Printable View
How many of you X2 guys are running only 1gb of RAM?
I have 2 x 512mb G.Skill LAs in my Lanparty and I'm afraid not only would 1gb not be enough, but thats the G.Skill will be totally wasted due to the fact I wouldn't be overclocking much.
So any thoughs/feedback?
You don't need to overclock to make use of good memory, but it helps. I would never consider using good RAM in an X2 a waste. If you are keeping the Lanparty though and you are overclocking the memory a lot you may want to get something new for the X2.
Afraid it is not enough for what? Go to the store and check the requirements for software. Do you think you will see any program that requires more than a gigabyte? I think those programs are few.
There are no mainstream programs that require more than 1GB of RAM. There are a few applications that could use more RAM. They mostly are applications having to do with hires scanning and image manipulation.
It will be quite some time before 1GB will be inadequate in any sense of the word.
That assumes running only one application at a time, shutting it down before you use the next. Seeing memory pressure on a 1GiB system is quite easy with a few common applications open at the same time.
No it doesn't. 1GB is a lot of RAM. Most applications simply do not load very much of themselves into memory. That's why on a fast system applications pretty much load instantly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rys
What you're probably talking about is workstation/power-user situations where a multi-CPU Opteron workstation with 4GB of RAM and large storage arrays may be required. That's apparently not Randell's situation. From his previous posts I'd say he's more of a mainstream user.
But the fact is, 2Gb is obviously better and if your not overclocking much, it's perfect, as 2Gb is no more expensive than a goo 1Gb stick.
Photoshop, Firefox, IE, Editplus, Winamp, MSN, Outlook not to mention any background programs such as AV software and you'll start to feel 1GB RAM being use soon enough I can assure you.
Why is it obviously better? Because it's more?Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokey21
Knock yourself out but 2GB is a waste unless you're scanning and manipulating very large images. I guess it could also be useful for people who do not have the brains to close an application when they are finished with it. If a person is that stupid then they are probably too stupid to be able to switch between 17 open applications.
BTW, if you have 17 open applications I have two things to say to you.
1) You really need to update your anti-virus/anti-spyware...and
2) Stay away from the porno sites! :heckle:
RoGuE|SaBeR... :heckle:
Did you really mean to say that, and call people that use their PC in such a fashion 'stupid' ?Quote:
Originally Posted by StormPC
Your argument in this thread is baseless, since you cannot possibly understand of know how everyone uses their PC, yet you presume to do so by calling people with lots of running applications 'stupid'.
I currently have the following up and running on my PC, as I type this:
Photoshop CS
Homesite 4.5
Firefox
Outlook XP
Steam
MSN Messenger
Rivatuner
RMClock
WiFi Card Manager
System Studio 2
Winamp
NOD3D Anti Virus
Microsoft Word
PuTTY
UltraMon
DynDNS Updater
Gadwin Printscreen
EPSON Printer Monitor
Combined, they're using nearly 800MB of physical memory, with a further 300MB or so paged out to disk but mapped and in use. All of those applications are either required for me to do my job, or are small utilities that help me use my computer quickly and easily. That's over 1GB of mapped memory, the OS pushing some out to disk.
The minute I start the process of editing images in Photoshop for use in HomeSite, while I use Word for copy checking, I'll run into memory pressure with the OS having to go out to disk more often. 2GB would be a help for me.
I don't consider my use of a PC, or the apps and utils I run, to be out of the ordinary. Do you? Infact, I consider it entirely normal.
I shut down the bigger apps when I want to game, but I certainly don't close down all the smaller utilities I frequently use. Am I stupid, in your eyes, for not doing so? If I am, and I'm far from alone in how I use a computer, then I suggest you start to rethink your notions of computer use before any more threads you participate in are sidetracked by your incorrect assumptions about how folks use a PC.
I know it's common for the overclocker to shut as much down as possible, in the pursuit of a higher benchmark result, and I know that's where you're coming from, but that's really not how most us a PC system. Please try and understand that.
Calling RoGuE|SaBeR stupid for his tiny list of useful apps he uses is uncalled for. Please exercise restraint before you insult anyone else, thanks!
If people use Azureus for bittorrent legal downloading (obv:p) then they will understand the importance of RAM.
Alone it takes up around 300MB
I have ran 1 Gb of ram and also 2 Gb of ram on my A8N based system.
