Huge memory and new builds

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by Dennis Gordon, Aug 31, 2005.

  1. As I'm collecting info for my new build, I've noticed how using 1-4 gigs of
    memory, and more is becoming standard. WIN98 systems saw a big increase in
    performance when bumped from 64 megs to 128; a bit more when upped to 256,
    and not much more after that (except of course in those programs like
    Photoshop and can use lots of RAM). Likewise, XP will barely operate with
    128megs and bumping it up to 256 or 512 really helps, but beyond that I
    don't notice much of a gain.

    Can someone explain what 4 gigs in a workstation provides in the X64
    environment? Thanks...
     
    Dennis Gordon, Aug 31, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Dennis Gordon wrote:
    > Likewise, XP will barely operate with
    > 128megs and bumping it up to 256 or 512 really helps, but beyond that I
    > don't notice much of a gain.


    Same here. I upgraded from 512MB to 1GB to use dual channel memory. The
    numbers look great when I run a memory benchmark, but the system felt
    fast even before the upgrade. So for my use even 1GB of memory seems to
    be a waste.

    > Can someone explain what 4 gigs in a workstation provides in the X64
    > environment? Thanks...


    I don't think XP x64 is very different from regular XP. At least they
    felt very much the same to me in terms of performance. 64bit
    applications are starting a bit faster, but I think that is a result of
    the improved ABI, and not related to the memory.

    The memory does help noticeably though with certain application, such as
    image/video processing, databases and virtualisation (ala VMware).

    Thomas
     
    Thomas Steffen, Aug 31, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Dennis Gordon

    John Barnes Guest

    Not to mention the programs that return an 'out of memory' message when
    there is a gig of unused memory available.


    "Thomas Steffen" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Dennis Gordon wrote:
    >> Likewise, XP will barely operate with
    >> 128megs and bumping it up to 256 or 512 really helps, but beyond that I
    >> don't notice much of a gain.

    >
    > Same here. I upgraded from 512MB to 1GB to use dual channel memory. The
    > numbers look great when I run a memory benchmark, but the system felt fast
    > even before the upgrade. So for my use even 1GB of memory seems to be a
    > waste.
    >
    >> Can someone explain what 4 gigs in a workstation provides in the X64
    >> environment? Thanks...

    >
    > I don't think XP x64 is very different from regular XP. At least they felt
    > very much the same to me in terms of performance. 64bit applications are
    > starting a bit faster, but I think that is a result of the improved ABI,
    > and not related to the memory.
    >
    > The memory does help noticeably though with certain application, such as
    > image/video processing, databases and virtualisation (ala VMware).
    >
    > Thomas
     
    John Barnes, Aug 31, 2005
    #3
  4. Realistically, 512 is a sweet spot for XP, both 32-bit and 64-bit. Adding
    more makes sense if you:
    1.) Routinely run multiple applications that are actively doing stuff
    2.) Run Virtual machines
    3.) Run any application that is a real memory hog and will use that RAM.

    From what we've seen of Vista, 512 Mb will correspond to 256 in an XP
    system. I think the sweet spot will be at 1Gb or more.

    Right now, I run all my machines at a minimum of 1 Gb, and all my desktops
    at 2-3GB. But they almost all have some sort of virtual machines running on
    them anyway, so are real memory hogs. My day to day laptop (the Ferrari
    4005), is at 1GB and probably won't get bumped up any time soon. It seems
    happy with all I throw at it with 1GB.


    --
    Charlie.
    http://msmvps.com/xperts64

    Dennis Gordon wrote:
    > As I'm collecting info for my new build, I've noticed how using 1-4 gigs
    > of memory, and more is becoming standard. WIN98 systems saw a big
    > increase in performance when bumped from 64 megs to 128; a bit more when
    > upped to 256, and not much more after that (except of course in those
    > programs like Photoshop and can use lots of RAM). Likewise, XP will
    > barely operate with 128megs and bumping it up to 256 or 512 really helps,
    > but beyond that I don't notice much of a gain.
    >
    > Can someone explain what 4 gigs in a workstation provides in the X64
    > environment? Thanks...
     
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Aug 31, 2005
    #4
  5. Now that I haven't seen.

    --
    Charlie.
    http://msmvps.com/xperts64

    John Barnes wrote:
    > Not to mention the programs that return an 'out of memory' message when
    > there is a gig of unused memory available.
    >
    >
    > "Thomas Steffen" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Dennis Gordon wrote:
    >>> Likewise, XP will barely operate with
    >>> 128megs and bumping it up to 256 or 512 really helps, but beyond that I
    >>> don't notice much of a gain.

    >>
    >> Same here. I upgraded from 512MB to 1GB to use dual channel memory. The
    >> numbers look great when I run a memory benchmark, but the system felt
    >> fast even before the upgrade. So for my use even 1GB of memory seems to
    >> be a waste.
    >>
    >>> Can someone explain what 4 gigs in a workstation provides in the X64
    >>> environment? Thanks...

