|
|
| Message |
 Posted:
Thu Nov 13, 2008 11:27 pm Post subject:
RAM |
|
|
I've always wondered: What exactly does RAM do for your computer? Does it make programs run faster? Make the computer run faster? I have never known. What does more RAM do for me in terms of gaming, also?
_________________
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
| Message |
| Posted:
Thu Nov 13, 2008 11:38 pm Post subject:
Re: RAM |
|
|
| SnipeElite wrote: | | I've always wondered: What exactly does RAM do for your computer? Does it make programs run faster? Make the computer run faster? I have never known. What does more RAM do for me in terms of gaming, also? |
RAM stands for Random Access Memory. It is the "working" memory that the computer uses to run programs. The hard drive is "storage" memory, which holds your files and programs when you are not using them. When you need to use a program or load a file, the operating system moves the required data from "storage", your hard drive, to "working" memory, your RAM. Windows itself needs a fair amount of RAM to run itself, and what is left over is for programs and loading files in programs.
If Windows runs out of RAM because you have a lot of programs or files open at once, it will "swap" the memory back to the hard drive for the programs you are not actively using. So if you have Word for Windows and Photoshop open and Windows needs more memory to load a big picture into Photoshop, it will "swap" the program data for Word for Windows out to the hard drive temporarily, swapping it back into RAM if you minimize Photoshop and start working in Word for Windows (the Photoshop data would then get stored temporarily, which is why it's called "swapping".
This "swapping" is very much slower than keeping everything in RAM memory at all times, so the more RAM you have the more things you will be able to keep open at one time without sacrificing performance.
On an older system running Windows XP, you should have 1 Gigabyte of RAM memory, 2 is even better. On a newer system, or one running Vista, you should have 2 Gigabytes of memory and 4 is better...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Message |
| Posted:
Fri Nov 14, 2008 12:28 am Post subject:
|
|
|
I have 1 1/2 currently. I was supposed to get 2 but they didn't have any 512's in stock.
So, would more RAM help COD run better?
_________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Message |
| Posted:
Fri Nov 14, 2008 7:40 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| SnipeElite wrote: | I have 1 1/2 currently. I was supposed to get 2 but they didn't have any 512's in stock.
So, would more RAM help COD run better? |
Depends on your operating system and how much stuff is running in the back ground, just as Eagle explained. Eagle explained RAM very well, so read his comment a few times until you understand what he was saying.
Generally more RAM is better. There are limits to what the motherboard and operating systems will handle.
Faster RAM is generally better performance since this is where the currently live or active programs are running.
All the RAM in your system must be matching to achieve the highest speed. That is to say if you mix RAM speeds, the slowest RAM will determine the speed of all the RAM.
The speed must match what the motherboard is capable of or it will not run at that speed.
Also you need to keep in mind your entire system as a whole. If the video card and cpu are major bottle necks, then more RAM may not be noticeable in performance gain. It's like dropping a big block super-charged nitrous V8 in a car with tiny tires. Yes there's lots of power, but it can't get utilized.
_________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Message |
| Posted:
Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:29 am Post subject:
|
|
|
In general your system will perform best if you have matching RAM chips. What is critical is that they are the same "speed", but I find it safest to get "sets" of chips that are identical. To get 2 Gig you are normally going to buy two 1 Gig chips, and for 4 Gig get either two 2 Gig or four 1 Gig chips. The chips must be the same speed, should be the same size, and best if the exact same chips. Modern motherboard do a thing called "interleaving" which increases performance by accessing multiple memory areas on your RAM chips at once, but it only kicks in if the chips are the same. (size and speed)
Stud is right that there is a limit to how much more RAM is going to improve things, especially in games. Your CPU and video card are both also factors in how well a game runs, and RAM alone may not make that much difference if you have a slower CPU or graphics card.