When it had 2 Gb of in the memory would only run @ 400 MHz with timings of 2.5-2-2-2-5 and it worked absolutely fine. With 1 Gb I was running @ 2-2-2-5 at stock speeds and various applications such as Adobe photoshop, Office, and the tenomichi 3d edit gold all ran smoother. Gaming wise, HL2 ran a bit smoother as did BF2 and even doom 3 ( eek - I reinstalled it for a bit of mindless plug and frag fun )
Who recalls when Mr G said that the home user would not need more than 640k ?
benchy wise, obviously the 2Gb was slightly slower due to the timings, but it felt smoother with more intensive applications and even Steam ran better if that can even be said :)
Personally I'd be happy to run an X2 with 1GB of RAM (and will do at some point if prices come down). I never run enough apps concurrently to need more than that, and the applications that I use that would benefit most from a second core (DVD Shrink and Find-A-Drug) are not particularly heavy users of memory.
Here's an interesting article about how you may be able to use the GSkill memory at more than 200MHz without overclocking the processor:).
Well the new X2 4400 should arrive in a few days time :P
Plenty of games do/will be needing 2gb in the future.
Everquest2, BF2 are just two I can think of right now.
I dont see anything wrong with having 2gb, as it will futureproof your pc for quite a while.
Ram is also quite cheap atm, which makes it more of a good idea.
Personally if I was building a new PC base unit from scratch for myself I wouldn't even hesitate to put 2GB in there.
I've had 1.5GB in this machine and the difference was noticable from 1Gb, expecially in games such as Far Cry, 2GB would definitely smooth things out noticably using Windows w/lots of apps even on my machine letalone on an X2.
StormPC - You need to understand PC's can be, and are in the majority of cases, used for multiple purposes at once. That is THE reason why they are so popular. Otherwise we would all have seperate devices for certain tasks.
I don't think it does iirc. Usually it's the JVM that takes up the memory, but it is (almost) platform independant henceforth a good app :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dougal
I have 2 x 512MB of Corsair XL Pro PC3200. It's happy in my current system but there again, i have no knowledge on the latest tech so i'm unsure of what bus speeds (HTT) the latest CPU's support but obviously that's also dependant on the chipset. Personally i'm not into overclocking anymore as on the latest tech i really don't see the necessity to overclock as using default clock speeds would allow you to adhere to perfectly acceptable gameplay
Is your computer so slow that you can't manage to close some of the larger applications? I mean, you don't actually use all of those programs at the same time, right? How many arms do you have? If you find you need a program it really isn't that difficult to doubleclick an icon, is it (especially if you have enough arms and hands to use that many programs)? If you can't use them all why are they open?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rys
I never called RoGuE|SaBeR stupid, just got a giggle out of his post. ;)
Because it's a flipping hassle having to close and reopen an app every time you want to switch to it? Because it's a waste of time? Because I'd rather have a slightly tidier desktop? Certainly I'd regard it as a waste of my time, especially at work, when I could just chuck some more RAM in and obviate the necessity for it (says he, quite happy that his Opterons are burping quietly over their 2GB). Let's just look at that list a mo'; quite a lot of those are background apps anyway, and I can quite see the larger ones being switched between perfectly sensibly, especially on someone whose machine is being used for content creation. You don't just work in one program, even if you're doing one task; you might be editing graphical content for embedding in a web page before previewing it, and it's actually quicker and simpler to have the three programs that one might sensibly be using for that open at the same time. Say, Photoshop, Homesite and Firefox for instance. While having your mail client open, since if you receive a work related email you want to know about it.
Errrm, he said he had 17 apps open and you said that people with 17 apps are stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by StormPC
Viz you called him stupid ;)
well put it this way, I am totally with Rys on this, due to the nature of the work I do I have plenty of programs running at any one time, and its not an option to keep closing and reopening programs, I, like many others at HEXUS try to juggle many different things at once and I can be working in one app and have to run and do something else and then will jump back to what I was doing originally for a little bit and then get on to something else.
I had a shuttle, with a 3.4 chip, and 1GB of ram, it wasn't enough, programs would run slow and a new install of XP made no difference, I went back to 2GB in a tower and now everything is fine. To write a review on HEXUS I can need up to 20 different applications, brwoser windows and editing tools just to get the review done quickly without any hassle (the worst thing about the flow of writing for reviews is getting interupted and losing your train of thought)
Its down to each individuals usage patterns, just because you have the ability to close apps inbetween things does not mean you need to.
