Tom's Hardware Asks How Much RAM You Really Need

[Hooch Tan]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/memory-module-upgrade,2264.html' target='_blank'>http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews...grade,2264.html</a><br /><br /></div><p><em>"Once the pride of the so-called upper middle class in the United States, McMansions and SUVs have now become symbols of excess and waste--at least the reminders of an era past. Green movement proponents should certainly be happy that so many &ldquo;earth abusers&rdquo; are beginning to see the light, but what about performance-computing fanatics? With memory prices near record lows, is there any good reason not to fill every slot with low-cost 2 GB DIMMs?"</em></p><p><img src="http://images.thoughtsmedia.com/resizer/thumbs/size/600/dht/auto/1239231244.usr20447.jpg" style="border: 0px solid #d2d2bb;" /></p><p>While netbooks and nettops are smoking sales charts, they usually come with pretty weak configurations, limiting their use.&nbsp; When you need to do more demanding work like editing large photos, video editing or gaming, a traditional PC, usually a desktop, is in order and with that the question is how much RAM should you get.&nbsp; Fortunately, gone are the days where manufacturers try to pass off systems that barely have enough RAM to load the OS without swapping, but extra RAM can certainly help.&nbsp; For the past while, 4-6GB has been the sweet spot in terms of price and performance.&nbsp; Tom's Hardware does a check to see if this still holds true or whether things have changed, and buckets of RAM can improve performance.&nbsp; I'll leave their results to the article, but I'll say that in general, someone should get as much as they can reasonably afford, even to the point of reaching at least 4-6GB of RAM over a faster CPU, because once the OS starts swapping, that smoking CPU will spend most of its time waiting for work.&nbsp; Another caveat is that if you plan on having more than 3GB of RAM and using Windows, make sure you use the 64 bit version (XP, Vista, etc) or the extra RAM you've got will just go to waste.</p>

[Bob Anderson]

All things being equal, a $ spent on RAM, far exceeds a $ spent on processor speed upgrades. Since about 2004, I adopted a purchasing model, where I pick a mid-range processor (at the time) with nearly maxed out memory configuration and it is amazing how well it works out in the long run. Two laptops, both sold with XP, have been upgraded, easily to Vista - and one has dipped it's toe into the Win 7 beta with amazing results. Had I stuck with the standard "offering" for both machines, I wouldn't be able to run either of the new operating systems.

[Jason Dunn]

All things being equal, a $ spent on RAM, far exceeds a $ spent on processor speed upgrades.

I'd say that was true back in the days of 512MB and 1 GB computer systems, but now with 3 GB higher being standard on every non-netbook computer, even the cheap ones, RAM is no longer as valuable as it once was. I'd say it's more valuable putting money into a better CPU or video card than going from 3GB to 6GB - you'll see actual performance benefits from a faster CPU or a better GPU.

I read most of the Tom's Hardware article, and their exhaustive tests echo the results of my less-than-exhaustive tests: once you get beyond 2GB or 3GB, there's basically no benefit. I'm a heavy multi-tasker, but because Vista is so great at memory management, 3GB is more than enough for me - even on my media editing computer where you'd think LOTS of RAM would be needed. 2 GB is plenty for almost anyone.

I really believe that Microsoft needs to do something *radical* with Windows 8 - like RAM-drive-as-part-of-the-OS radical. Windows 7 is no more able to do anything special with gobs of RAM than Windows Vista was. I really want to go out and buy 6GB, 12GB, etc. for my systems but only if there's a tangible benefit. Right now it's just empty bragging rights.

The *one* and only exception to all this is virtual machines. If you're running virtual machines regularly, and you give them 2GB of RAM to use, you'll want 4GB or more for your system.

[Bob Christensen]

I really believe that Microsoft needs to do something *radical* with Windows 8 - like RAM-drive-as-part-of-the-OS radical.

Absolutely! I remember using RAM drives on old DOS machines and running WordStar or WordPerfect in RAM... Wow! Blazingly fast response that I've NEVER seen on any Windows machine. Of course, it wasn't intensively graphic like OSs today, but still, it would be terrific to feel that kind of speed and response on Windows apps.

[Cybrid]

Absolutely! I remember using RAM drives on old DOS machines and running WordStar or WordPerfect in RAM... Wow! Blazingly fast response that I've NEVER seen on any Windows machine. Of course, it wasn't intensively graphic like OSs today, but still, it would be terrific to feel that kind of speed and response on Windows apps.Try a Damn Small Linux disk. It's difficult to get used to from a windows/ non elite user standpoint at first but Darn Fun!