# 2 gig to 4gig memory Difference



## PB (Jun 16, 2007)

I am just curious if any one has really seen a difference running 2 gigs of any ddr2 ram memory to 4 gigs of ram in dual channel.I hear some do not see a difference on many forums,Any one go from 2 to 4 gigs.What did it speed up.Games /programs opening ?,I have played with a comp that had 4 gigs of the same brand ram pc 5300 667mhz like i have,But i run 2 sticks of one gig and did not see any difference playing with the computer.


----------



## Ripper3 (Jun 16, 2007)

2GB of RAM already needs programs that support and need upto 2GB. If you photoshop alot, 2GB is enough. 4GB will be useless for 32-bit only applications, unless they're programmed to support the 4GB available.
So, older games, or games that aren't programmed to use so much RAM will probably not benefit at all, unless you're doing serious background multi-tasking while gaming, I guess.


----------



## Zeratul_uy (Jun 16, 2007)

Ripper3 said:


> 2GB of RAM already needs programs that support and need upto 2GB. If you photoshop alot, 2GB is enough. 4GB will be useless for 32-bit only applications, unless they're programmed to support the 4GB available.
> So, older games, or games that aren't programmed to use so much RAM will probably not benefit at all, unless you're doing serious background multi-tasking while gaming, I guess.



Totally true, 4GB is overkill, you won't need them if you don't run 154234 programs at the same time


----------



## Namslas90 (Jun 16, 2007)

PB said:


> I am just curious if any one has really seen a difference running 2 gigs of any ddr2 ram memory to 4 gigs of ram in dual channel.I hear some do not see a difference on many forums,Any one go from 2 to 4 gigs.What did it speed up.Games /programs opening ?,I have played with a comp that had 4 gigs of the same brand ram pc 5300 667mhz like i have,But i run 2 sticks of one gig and did not see any difference playing with the computer.



Two words - VISTA, CAD.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jun 16, 2007)

Namslas90 said:


> Two words - VISTA, CAD.



You only need one there, mate.

Vista.


----------



## Namslas90 (Jun 16, 2007)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> You only need one there, mate.
> 
> Vista.


----------



## d44ve (Jun 16, 2007)

Personally... unless you are doing autocad or some other crazy stuff, you really do not need 4 gb and it will be just overkill.

that being said... I say get the 4 gb, nothing wrong with overkill


----------



## Casheti (Jun 16, 2007)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> You only need one there, mate.
> 
> Vista.



Unfortunately he's right


----------



## HellasVagabond (Jun 17, 2007)

I put just for the test 4gb in my rig with my Vista Ultimate x64.....Isnt worth the extra bucks...The difference is there , you notice it abit but not as it should.


----------



## hat (Jun 17, 2007)

What is autocad?


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jun 17, 2007)

hat said:


> What is autocad?



http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/home?siteID=123112&id=129446


Its a fun program. I get to play with AC2006


----------



## ex_reven (Jun 17, 2007)

Zeratul_uy said:


> Totally true, 4GB is overkill, you won't need them if you don't run 154234 programs at the same time



I use 2gb of ram just to open a file in ONE program. Photoshop.
I literally kill msn, antivirus and anything unnecessary to system operation to run it.

Luckily I now have 4 gigs of ram, so Im able to open my image files without going several gigs into page file .


----------



## tkpenalty (Jun 17, 2007)

^Makes several gigabyte large PS files which are like 10k pixels by 10k pixels...


----------



## ex_reven (Jun 17, 2007)

tkpenalty said:


> ^Makes several gigabyte large PS files which are like 10k pixels by 10k pixels...



and im not even working at professional grade quality...
If I was, the file size/ram usage doubles again.

General System Use - 1 Gig
Gaming - 2 Gigs
Graphics work/CAD/Large amounts of Video Editing - 2 to 8gb


----------



## hat (Jun 17, 2007)

I'm a gamer. I use 1GB of PC3200. The most advanced game I own though is Doom 3... I may be getting Battlefield 2 soon though, but that runs fine on my dad's slower system.


----------



## Pinchy (Jun 17, 2007)

Yeah, Battlefield will probably be the only game atm that needs over 1GB to play properly (that ive played). Vista isnt that bad for RAM, i got it installed on 2 of my comps with 1GB of RAM and its fine, although 2GB would allow it to run a lot better.


----------



## hat (Jun 17, 2007)

I played Battlefield 2142 on this box with 1GB on medium and it ran just fine unless I was in the middle of an arty shelling.


----------



## Pinchy (Jun 17, 2007)

But how many players on each side?


----------



## hat (Jun 17, 2007)

Playing with bots, about 10 on each side.