Then on the other hand, BF2 is a suggested 2GB game for all its glory, but then of course, thats not a sign of things to come is it?
m@
Storm are you denying that more memory isn't better? lol.
Of course 2Gb is better than 1. Well ill be using 2GB of ram soon and an X2, so ill get back to you how much smoother it feels in loading games, and with stuff open etc.
I imagine games in the future will start to run better with 2GB as well, and D3 definatly helps with 2GB on Ultra quality.
I think Storm likes to argue just for the sake of arguing.
I don't subscribe to the theory that "if a lot is good, too much is better", but I guess many of you do.Quote:
Originally Posted by |SilentDeath|
Nobody said it was wrong, just an unnecessary expense. The money could be better spent. It always cracks me up when I see people spend money on RAM and CPU, and then scrimp on the hard drive and/or videocard, or some other rediculous scenario.
I also never called anyone stupid. It is a coincidence that Rys had 18 (not 17) apps going. I just chose 17 as an example. Really though, how hard is it to open an application? Saving time? Wow, it must take at least 200 nanoseconds to click on an icon. Unless you are Bill Gates, I doubt your time would be wasted.
There are some applications where a workstation (and especially a server) really benefits from more than 1GB, but you mainstream gamers are not going to see any performance increase no matter how much you scream the virtues of GB's at the top of your lungs.
I thank all of you who believe you need to have 2GB+ RAM though, because it is you guys who are bringing the price of RAM lower and lower. It means really cheap RAM for us sane people who know how to close a window once in awhile. ;)
Erm....never heard of supply and demand then? If more people want 2GB, there's more demand for modules, and the price will go up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StormPC
thankyou for chosing me as your quote, obviously you thinnk of me as the least sane person here.... anyway:
Harddisk? well unless your constantly downloading pr0n/warez, an old 40gb hdd will do (assuming it has FDB and therefore resonably quite.)
What hard disk would you consider? an old'ism max0r is good enough for me.
video card obviously the most important thing, luckly I have a x850xtpe.
As for ram, games need it just as much as they need anything else. If you want textures at max, the games gotta have somewhere to put them!
If you havent anything usefull to say then please stfu (but i expect you will ignore this, and contine posting in many more threads in which youve been proven wrong after your first post...)
Didn't think anyone could be more illogical than you Rave, but |SilentDeath| kicks your arse! :crazy:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rave
Erm...if you read my post I think you'll see that's exactly what I said. ;)
1gb or 2gb of RAM hardly a life of death decision. When I build a system I look at the amount of RAM I need and double it. There is rarely a need to upgrade the RAM during the life of the PC. I avoid the problem with incompatible sticks later when I can't find the exact same sticks to ugrade. It's a day one upgrade for convenience more than anything else. Also I don't like to fill all the RAM slots because it will drop performance or lack stability or need a bios update or explode in my face because I'm unlucky with RAM upgrades.
How is 2Gb an "unnecessary expense" when it's the same price as a quality set of 1GB, lol.
No, read your own post.Quote:
Originally Posted by StormPC
More demand for RAM = rising prices. This is about as basic an economic principle as you can get. TBH making you look daft is starting to lose it's appeal for me now, you just make it too easy:rolleyes:.Quote:
I thank all of you who believe you need to have 2GB+ RAM though, because it is you guys who are bringing the price of RAM lower and lower.
I agree with the guy who said that you don't need 2gb.
Its like graphics cards; a 256mb card by no means its faster than the same card with 128mb. Applications just don't use it. It wasn't that long ago when 128mb was the standard.
You can only use so much RAM and 1gb is more than enough.
I put it to you upgraders that you will get negligable performance increase with 2gb installed.
You can put it to whoever you like, but when you already have 800MB used with just the apps open that you may be working in and when you may need to task switch between apps with frequency then you'll find that 2GB coming in very handy. Personally, due to the large number of background apps that I have to have running concurrently, my workstation has already consumed 878MB. Now that's only having Outlook and Firefox open as apps that I'm interacting with. I guarantee that at some point in the next hour or so my machine WILL use more than a gig of RAM. And will do so regularly throughout the day.
