How to know if you need more RAM

Quote from Parafly9 : What's annoying me is Chrome using so many processes, including for each plugin.

Why would this annoy you? There's no practical limit to the number of processes (for an every day user), so process isolation ala Chrome is a good way to design a browser. It lets you isolate each tab so that a failure in one doesn't bring down the whole application, and plug-ins can then be sandboxed to reduce the risk of a security exposure.

The memory overhead for an individual process isn't that much (they're not that much more heavy weight than threads) and the benefits are well worth any perceived downsides.

Please stop the bickering. Personal attacks are not tolerated on this site.


Agree to disagree and move along.

Alright I am reopening this thread and did as asked in removing the back and forth between a few members. Please keep it civil.

This is tech support and you guys have always been very good at policing yourselves and not making a mess that we have to clean up and I have always appreciated that and the good help that I have gotten from here. Play nicely please.

I'd like to point out the following difference from the OP in the thread.

Keep in mind that Windows Vista and Windows 7 (and I would assume, Windows 8?) use a piece of technology implementation known as "SuperFetch".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind...SuperFetch

Basically, this preloads as much data and information as it can into RAM, for quick access and retrieval by the OS. It helps things such as speeding up application loading, OS booting, etc. So, while you may not utilize all the available RAM as is listed by the OP, your OS can still take advantage of additional RAM that you may have on your system. Remember, "unused RAM is wasted RAM".

Also, for a bit more detailed explanation: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/...emory.html

So, while you may not *need* any more RAM than what's been mentioned in the OP, your computer may still be able to take advantage of any additional RAM that you have in the system.

According to the Superfetch link [wikipedia.org] above,

Quote : Unfortunately, SuperFetch has been known to cause issues with some Vista systems, in that it causes the hard drive to be accessed continuously for extended periods of time, which ironically causes the system to slow down. This may also lead to additional wear on the hard drives, leading to eventual premature failure

That doesn't sound quite as good as some folks make it out to be.....

Quote from RockySosua : According to the Superfetch link [wikipedia.org] above, That doesn't sound quite as good as some folks make it out to be.....

There are some early cases of SuperFetch being an issue with HDD thrashing, and priority issues between SuperFetch and the rest of the I/O requirements of the OS. However, I believe that's largely been taken care of since then.

Quote from ElectroWolf : There are some early cases of SuperFetch being an issue with HDD thrashing, and priority issues between SuperFetch and the rest of the I/O requirements of the OS. However, I believe that's largely been taken care of since then.

I guess if you believe it, we should too.

Quote from RockySosua : I guess if you believe it, we should too.

Keep it civil, or this thread will get locked again.

It's an comment, without citation, on Wikipedia's page. Yes, if you search, you will see posts from 2006 and 2007 about it. Since that time, not only has Windows 7 come out (which was the basis of the creation of this thread), but that problem has ceased to be a mainstream issue (if it ever was one).

So no, that problem isn't an overbearing problem, nor does it detract from the main point of purchasing as much as you can, to provide for the SuperFetch performance improvements.

Anywho......

Two slots of DDR3? I'd recommend 8GB of RAM. Four? Go for 16GB of RAM.

Now, if you're stuck on DDR2, or even DDR, you have a bit of a tougher decision to make, since that's a bit more expensive (and don't even think about RDRAM!). DDR2 is about $40 for 4GB of RAM (twice as much as DDR3). I'd suggest 4GB of that as a good sweet spot with Windows Vista / 7.

If you still are stuck on DDR, well then I'd suggest upgrading your PC, rather than looking at adding more RAM to your current setup

Quote from Jeffbx : All RAM in the machine runs at the speed of the slowest chip, so adding faster RAM in addition to the existing RAM won't make any difference. You would have to replace all of your slower RAM as well to see any speed increase, and that increase would be pretty marginal - meaning it would be measurable, but probably not noticable.

Thanks...I think it is time to replace my ram.

Quote from Bobby_Pro : Thanks...I think it is time to replace my ram.

It would be a waste of money.
You will NOT feel any difference from the faster ram. It's barely measurable, much less noticeable.
If you want to improve your computer's speed instead of buying a new one, then you should consider an SSD. The speed differences are remarkable and you'll feel like you got your money's worth, which wouldn't be the case, changing your ram to the higher speed modules.

Quote from RockySosua : It would be a waste of money. You will NOT feel any difference from the faster ram. It's barely measurable, much less noticeable. If you want to improve your computer's speed instead of buying a new one, then you should consider an SSD. The speed differences are remarkable and you'll feel like you got your money's worth, which wouldn't be the case, changing your ram to the higher speed modules.

Is the difference that significant?

Yes. HD to SSD is a noticable difference. RAM to faster RAM you'll never notice.

Quote from Jeffbx : Yes. HD to SSD is a noticable difference. RAM to faster RAM you'll never notice.