----------



## erocker (Jun 17, 2007)

BF2142 uses over 1GB of ram. With most other common services running about 1.5 gb's of physical ram can be used.  Before I had 2GB, after I would quit the game, the music would still play for a while.  With 2GB the music quit along with the program.  That's just one example, the game runs much better with 2GB.  If I were to build a Vista rig, I would get 4GB, just because you are going to need it when a lot of these larger DX10 games come out.  Requirements are going up and up, and I'm sure we will see a need on the mainstream/gamer level that will require over 2GB.  While that may not be that case now (though it's close) 4Gb's of RAM in your system is not a bad idea at all.


----------



## hat (Jun 17, 2007)

Battlefield 2142 ran fine for me on 1GB, didn't take forever to get out of the game. I just open the console and type "quit", and of show, no music playing after the game shuts down. I tweak my system though, it uses under 100MB after a fresh boot.


----------



## erocker (Jun 17, 2007)

Sounds about right!  It must be setup to be a pure game console!  Heck, it's probablly using less resources than a Ps2!


----------



## Pinchy (Jun 17, 2007)

Yeah but hat, try playing 32 vs 32 on 1GB of RAM...doesnt work to well


----------



## hat (Jun 17, 2007)

erocker said:


> Sounds about right!  It must be setup to be a pure game console!  Heck, it's probablly using less resources than a Ps2!



It functions. The only thing I can't use is regcleaner, and I have no idea why...
I have these services set to Automatic:
Cryptographic Services
DCOM Server Process Launcher
DHCP Client
Network Connections
NVIDIA Display Driver Service
Plug and Play
Remote Procedure Call (RPC)
Themes
Windows Audio
Workstation

There are set to Manual:
Application Management
IMPAI CD-Burning COM Service
Local Disk Manager
Local Disk Manager Administrative Service
Remote Procedure Call (RPC) Locator
User Privilege Service
Windows Installer

Everything else is disabled


----------



## Casheti (Jun 17, 2007)

Speaking from experience, BF2 loves ram.

1GB to 2GB did make a difference. Unfortunately my CPU is a bottleneck for my card 

And Vista seriously doesn't help lol.


----------



## hat (Jun 17, 2007)

How is that CPU a bottleneck? I don't think so.
...Why would you run Shista with all the negative hype about it?


----------



## Casheti (Jun 17, 2007)

It IS CPU bottleneck.

A friend with an X850XT and a Core 2 Duo, also with 2GB of ram, runs it all high with 4XAA.

I run high with 0XAA. Trust me this CPU holds my card back.


----------



## Pinchy (Jun 17, 2007)

The CPU would hold you back when there are a stack of bots/players. Even at 8v8 bots, it would take a lot out of the CPU (think Counter Strike Source and how when you add 8 on 8 with a P4, how much it lags)


----------



## Mussels (Jun 17, 2007)

havent read the entire thread, but being on 4GB i think i'm best qualified here - its useless. i went 4GB as a trial, and cause i'll be pushing 2GB of it onto another PC i have (once the mobo is back from RMA)

get 2GB of decent ram, and save the rest of the money for elsewhere.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jun 17, 2007)

Casheti said:


> It IS CPU bottleneck.
> 
> A friend with an X850XT and a Core 2 Duo, also with 2GB of ram, runs it all high with 4XAA.
> 
> I run high with 0XAA. Trust me this CPU holds my card back.



yep, my x850xt loves to stretch with my 3ghz 3700+.

They match nicely


----------



## Alcpone (Jun 17, 2007)

Stick with 2Gb for now if your only really gaming no flashy programs, cad.. etc! 

2Gb clocks better than 4Gb from what ive read, and when you really need 4Gb, you will want faster ram anyway imo


----------



## Zeratul_uy (Jun 17, 2007)

erocker said:


> BF2142 uses over 1GB of ram. With most other common services running about 1.5 gb's of physical ram can be used.  Before I had 2GB, after I would quit the game, the music would still play for a while.  With 2GB the music quit along with the program.  That's just one example, the game runs much better with 2GB.  If I were to build a Vista rig, I would get 4GB, just because you are going to need it when a lot of these larger DX10 games come out.  Requirements are going up and up, and I'm sure we will see a need on the mainstream/gamer level that will require over 2GB.  While that may not be that case now (though it's close) 4Gb's of RAM in your system is not a bad idea at all.



But maybe when those DX10 games comes, 4 GB's of DDR3 would be more apropiate o// ATM he don't need so bad those 4GB's (at least not if he don't do such things named before CAD, encoding and mega PwNzOr multi-tasking)


----------



## hat (Jun 17, 2007)

I believe DX10 will be more of a video memory hog..