For instance, you say you have 1 1/2 Gig of RAM. If you are running on XP and only have COD running, that actually should be plenty of RAM. You might see more of an improvement with a faster graphics card than more RAM. If you are on Vista or like to run a lot of programs at once, then 1 1/2 Gig of RAM is borderline. You might consider getting four 1 Gig DDR2 RAM chips (Corsair is a nice brand) and just replacing all your existing RAM. (I say this to be sure they match) RAM is relatively inexpensive in the grand scheme of things...
Last edited by {uZa}Lonesome Eagle on Fri Nov 14, 2008 4:18 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Message |
| Posted:
Fri Nov 14, 2008 11:07 am Post subject:
|
|
|
I am a fan of Corsair ever since Dupont sent me the 1 GB XMS DDR I still currently use to this day.
For the best performance of it, I have to go into my mobo bios and set the timings to what the RAM specified.
1 GB is still more than enough for what I use the PC for... and COD4 runs excellent.
For a new build, I would recommend at least 2GB especially if you are using Vista.
Most current mobos still use DDR2 1066 which is dirt cheap. And the latest mobos can handle up to 16 GB of RAM. You dont need any more that 3GB. Sometimes excessive RAM can cause issues. You want to hit it at the sweet spot.
_________________
http://docer.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Message |
| Posted:
Fri Nov 14, 2008 11:47 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| Morgoth wrote: | I am a fan of Corsair ever since Dupont sent me the 1 GB XMS DDR I still currently use to this day.
For the best performance of it, I have to go into my mobo bios and set the timings to what the RAM specified.
1 GB is still more than enough for what I use the PC for... and COD4 runs excellent.
For a new build, I would recommend at least 2GB especially if you are using Vista.
Most current mobos still use DDR2 1066 which is dirt cheap. And the latest mobos can handle up to 16 GB of RAM. You dont need any more that 3GB. Sometimes excessive RAM can cause issues. You want to hit it at the sweet spot. |
One gig of memory is "enough" to run Windows and COD4, but with Vista it won't even turn on Aero with 1 gig, and it will run like crap. If you are running XP/32 with a reasonably recent system it will run ok with 1 gig, and "best" with at least two gig of memory. (you may not need it all the time, but when you do want to work in several big programs at once why not spend $50 to have a great performing machine?) With Vista you want 2 gig, and better yet 4. I guess buy 3 gig if you want to save $20, but memory interleaving only kicks in with "matched pairs" on most motherboards, so you will lose that performance enhancement.
Speaking of 3 vs 4 gig, it is true that XP/32 and Vista/32 will only use 3.5 Gig or so, but it will use more than 3.0, so why not? It also makes you ready for when you switch to a 64 bit operating system (we will all be there in a year or so) like XP/64 or Vista/64 or Windows 7. They will use the 4 gig and more. It is a myth that having 4 gig in a 32 bit system which only addresses 3.x gig is a problem.
Buy hardware with about a year of the future in mind. Don't buy "the cheapest that will work" which means at best you are running a so-so system now and a year from now will just hate it. Buy good enough stuff to have a nice system now, so that it is just getting to be so-so in a year, so you get some value for your money. I'm not suggesting that you go "bleeding edge" as you pay an artificial premium for that, but for crying out loud the much faster DDR2 memory has been out for a couple of years and is dirt cheap.
Last edited by {uZa}Lonesome Eagle on Fri Nov 14, 2008 4:19 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Message |
| Posted:
Fri Nov 14, 2008 12:24 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Good points Eagle... If I were to buy a brand new mobo, it wouldn't be a DDR2 mobo for sure..
.. just browsing newegg though, a lot of what they still sell is DDR2... and a few might have DDR3... haven't seen too much yet with DDR4.
True with what XP recognizes as well... but it will still utilize more. I just dont see a reason yet for about another 5 years to use any more than 2.5 GB of RAM. Windows 7 is supposed to be better on resources than Vista... so we will see.
_________________
http://docer.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Message |
| Posted:
Fri Nov 14, 2008 12:31 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Morgoth wrote: | Good points Eagle... If I were to buy a brand new mobo, it wouldn't be a DDR2 mobo for sure..
