prices will stabilize pretty soon. So I think you should just spend that 50 bucks and get another pair.
Click to expand...

qft

I just did that a couple days ago. If I have CS3 open...this open...that open...it's nice to see I have more than a few hundred MB free now.

I only 'see' 3326MB but having the extra 1.3GB (as you said) is nice to get for $50ish bucks
 
CopyThat said:
I Dunno...But I'm not worried.
For the Record: Superfetch will use ALL available Physical Memory...All of it.
Many, Many times I look at task Mgr and see 0 Physical RAM available. I have 8GB of RAM.
I have NEVER had an issue with Vista not freeing up RAM as needed. and Outlook with a 2 GB PST opens INSTANTLY (Like, Click, it's open)
Games, Apps, Everything runs smooth like butter...Even when I have 4 of everything open.
Quad Core + 8GB RAM =FTW
Click to expand...

Quad Core + 8GB here too. I've just stopped closing apps now. Firefox, Outlook, 2-3 virtual machines always stay running.

I always have to laugh when I restart my computer. (a rare event) It says that I am only using 8-10% of my memory. :cool:
 
jimmyb said:
Actually that's incorrect. XP can use 4GB, however memory mapped i/o often consume in the area of half a GB of address space, meaning realistically you can use up to 3.5 GB in XP.
Click to expand...

Depending on how many expansion cards... 2x768MB 8800 GTX/ULTRA FTL.
 
leoftw said:
so can anyone confirm that 4gb's (3.5 actual) in vista 32 is an overkill ?
Click to expand...

I have 2GB in Vista 32. IMHO, 2GB is not enough for everyday usage because during idle, the only thing that is running is the side bar, my physical memory is down to 1GB. If I close the side bar and start running any today's game (ie Gears of War....), my physical memory is down to only 450MB and that is assuming Vista is already started using the virtual memory swap. So from my experience, 1GB for Vista 32bit + 2GB for today's game = 3GB. 4GB (3.5GB actual) would be a safe margin if you don't want to use the virtual memory pages.
 
2 GB is currently plenty for Vista. I just upgraded to 4GB and I haven't seen any real difference in gaming or general usage. Maybe faster loading times here and there, but nothing noticeable.

A better video card or processor will improve performance significantly more than going from 2 to 4 GB of RAM.
 
DeathFromBelow said:
2 GB is currently plenty for Vista. I just upgraded to 4GB and I haven't seen any real difference in gaming or general usage. Maybe faster loading times here and there, but nothing noticeable.

A better video card or processor will improve performance significantly more than going from 2 to 4 GB of RAM.
Click to expand...


When you run 4x1GB Ballistic Tracer, do you find it is harder to OC? Do the memory sticks get very hot? I heard those sticks have higher temp than others probably due to electric juices running through so many LEDS?
 
The memory does seem to run hot, but my OC didn't change any. I can get up to 3.3 GHz with the memory at 1066 without increasing CPU/northbridge/memory voltages, and 3.4+ with a small bump to the CPU.
 
CopyThat said:
For the Record: Superfetch will use ALL available Physical Memory...All of it.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I remember from the Vista evaluation teams, the whole basis of the "new" Vista memory manager is to basically gather up ALL unallocated ram and hold it in reserve... to allocate portions to each program, according to it's infinite M$ wisdom.

I have 8GB of RAM.
Click to expand...
I assume that means you are running Vista 64-bit.
 
jimmyb said:
Actually that's incorrect. XP can use 4GB, however memory mapped i/o often consume in the area of half a GB of address space, meaning realistically you can use up to 3.5 GB in XP.
Click to expand...

This statement is the closest to the technical truth that I have seen here. :)

The memory restriction lies solely on the 32-bit bus. Consider address locations to be like a dependence to counting on your fingers. If you could count ONLY using your fingers, you could not count any higher than 10 (technically 1,023 using binary, but you get the idea). Windows relies on bus bits to "count" memory locations. 32 bits will count to 4,294,967,296, which is exactly 4Gb. So, Windows is able to identify the presence of up to 4Gb. However, due to bus sharing restrictions, Windows is unable to actually utilize all 4Gb of physical ram.

Also, many motherboards (only a couple years old) utilized the upper bits to perform "house keeping", thus limiting the boards ability to make available a full 4Gb. Many of these boards will cap-off at 3585Mb or 3712Mb.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top