----------



## ex_reven (Jun 18, 2007)

hat said:


> I believe DX10 will be more of a video memory hog..



ditto, but if they design another vista...who knows


----------



## Mussels (Jun 18, 2007)

hat said:


> I believe DX10 will be more of a video memory hog..



Lost planet DX10, Company of heroes DX10... yeah, they dont run any faster on my rig with 4GB of ram. So no, they arent more ram hungry. Certainly in 2-3 years, 2GB will be the norm and gamers will be on 4GB, but its nowhere near that point yet.


----------



## jocksteeluk (Jun 19, 2007)

with memory prices as cheap as the are right now going for 4gig over 2gig or ram is a worthwhile upgrade, i was running 1gig of ram in my system and was contemplating a complete hardware upgrade but spending £80 on 4gig of ddr2 pc6400 practically made my system run like a clean install but with 10+ applications running in the background.


----------



## Ketxxx (Jun 19, 2007)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> You only need one there, mate.
> 
> Vista.



lmao, so true. Vista is a memory hog and a POS in one. The good news is with turning off un-needed services via services.msc claws back a good chunk, but out of 2GB, even when you disabled all un-needed services, Vista itself will still use about 512MB. God only knows what that could turn into with a SP update..


----------



## HellasVagabond (Jun 19, 2007)

jocksteeluk said:


> with memory prices as cheap as the are right now going for 4gig over 2gig or ram is a worthwhile upgrade, i was running 1gig of ram in my system and was contemplating a complete hardware upgrade but spending £80 on 4gig of ddr2 pc6400 practically made my system run like a clean install but with 10+ applications running in the background.




Depends on what memmory you have...The OCZ XLC 6400 costs around 260euros the 2gb, i dont want to spend another 260euros to see an 10% in speed increase and that in not every occation.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 20, 2007)

Ketxxx said:


> lmao, so true. Vista is a memory hog and a POS in one. The good news is with turning off un-needed services via services.msc claws back a good chunk, but out of 2GB, even when you disabled all un-needed services, Vista itself will still use about 512MB. God only knows what that could turn into with a SP update..



Do i need to take another screenshot of my storage system using ~250MB of ram in vista x86?

The extra ram usage in vista is because of superfetch and its associated features, vista keeps things in ram cause its faster that way. Run on 512MB of ram and vista uses a lot less than 4GB, it automatically adjusts based on how much is in the system, and much you've been using.


HellasVagabond: I beleive his point was more for new systems, not for an upgrade. Buying 4GB of slower memory vs. 2GB of high speed/clocking memory is a tough decision.


Edit: Here we go, with MS paint and nod32 AV running - i hate people bitching about vista, when they dont have a clue about it. And this is with superfetch running, btw. (The sudden drop in memory usage was once the system had stopped loading, as i'd just logged in at this point)

Pic #2 is for the inevitable 'thats a vista theme on XP' - go find me a theme with the new windows+tab feature. (its hard to see, but you CAN see it only using 259MB of ram, with full aero glass enabled)


----------



## G0DZLR (Jun 20, 2007)

here is sub-260MB RAM usage on a 3500+ A64 running only 512MB of DDR333...

nuff' said

superfetch is running also


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jun 20, 2007)

Interesting.

Considering this is a fresh VM install..






Running in parallels, and thats not even the 3d Aero UI...

Methinks you guys tweaked things.

Tweaking != normal usage.








> Mussels said:
> 
> 
> > Do i need to take another screenshot of my storage system using ~250MB of ram in vista x86?
> ...


----------



## G0DZLR (Jun 20, 2007)

you do have 49 processes there...


----------



## Mussels (Jun 20, 2007)

For mine, i've disabled two media player services, removed the sidebar thing and let it run - vistsa tunes in over time (superfetch/prefetch) so it gets better over a month or so. Thats where a lot of people go wrong (esp. with a VM, you cant exactly let it run for a month can you?)

Edit: OH! i also disabled UAC, however i dont know if that will help ram usage or not.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jun 20, 2007)

G0DZLR said:


> you do have 49 processes there...




Yeah, its called a fresh install.(as in untouched, aside from the basics)

Try not skewing things in your favor next time? You know.. mention that you've been tweaking core processes to give you a lower ram usage?

This is what 99% of the population using vista will see. 
UAC is disabled because thats the most worthless pile of shit excuse for security I've ever seen.

Sidebar is ofcourse disabled aswell.

Typical things an end user will see and disable.



Mussels said:


> Thats where a lot of people go wrong (esp. with a VM, you cant exactly let it run for a month can you?)