.. just browsing newegg though, a lot of what they still sell is DDR2... and a few might have DDR3... haven't seen too much yet with DDR4.
True with what XP recognizes as well... but it will still utilize more. I just dont see a reason yet for about another 5 years to use any more than 2.5 GB of RAM. Windows 7 is supposed to be better on resources than Vista... so we will see. |
You know what, I misspoke. You are correct. The current standard is DDR2, with DDR3 just starting to hit. My bad. I should have said get only DDR2, and if you have a really new motherboard look at DDR3 as it is coming.
Sheesh. Too early in the morning.
_________________
________
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Message |
| Posted:
Fri Nov 14, 2008 12:41 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Morgoth wrote: |
True with what XP recognizes as well... but it will still utilize more. I just dont see a reason yet for about another 5 years to use any more than 2.5 GB of RAM. Windows 7 is supposed to be better on resources than Vista... so we will see. |
I find that 2 gig is fine for now even with Vista. Mine has 2 gig and runs like a scalded cat. If I was going to go with Vista/64 I would get another 2 gig at the same time because the ability to address more memory is one of the big selling points for a 64 bit operating system. I wouldn't go 2.5 or 3.0, only because of the "interleaving" limitation I mentioned above.
What I don't think is true is that you can look out and say that we won't need more than 2.5 gig of RAM for 5 years. 5 years is a lifetime in computer terms, and I suspect we will all be running some 64 bit system (Windows 7, Ubuntu, whatever) within 1-2 years and will probably be having this discussion again only debating 8 gig or 16 gig of RAM to run things really well. Don't forget, 5 years ago a 40 gig hard drive and 512 meg of RAM was state of the art and "all we will ever need". 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Message |
| Posted:
Fri Nov 14, 2008 12:52 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| {uZa}Lonesome Eagle wrote: | | Morgoth wrote: |
True with what XP recognizes as well... but it will still utilize more. I just dont see a reason yet for about another 5 years to use any more than 2.5 GB of RAM. Windows 7 is supposed to be better on resources than Vista... so we will see. |
I find that 2 gig is fine for now even with Vista. Mine has 2 gig and runs like a scalded cat. If I was going to go with Vista/64 I would get another 2 gig at the same time because the ability to address more memory is one of the big selling points for a 64 bit operating system. I wouldn't go 2.5 or 3.0, only because of the "interleaving" limitation I mentioned above.
What I don't think is true is that you can look out and say that we won't need more than 2.5 gig of RAM for 5 years. 5 years is a lifetime in computer terms, and I suspect we will all be running some 64 bit system (Windows 7, Ubuntu, whatever) within 1-2 years and will probably be having this discussion again only debating 8 gig or 16 gig of RAM to run things really well. Don't forget, 5 years ago a 40 gig hard drive and 512 meg of RAM was state of the art and "all we will ever need". |
I still remember back when an 8Mhz Processor, 10Meg HDD, 640k of RAM and a 300Baud accoustic modem was enough of a killer system... And if you had the 32x16 CGA graphics to go with it, you were a god in the computer world... And that was only about 20 years ago...
_________________
Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Message |
| Posted:
Fri Nov 14, 2008 1:19 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| {uZa}HiTechRedneck wrote: | | {uZa}Lonesome Eagle wrote: | | Morgoth wrote: |
True with what XP recognizes as well... but it will still utilize more. I just dont see a reason yet for about another 5 years to use any more than 2.5 GB of RAM. Windows 7 is supposed to be better on resources than Vista... so we will see. |
I find that 2 gig is fine for now even with Vista. Mine has 2 gig and runs like a scalded cat. If I was going to go with Vista/64 I would get another 2 gig at the same time because the ability to address more memory is one of the big selling points for a 64 bit operating system. I wouldn't go 2.5 or 3.0, only because of the "interleaving" limitation I mentioned above.
