Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Is More Memory Better? - a bit-tech.net article

(1/3) > >>

lanux128:
a very interesting article on bit-tech.net about using more memory on one's system.


• http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/07/08/is-more-memory-better/1

app103:
I'd kill to be able to double my RAM to 128MB right this minute, so in some cases, more is definitely better.  :D

f0dder:
I'm reading the article now, and I think you have to take it with a grain of salt... speaking about boot times and Vista preloading, there's the following: Faster memory will cut a few seconds off this time, so we'd recommend rather than simply more or faster, try and aim for both.
--- End quote ---
Ummm, no... faster harddrives or less preloading will cut off time, memory speed is entirely irrelevant there :)

And a quote like this:
although surprisingly the 8GB of memory takes 10 seconds longer on average than 4GB. This is due to the fact we previously showed the performance of four DIMMs to be slower than just two, even though there's more memory available.
--- End quote ---
Sounds pretty unreasonable too - the bandwidth and latency of their 8gig system was slightly worse than the 4gig and 2gig systems, but we're still talking the ability to pump several gigabytes of data through per second... no way slightly worse latency/bandwidth by itself can explain 10 seconds slower loading time.

Dunno if the article was very interesting. But at least it makes a point: you currently need to have pretty special needs before considering going above 4gigs of ram. That can hardly come as a surprise to anybody, though? :) (oh, and as for Adobe not seeing the point of a 64ibt photoshop... the biggest reason for such a statement is probably a large, unwieldy and not very 64-bit-clean codebase, rather than actual "need" or "advantage" concerns).

40hz:
From page 6:

While these few tests don't cover the incredible breadth of possible PC usage scenarios, there is significant evidence to suggest that 4GB should be the target that people should aim for when buying a new PC or upgrading...at least if you're using Vista.
--- End quote ---

Interesting as far as it goes, but a little too Microsoft-centric. There are other OSs.

I'm also always amazed at the amount of discussion given over to boot times. Why something like a 10, 20, or even 120 second boot delay should be all that important puzzles me to no end. Might be important if you're launching a strategic retaliatory strike, but otherwise?

I just hit the on switch and then go and grab a cuppa'. By the time I get back, my desktop is up and waiting - and I've got my coffee! And how often do most of us actually need to reboot in the course of a session? Dunno, I must be missing something. :)

f0dder:
I don't really get the idea about super-fast boot times, either... for my workstation, anyway. I generally boot twice a day: once in the morning, and once after getting home from work (more if I install certain software or do windows update). When leaving the machine for more than 10-15 minutes (and less than several++ hours), I use standby, from which it resumes very fast.

On my dev-testbox, however, I certainly wouldn't mind faster booting... I'm currently working on a project where a hard-reset is necessary between every compile-test cycle.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page