2gb while being more, isn't always better. For a start 2gb is crap for overclocking, so in that retrospect you might want to stick with 1. My two main rigs (one listed in sig, the other P4 3.4ghz, 2gigs RAM, 500gb HDD, 9800Pro etc.) have the difference of 1gb RAM. Granted the system specs are different, but I don't notice the 3.4ghz to be faster in the slightest. The 2gb RAM is simply there because I use that computer for office work, and it handles Access Databases and the like a lot. However this rig (see sig) is here for internet browsing, IRC, MSN, Boinc and gaming.
So really it depends what you are doing with your system. I'd still follow the idea that if you don't desperately need 2gb at the time why bother with it?
LOL, you think so.Quote:
Originally Posted by blueprint
Run D3 or Far cry at 1600x1200 will aa and af, and watch it crawl on a 128mb card. if a 7800GTX had 128mb it would be much worse.
On the topic of RAM.
Does anyone know about High Density and which 939 boards support it?
Only if supply is low, which it is not. ;) It's supply AND demand, not OR! :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Rave
All S939 supports the same memory. The CPU is the important thing with A64's cause that's where the mem controller is.
Well, the best that one can say is that if supply is equal to or greater than demand then prices won't rise and may fall. Should demand increase the likelihood of supply equalling or exceeding demand is correspondingly reduced. At best, increased demand for RAM may trigger manufacturers into producing more, but even then, that won't reduce necessarily reduce prices, since the manufacturers will only be trying to produce as much as they can sell, they will have a fixed unit cost for production and distribution to start with, and they will want to be avoiding glutting the market as happened a couple of years ago, when they were desperately shifting RAM at a loss to clear inventory. At worst, increased demand will soak up the market's supply and cause prices to rise. People buying RAM doesn't reduce its price. Efficiency in production and distribution may, but increased demand will be either price-neutral at best or inflationary at worst. The location of the memory controller on your given platform is irrelevant to pricing for the memory that it takes; you can stick DDR in a P4 - I don't see a memory controller on its die, do you?
Sorry I actually meant 512mb is no better than 512mb in terms of graphics cards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokey21
Wheather you still stand by your arguemt, I don't know.
Well, you'd have thought it wouldn't be really... :PQuote:
Originally Posted by blueprint
Try runing around qeynos harbor in eq2 when its busy with only 1gb of ram and a 256mb card with everything on max. I prove my point.
AND more to the point, if you can afford an X2, why not get enough ram?
The discussion has to do with the definition of "enough". Most people don't seem to know what that is.Quote:
Originally Posted by |SilentDeath|
The multi-taskers can make the argument that 1GB is not enough in rare cases, but gamers to this point can not IMO.
nichomach,
My second point was in regards to what Dougal asked, not supply and demand.
The thread starter wants an X2 so you have to consider that he is looking at multitasking. After all that is what dual core processers are for until games are released to specifically take advantage of them.
2GB compliments an X2 perfectly due to the nature of work the cpu is intended for. It also means that he could play a game and keep other background tasks (DVD Writing, Video/Audio Converting) going on at the same time with less performance hit.
People who are worried about performance don't rip CD's while they play Doom3 or bench. Doesn't take a smart person to know this, it's pretty obvious to most.Quote:
Originally Posted by iMc
Even when multitasking 1GB is more than enough to run all applications at full speed and adding a GB of RAM will do nothing in almost all cases. This is not what I've read, it's the results of many benchmarks and weeks of testing.
In answer to the poster's question (remember that?) I think he can guess I'm running 1GB. What about you other X2 users? What? You don't have an X2? Then why did you reply to this thread? :crazy:
It really isn't enough for some people, as has been proven more than a few times in this thread. It's come back around to "my testing proves I'm right" with you again.Quote:
Originally Posted by StormPC
Surely that tells you something? 1GB is right for you, and that's really great, but it's not enough for some others. What's so hard to comprehend about that?
Different people have different computing needs and different ways of using a computer.
If you look at the list of apps I use and what I said about them (they're either all needed for work, so they need to be open while I'm working, or they're utils that sit in my systray doing a minor job, which are the ones mostly paged out to disk), you'll have seen that.
Yes (and I'm bolding to try and make you understand what you seem too blind to see), I need those bigger apps open at the same time! My workflow dictates that. Write in Homesite, checking in Word, pulling images from Photoshop and previewing in Firefox. Those are the biggest memory consumers I have, and they do need to be open at the same time, otherwise I'd be forever opening and closing apps more than I was getting any pissing work done!
I'm getting really tired of reading your posts where you're so blinkered as to what people need out of a PC that you're handing out bad advice to the forum goers.