    >>
    >> I don't think XP x64 is very different from regular XP. At least they
    >> felt very much the same to me in terms of performance. 64bit
    >> applications are starting a bit faster, but I think that is a result of
    >> the improved ABI, and not related to the memory.
    >>
    >> The memory does help noticeably though with certain application, such as
    >> image/video processing, databases and virtualisation (ala VMware).
    >>
    >> Thomas
     
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Aug 31, 2005
    #5
  6. Dennis Gordon

    Al Edlund Guest

    I usually tell my friends that the memory model quote is a "minimum start"
    point and they should plan on double if they are running any of the office
    suites.
    al

    "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Realistically, 512 is a sweet spot for XP, both 32-bit and 64-bit. Adding
    > more makes sense if you:
    > 1.) Routinely run multiple applications that are actively doing stuff
    > 2.) Run Virtual machines
    > 3.) Run any application that is a real memory hog and will use that RAM.
    >
    > From what we've seen of Vista, 512 Mb will correspond to 256 in an XP
    > system. I think the sweet spot will be at 1Gb or more.
    >
    > Right now, I run all my machines at a minimum of 1 Gb, and all my desktops
    > at 2-3GB. But they almost all have some sort of virtual machines running
    > on them anyway, so are real memory hogs. My day to day laptop (the Ferrari
    > 4005), is at 1GB and probably won't get bumped up any time soon. It seems
    > happy with all I throw at it with 1GB.
    >
    >
    > --
    > Charlie.
    > http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    >
    > Dennis Gordon wrote:
    >> As I'm collecting info for my new build, I've noticed how using 1-4 gigs
    >> of memory, and more is becoming standard. WIN98 systems saw a big
    >> increase in performance when bumped from 64 megs to 128; a bit more when
    >> upped to 256, and not much more after that (except of course in those
    >> programs like Photoshop and can use lots of RAM). Likewise, XP will
    >> barely operate with 128megs and bumping it up to 256 or 512 really helps,
    >> but beyond that I don't notice much of a gain.
    >>
    >> Can someone explain what 4 gigs in a workstation provides in the X64
    >> environment? Thanks...

    >
    >
     
    Al Edlund, Aug 31, 2005
    #6
  7. One gig rules!
    Carlos

    "Al Edlund" wrote:

    > I usually tell my friends that the memory model quote is a "minimum start"
    > point and they should plan on double if they are running any of the office
    > suites.
    > al
    >
    > "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > Realistically, 512 is a sweet spot for XP, both 32-bit and 64-bit. Adding
    > > more makes sense if you:
    > > 1.) Routinely run multiple applications that are actively doing stuff
    > > 2.) Run Virtual machines
    > > 3.) Run any application that is a real memory hog and will use that RAM.
    > >
    > > From what we've seen of Vista, 512 Mb will correspond to 256 in an XP
    > > system. I think the sweet spot will be at 1Gb or more.
    > >
    > > Right now, I run all my machines at a minimum of 1 Gb, and all my desktops
    > > at 2-3GB. But they almost all have some sort of virtual machines running
    > > on them anyway, so are real memory hogs. My day to day laptop (the Ferrari
    > > 4005), is at 1GB and probably won't get bumped up any time soon. It seems
    > > happy with all I throw at it with 1GB.
    > >
    > >
    > > --
    > > Charlie.
    > > http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    > >
    > > Dennis Gordon wrote:
    > >> As I'm collecting info for my new build, I've noticed how using 1-4 gigs
    > >> of memory, and more is becoming standard. WIN98 systems saw a big
    > >> increase in performance when bumped from 64 megs to 128; a bit more when
    > >> upped to 256, and not much more after that (except of course in those
    > >> programs like Photoshop and can use lots of RAM). Likewise, XP will
    > >> barely operate with 128megs and bumping it up to 256 or 512 really helps,
    > >> but beyond that I don't notice much of a gain.
    > >>
    > >> Can someone explain what 4 gigs in a workstation provides in the X64
    > >> environment? Thanks...

    > >
    > >

    >
    >
    >
     
    =?Utf-8?B?Q2FybG9z?=, Aug 31, 2005
    #7
  8. Dennis Gordon

    zekolas Guest

    Dennis Gordon wrote:
    >
    > Can someone explain what 4 gigs in a workstation provides in the X64
    > environment? Thanks...


    It really depends on what you are doing, If you just surfing the web,
    with a word processor open, and maybe one or two other programs running
    I doubt you are even using a gig of memory. However if your compiling
    big programs, doing some video editing, sometimes a gig of memory gets
    filled up pretty fast.

    90% of home users won't need more than a gig of memory.
     
    zekolas, Aug 31, 2005
    #8
  9. I'll keep that rule in mind.
    I'm just glad that the prices have dropped since I upgraded my Atari ST from
    1meg to a whopping 4 megs in 1987... for $520. Let's see, at $130/meg, a gig
    of memory would be $130,000 at that rate...