What I don't think is true is that you can look out and say that we won't need more than 2.5 gig of RAM for 5 years. 5 years is a lifetime in computer terms, and I suspect we will all be running some 64 bit system (Windows 7, Ubuntu, whatever) within 1-2 years and will probably be having this discussion again only debating 8 gig or 16 gig of RAM to run things really well. Don't forget, 5 years ago a 40 gig hard drive and 512 meg of RAM was state of the art and "all we will ever need". |
I still remember back when an 8Mhz Processor, 10Meg HDD, 640k of RAM and a 300Baud accoustic modem was enough of a killer system... And if you had the 32x16 CGA graphics to go with it, you were a god in the computer world... And that was only about 20 years ago... |
Yep. Started with a Timex Sinclair, quickly was wooed over to a TI 99/4A because I could increase the memory to 128k and it had an optional (really expensive) floppy drive so I could stop using a cassette player to store/retrieve programs and files. Eventually got a Commodore 64 because it had cooler games, then got my first PC (the original IBM PC) in 1984 or 1985. Started building my own a year or two later, and have never really owned a "system" as such since. My computer for 15 years never had the top of the case on it, as I was constantly tweaking hardware and had cables and power wires running out to external SCSI hard drives or my Novell network. I went through the entire range of stuff, from x86, 286, 386, all kinds of drives, video cards you name it....
_________________
________
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Message |
| Posted:
Fri Nov 14, 2008 3:55 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
You guys are nerds. 
_________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Message |
| Posted:
Fri Nov 14, 2008 3:56 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| sCaryDeth wrote: | | You guys are nerds. |
To put it precisely, they are OLD NERDS! 
_________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Message |
| Posted:
Sat Nov 15, 2008 1:00 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| {uZa}Lonesome Eagle wrote: | | {uZa}HiTechRedneck wrote: | | {uZa}Lonesome Eagle wrote: | | Morgoth wrote: |
True with what XP recognizes as well... but it will still utilize more. I just dont see a reason yet for about another 5 years to use any more than 2.5 GB of RAM. Windows 7 is supposed to be better on resources than Vista... so we will see. |
I find that 2 gig is fine for now even with Vista. Mine has 2 gig and runs like a scalded cat. If I was going to go with Vista/64 I would get another 2 gig at the same time because the ability to address more memory is one of the big selling points for a 64 bit operating system. I wouldn't go 2.5 or 3.0, only because of the "interleaving" limitation I mentioned above.
What I don't think is true is that you can look out and say that we won't need more than 2.5 gig of RAM for 5 years. 5 years is a lifetime in computer terms, and I suspect we will all be running some 64 bit system (Windows 7, Ubuntu, whatever) within 1-2 years and will probably be having this discussion again only debating 8 gig or 16 gig of RAM to run things really well. Don't forget, 5 years ago a 40 gig hard drive and 512 meg of RAM was state of the art and "all we will ever need". |
I still remember back when an 8Mhz Processor, 10Meg HDD, 640k of RAM and a 300Baud accoustic modem was enough of a killer system... And if you had the 32x16 CGA graphics to go with it, you were a god in the computer world... And that was only about 20 years ago... |
Yep. Started with a Timex Sinclair, quickly was wooed over to a TI 99/4A because I could increase the memory to 128k and it had an optional (really expensive) floppy drive so I could stop using a cassette player to store/retrieve programs and files. Eventually got a Commodore 64 because it had cooler games, then got my first PC (the original IBM PC) in 1984 or 1985. Started building my own a year or two later, and have never really owned a "system" as such since. My computer for 15 years never had the top of the case on it, as I was constantly tweaking hardware and had cables and power wires running out to external SCSI hard drives or my Novell network. I went through the entire range of stuff, from x86, 286, 386, all kinds of drives, video cards you name it.... |
Those cases had tops??? I thought that was just part of the packaging that kept the chassis somewhat rectangular... I always threw it out with the styrofoam panels...
I had a couple of the computers that used the tape drive, although I prefered reel-to-reel... Much faster to index than cassette tapes, and easier to remove programs that one didn't want his parents finding... 
_________________
Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