Consider other uses of a PC before you put fingers to keys, or at least let other people put those other uses and scenarios and attached advice across without having a go at them because your testing and benchmarking says they are wrong.
:iloveyou:
Yes you need 2GB ram, but do you need 2GB for gaming, or you need 2GB for non-urgent jobs?Quote:
Originally Posted by RDL
Quote:
Originally Posted by StormPC
If you really want to multi-task, get a few rigs. I'm tired of running a single rig. With my server/static service rig mounted with 2GB (Stock speed, high latency), gaming rick mounted with 1GB (overclocked to DDR600+), gaming ultra-smooth, while other services and my encodings are not affected. You effectively getting 3GB ram too.
Well, in MY case to correct certain of your less reality-based assumptions about memory consumption and the effect of increased demand on RAM prices. I'm really happy that 1GB is enough for you; for a lot of my users 512MB more than suffices, but you can't assume that the same holds good for everybody, or that people just run one game or one benchmark suite. As I've noted, my machine consumes about 800MB before I kick off a single user app; but you haven't inquired once how Randell Floyd intends to use the machine. That's a little odd when in another thread he listed his uses as:Quote:
Originally Posted by StormPC
To which you quite sensibly and correctly replied:Quote:
Originally Posted by Randell Floyd
We know that BF2 is demanding, memory wise, and we also know that video editing and encoding can be hugely memory intensive, and we can take for granted that with that workload Randell WILL be multitasking, and will probably be running multithreaded apps (assuming a decent video editing package). In those circumstances and given that usage, more IS better, yet you persist in trying to ridicule anyone who suggests that 2GB might be a wise investment.Quote:
Originally Posted by StormPC
Randell is buying a CPU that was born to multitask, and his listed uses indicate that he may be doing a lot of just that very thing, yet you're advising him to place constrictions on that ability by reducing the one other essential component that enables that.
Some might consider telling a guy he needs two to four times as much memory as he actually does "bad advice".
It should be noted that I build and sell high-end systems. 99% of my customers don't even need 512MB of RAM for their applications. 99.9% do just fine on 1GB, and a very small percentage require 2GB-8GB or more. It is actually the same percentage that requires more than an X2. Get it? If you need 2GB of RAM or more then you also need a real workstation. X2's are very nice but they are not a replacement for a true workstation because they don't handle the RAM required for such a system.
According to your assumptions as to what he needs which seem to suppose that he'll either run one game with evrything else turned off or one other single threaded app with everything else turned off. According to his listed uses elsewhere, and as noted, that assumption may well be in error. "two to four times"? You're being ridiculous.
Fine; you build systems. There's rather a lot here who can do that, you know. I don't doubt that you build very nice systems. But extrapolating from the 99% of your customers whose workload must be very different from that which Randell outlined and applying their requirements to his system appears unwise to say the least.
As for a "true workstation", the only difference in the memory that they can handle is the fact that the X2s can use unregistered non-ECC memory; now ECC is nice, I've been grateful for it before now, but generally such memory has poorer timings anyway. Not everyone can afford an Opteron 275; and when you're trying to buy a flexible, high performing system that will do a lot of the same things (maybe not so well, but a lot of them), then an X2 looks like a good option, as does stuffing 2GB of good quality memory into it.
Your post is rediculous. I have run 30 games on a system with 10MB of RAM (my Amiga 3000) all running at the same time. Of course Amigas have several processors in addition to the CPU and a much more advanced architecture than the PC. Also, back then programmers needed to know how to actually code. Now they don't because everybody has a gig+ and very fast CPUs. Now anybody can code programs.Quote:
Originally Posted by nichomach
It is you who seem to be assuming that you need 1GB per game. You are incorrect sir, not even on a PC. :Oops:
I am not going on assumptions. I am going on his posts. This may be the first post you have read by the starter of this thread but he has actually posted in others.
Also, if you guys would acually read my posts you would have read that I never said that nobody ever needs more than 1GB of RAM. I only said that most people who believe they do are mistaken.
:iloveyou:
Feeling better now? :crazy:
More RAM = Less Paging/Disk Access = Faster Computer
Not always Louie, only to a point.Quote:
Originally Posted by TechPro2005
Quite true. In fact, apparently it's possible to store the whole OS in main memory if you have enough RAM making it super fast. I think 8GB is a requirement though ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by TechPro2005