@Tribaljet : Where did you see that having more ram results in more crash?! I really don't get why the system would be less stable with more ram... it just doesn't make sense whatsoever ( Just think about a dedicated server box, they can hold way more ram than the average users use, yet it's still stable ). Please provide reference....
@Mad Beast : Are we talking DDR2 or DDR3 ? Memory Clock? Single , dual or tri channel? What I'm trying to say is that there's so much option for you to choose from that 8g v 4g is pretty irrelevant, as there is so much to take in consideration. My own opinion : If you have the budget, go for the 8g. At the rate computer technology is improving, in a year or even sooner, 8gig of ram will become standard , and you'll require more ram to do everything. On Nov 10, 5:05 pm, lolattheotherguy <[email protected]> wrote: > i have 4gb (3 used by windows7) and it is not always enuff when > working with photoshop, let alone 3dsmax... > for games i guess 4 is enough as of today, but filling up your sockets > with 2x2gb is rather stupid i think, coz when u have to upgrade, you > have to sell/throw away 2 ram sticks. (assuming u have 2 sockets) On > the other hand, dual channel is nice thing too. > > On Nov 10, 8:19 pm, tribaljet <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Exactly, xp is for tiny/ancient computers. But your win7 install must > > be stripped bare, as it should use at least half of your physical > > memory, as that's the proper way for it to be truly responsive. Win7 > > feels "fed" enough if it has at least 2GB cached at all times. > > > On Nov 10, 7:17 pm, Espionage724 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > The only game I had that takes huge amounts of memory is SC2. But > > > unrelated to that, Windows 7 x64 for me on a 3GB system uses about > > > 900MB average no matter what I do, and XP 32-bit uses 400MB average. > > > > On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 1:57 PM, tribaljet <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > You clearly don't know where MAD is going, ok? That's laughable. I > > > > have 2GB which is an incredibly low amount for what I do, and 1GB is > > > > only acceptable for primitive OSes like xp. > > > > > On Nov 10, 6:55 pm, Namige <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> I have 1GB and I rarely run into problems although I sometimes wish I > > > >> had more RAM when running games. > > > > >> And yeah, it's sort of like saying what can 8 Billion dollars do for > > > >> you that 4 Billion Dollars can't? > > > > >> On Nov 10, 6:20 pm, tribaljet <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> > 6GB is enough for most users. The whole new kernel philosophy is to > > > >> > use as much resources available as possible to increase system > > > >> > performance and responsiveness. Large amounts of ram (6GB+) are for > > > >> > people who work on their computers, not play. Also, most people seem > > > >> > to forget that the more ram a computer has, more it will crash. 4GB > > > >> > is > > > >> > more than enough for the vanilla user, but I'm guessing you'll be > > > >> > fine > > > >> > with 6, or 8 if you're so itching to get that amount. But make no > > > >> > mistakes, unless you open the memory limits of certain apps, you can > > > >> > easily manage by with 4GB. > > > > >> > On Nov 10, 5:59 pm, MAD_BEAST <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> > > More simple: > > > > >> > > If a system running hard and dosent use more than the 4GB Available > > > >> > > RAM upgrading to 8GB will improve the perfomance although it wont > > > >> > > use > > > >> > > more than 4GB? > > > > > -- > > > > 9xx SOLDIERS SANS FRONTIERS > > > > -- > > > Acer TravelMate 2480 > > > GFX: GMA950 CPU: Intel Celeron M 420 @ 1.6Ghz RAM: 2GB DDR2 333Mhz > > > HDD: Samsung 120GB 5400RPM SATA > > -- 9xx SOLDIERS SANS FRONTIERS