I use vista to test webpages @ work in IE7. I've had it installed for roughly a month now.. on this install.. I have programs installed, but nothing that would run constantly.. just MOHAA, C&C3, C&CRA (yes the first one), and dreamweaver..

I don't have useless background apps installed, because I don't use anything other than the few games on it and dreamweaver.

I have a hard time believeing you guys haven't touched those fresh installs.

Also note, I'm using the windows classic style start menu. No 3d aero.

I'm curious how this accounts for ~100-200Mb of ram?


Right.... Vista really must be that bad?






Theres a process tree.

Looks like its all microsofts's crap.

The only 2 things there not windows related are TPU capture and Parallels tools.

still 340mb ram usage.


----------



## G0DZLR (Jun 20, 2007)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> Yeah, its called a fresh install.
> 
> Try not skewing things in your favor next time? You know.. mention that you've been tweaking core processes to give you a lower ram usage?
> 
> ...



i havnt had the TIME to tweak this install. iv only had it on since friday when i got bored and tried to install it on the rig cos i had nothing better to do. since then and now i have been dealing with school + life crisis = no time to tweak it, its just how it came. i have disabled UAC and the sidebar - thats it

ED: WTF is wiht 6.55GHz????


----------



## Mussels (Jun 20, 2007)

tweaking core whatnows? i disabled a media player service (it auto-detects my playlist on my other PC, god knows why) turned off UAC (annoying POS) and left it alone. Those are MINOR tweaks, and not something to go cranky over dippy. Quitting the sidebar doesnt matter either, as its something any user can do.

This wasnt about usage on a fresh install, it was a brief counter to ketxxx's post saying 512MB of ram is the MINIMUM you get on vista AFTER tweaks. even YOUR post, showing 392MB on a STOCK boot of vista shows his claim to be untrue. Tweaks or not, vistas ram usage is nowhere near as excessive as he is claiming.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 20, 2007)

Dippy did some edits earlier, so rather than edit mine, i'll double post just this once. I didnt know you could run VM's long term, i've never used one (my comment above did have a question mark, it WAS a question)


Dippyskoodlez said:


> I have a hard time believeing you guys haven't touched those fresh installs.



Mine is not a fresh install as i have said MANY times - its a 3 month old install, with all updates, superfetch, and 1GB of ram. I've disabled two services, UAC and the sidebar, and get those results.
We're within 100MB of each other, give or take - why are you having such an issue beleiving this? do you want me to get a digital camera and record you a movie?


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jun 20, 2007)

Mussels said:


> Dippy did some edits earlier, so rather than edit mine, i'll double post just this once. I didnt know you could run VM's long term, i've never used one (my comment above did have a question mark, it WAS a question)
> 
> 
> Mine is not a fresh install as i have said MANY times - its a 3 month old install, with all updates, superfetch, and 1GB of ram. I've disabled two services, UAC and the sidebar, and get those results.
> We're within 100MB of each other, give or take - why are you having such an issue beleiving this? do you want me to get a digital camera and record you a movie?







Long term install on my A64.

Nothings been touched. UAC and sidebar disabled. This is obviously not a "one time" thing.

Why couldnt you use a VM long term?

Oh thats right, you never had virtualization. 


Curious how disabling only the 2 same services yields... a 10% memory usage difference. Something's fishy.

also, g0dzlr, welcome to the world of virtual machines. 6.5ghz ftw! I have one fast macbook pro!


----------



## mdm-adph (Jun 20, 2007)

Mussels said:


> Do i need to take another screenshot of my storage system using ~250MB of ram in vista x86?



Vista x86, eh?  So, they're making a SPARC version also now?


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jun 20, 2007)

mdm-adph said:


> Vista x86, eh?  So, they're making a SPARC version also now?



shhh its the power pc version..

though to anyone reading this: I post those screenshots not as an apple fan, nor a windows hater, that really is just a fresh desktop after an install. It doesn't matter to me which is "better" or not, I'm still gonna use my mac.

Seems ketxxx's was exaggerated +100mb, while your guys's was -100mb.

Seems I'm in between. IMO it really shows how people that dislike vista exaggerate things, while those that "approve" of vista are going to exaggerate things.

Also note: "closing" the side bar does not end the process (which I have done) which can add another easy 3Mb to memory usage. Most users will not know this.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 21, 2007)

i quit my sidebar and told it not to boot ever again. perhaps that kills the service?

Myself - thats my storage rig. My main rig w/ 4GB of ram uses about 500MB on boot, with the same tweaks - but it also runs a few more apps (audigy drivers in particular  ) which hike up the usage a bit.


----------