    "Carlos" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > One gig rules!
    > Carlos
    >
    > "Al Edlund" wrote:
    >
    >> I usually tell my friends that the memory model quote is a "minimum
    >> start"
    >> point and they should plan on double if they are running any of the
    >> office
    >> suites.
    >> al
    >>
    >> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >> > Realistically, 512 is a sweet spot for XP, both 32-bit and 64-bit.
    >> > Adding
    >> > more makes sense if you:
    >> > 1.) Routinely run multiple applications that are actively doing stuff
    >> > 2.) Run Virtual machines
    >> > 3.) Run any application that is a real memory hog and will use that
    >> > RAM.
    >> >
    >> > From what we've seen of Vista, 512 Mb will correspond to 256 in an XP
    >> > system. I think the sweet spot will be at 1Gb or more.
    >> >
    >> > Right now, I run all my machines at a minimum of 1 Gb, and all my
    >> > desktops
    >> > at 2-3GB. But they almost all have some sort of virtual machines
    >> > running
    >> > on them anyway, so are real memory hogs. My day to day laptop (the
    >> > Ferrari
    >> > 4005), is at 1GB and probably won't get bumped up any time soon. It
    >> > seems
    >> > happy with all I throw at it with 1GB.
    >> >
    >> >
    >> > --
    >> > Charlie.
    >> > http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    >> >
    >> > Dennis Gordon wrote:
    >> >> As I'm collecting info for my new build, I've noticed how using 1-4
    >> >> gigs
    >> >> of memory, and more is becoming standard. WIN98 systems saw a big
    >> >> increase in performance when bumped from 64 megs to 128; a bit more
    >> >> when
    >> >> upped to 256, and not much more after that (except of course in those
    >> >> programs like Photoshop and can use lots of RAM). Likewise, XP will
    >> >> barely operate with 128megs and bumping it up to 256 or 512 really
    >> >> helps,
    >> >> but beyond that I don't notice much of a gain.
    >> >>
    >> >> Can someone explain what 4 gigs in a workstation provides in the X64
    >> >> environment? Thanks...
    >> >
    >> >

    >>
    >>
    >>
     
    Dennis Gordon, Aug 31, 2005
    #9
  10. Dennis Gordon

    Guest

    I have 4Gbyte under XP Pro using an AMD64. You will find the open
    source software can be memory hogs, especially in imaging. I've run
    Imagej with 1.7G used by the program. I suppose you could consider 2G
    to be the practical upper requirement, but memory is relatively cheap
    these days. If you need to make a trade off, go for slower memory and
    more of it versus faster memory. Eventually some application will
    require the extra memory. I just ran a large 7zip compression that was
    using over 1G itself. GIMP or photoshop is another memory hog.

    I built the PC a few months ago, but I think it was about $90 a gig for
    Patriot low latency (but not their fastest).
     
    , Sep 1, 2005
    #10
  11. My take on the issue is that for the ones who reboot once in a blue moon,
    you'll have memory fragmentation, programs that do not cleanup or do proper
    housekeeping, hogs of all sorts. Also unless you are still using 5.25"
    floppies or hard drives such as FCAL arrays, RAM disks (e.g. Superspeed) are
    possibly the only way to sustain decent i/o rate and latency (you can raid
    Gigabyte "iram" GC-RAMDISK SSD, but still constrained by SATA bandwidth & PHY
    latency).

    Even though I admire cleanroom finely handcrafted machine language software,
    it's becoming a rarity, so was was quite relieved when MS finally decided
    that XP64 would officially support 128GB, and substantially raised desktop
    heap and stack space for all the hogs out there...
    At least one could work on a 5 x 5 foot poster @ 1200dpi in 32-bit color
    (83GB) instead of struggling on a Mac G5...
     
    =?Utf-8?B?Q2hyaXM=?=, Sep 1, 2005
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Peter Polman

    Mandrake Cooker and Nightly builds

    Peter Polman, Jan 6, 2004, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    436
    Peter Polman
    Jan 6, 2004
  2. Chaos Master

    Odd thing with nightly builds of Firefox?

    Chaos Master, Aug 7, 2004, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    531
    --BRIAN--
    Aug 7, 2004
  3. Jim Byrd

    Firefox PR nightly builds

    Jim Byrd, Sep 26, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    554
    Parko
    Sep 27, 2004
  4. =?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=F8ren_Jacobsen?=

    javascript problems in the latest builds of seamonkey (1.5)?

    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=F8ren_Jacobsen?=, Apr 28, 2006, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    445
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=F8ren_Jacobsen?=
    Apr 28, 2006
  5. Curtin/Dobbs

    OT:"Mr. Ice Cube Builds His Dream House"

    Curtin/Dobbs, Feb 8, 2007, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    755
Loading...

Share This Page