CDsDontBurn

Source: Tom's Hardware
________________

Throughout the history of personal computers, RAM has always been something of a valuable commodity - even a luxury. Only a few years ago, even reaching the memory limit of 4 GB possible under a 32-bit operating system was completely unthinkable. But then again, at one time 640 kB was considered enough for anyone. Times change; right now, DDR2 memory is as cheap as it's ever been Compare Prices on DDR2 Memory, and equipping your PC with 8 GB will only set you back about $198.

__________________

mike2h

unless im missing something that is a pretty stupid article. on one hand he tells us that very few apps can actually address 8gig mem, that most apps are still functioning as 32 bit in a 64 os & need an emulator wich can/does slow things down, that unless you have lots of mem(see mem adressing capability) you may see little to no perf increase or even slower perf due to 64 vs 32 size, that there are still various driver compatability issues...
yet 64 bit with 8gig mem is the ticket- though for me it was hard to really understand if they actually came to any real definitive conclusion- just the overall impression i got.
i also got the impression that this article 'might' have been sponsered by ms. jmo.
i have created a seperate partition & was going to finally install my 64 bit copy of ultimate when sp1 comes out, after reading that i think i will go 32 bit. guess i got someting from the article after all

__________________

Alex

Tomhardware. Need we say anymore?

CDsDontBurn

idk, after reading that article, i kinda want to install vista x64 for my next build and go with 8GB of RAM.

if that doesn't work out, i'll go to winXP x64

__________________

|2A|N

If apps aren't even using 2-4Gigs now why even install 8?
I would wait till Microsoft releases there next OS before I decide to do any more upgrading because I doubt software will be any farther along in the 64bit era than it is now but then again we could run out of electricity by then to air mail anyone!?

Judas

i can easily agree somewhat..

while a single 32bit program tends to hit the limit of roughly 2gb of ram used MAXIMUM.... using a combination of programs.. or even 2nd or multiple clients... the 4gb and 8gb limits can easily be reached..

I can say for a fact that going from 4gb or ram to 8gb of ram shows a significant performance increase..

32bit vista is just slow... in comparison... period... with 4gb of ram.. even anything over 2gb of ram seems to cause the sluggishness that people see...

either way.... 64bit is the way to go... if your looking at getting vista.. get x64... these is zero point for using or getting the 32bit version.... aside from wanting to use components that have excessive poor support..... i've got printers and scanners and things that work in vista x64 just fine that are probably 5 years old in some cases.. or older...

__________________

Zardon

Multitasking. im running 16 GB atm.

incidentally Judas we need to get your finger off the bloody "." key !

mkk

One can never have too much RAM and just enough is too little. Weren't I still on socket 939 I'd be running with 8GB for sure. Even if in most situations there would be about 6GB acting purely as disk cache I'd still feel it was a good investment. The availability of RAM is the main factor that drives up the need for a 64bit platform at the moment. I only hope this reality serves to kick the slouching software developers like Adobe in the back.

|2A|N

Well I personally feel the only way for 64bit to be the norm is for Microsoft to stop supporting 32bit platforms period then maybe the dvelopers will finally grasp the concept. But I am sure once 64bit takes off it will surly leave some rubber behind

mike2h

the prob for me & 64 bit/8meg ram is my next upgrade will involve high speed ddr3... i was going 4 meg & that is $700+....
..... ...... just for u z

__________________

BlueMak

I read the article a little earlier. Very clear message in there. If you have new hardware and no legacy hardware or software, get 64bit version and 8GB of memory.

__________________

The people who are regarded as moral luminaries are those who forego ordinary pleasures themselves and find compensation in interfering with the pleasures of others(Bertrand Russell)"You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil,You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them." - Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis
This is slavery, not to speak one's thought. [Euripides-The Phoenician Women (c.411-409 B.C.)] http://www.macedonia.info/FALLACIESANDFACTS.htm Sic semper tyrannis.

Tipstaff

4 meg and 8 meg of ram with Vista? Wow, mike. Not even I have the cojones to try that.

__________________

mike2h

my bad i had intended to say just 4 gig would be intersting for about 10 secs.

i dont think it is that clear. was my prob with the article. says you should, but also depends on app use & other variables & imo they never came t oa clear cut consensus.
basically you are right, as long as you are using games/apps that can actually address 8gig of mem. considering the price of high perf ddr3, i dont think this is that 'cut & dry'.

__________________

calidan

What programs has anyone ran into that Vista 64-bit won't run or still needs improvement?

__________________
Steam Community :: ID :: calidan



"Don't try to be like Jackie. There is only one Jackie.... Study computers instead." - Jackie Chan

Judas

for me.... none.. i've yet to find any critical or even general programs that won't run in vista x64....

just a bunch of shitty games.... most of which are by EA or Ubisoft, or using some kind of crappy horrible antipiracy root kit system of sort that won't work.... but those re class 0 programs.... bargain bin ... handouts even....

i hate those bastard companies....

__________________

mike2h

you guys didnt read it? non 64bit progs will mostly run in vista - it is done through the emulator. while this isnt a big deal(prolly a non issue in most cases) in most cases, it can result in progs running slower than in their native 32 bit enviroment.
to me ,the main point right now, is that unless you have 64 bit apps/games & lots of mem(4gig+) there is no reason to run 64bit os. & that isnt even taking into consideration that a lot of apps/games wont even address more than 2gigs ram.

__________________

Zardon

Yep. I read it and quite a lot of it is exaggeration. The differences in running 32bit applications in a 64 bit is so small its not even worth mentioning. I recorded 0.2 seconds difference in some tests and a 32bit application like photoshop was actually slightly faster. Then you have some applications (rendering and encoding apps) and games like crysis with 64 bit specific exes which actually run 15%+ faster.

I wouldn't touch 32bit vista now, the benefits especially with large amounts of memory are huge. I can also name 3 games of the top of my head which ive seen using 2.5gb+ of memory, Stalker, Crysis and Supreme Commander, im sure there are more.

It makes much more sense in 2008 to invest in Vista 64bit than 32bit, especially for futureproofing.

Judas

Yeah i haven't seen any 32 bit application show any considerably slower performance unless they've been coded with shortcuts and whatnot that are either not supported or prevented in the x64 -32bit emulation...

__________________

mike2h

which is why i got ultimate. im really hoping when i do my upgrade in a couple of months i can afford 8gig high speed ram but i dont see it happening unless there is more than a minor drop in price between now & then. think 4gig will good enough anyway.
if those ocz u just tested drop close to $400 i might get 2 sets of them instead of the higher speed modules i was looking at. wont get as high as an oc as i was wanting but for the price diff not sure if it is worthwhile anyway. whatever i get will have to last me 3-4 years.

__________________

Zardon

yeah seems logical mike, good thinking.

CDsDontBurn

this year i am going to be building my next rig. i am more interested right now in DDR3 than DDR2, however, the price differences between the two types of RAM is so much, that i might just go with DDR2 instead.

too bad too, because i would like my next machine to be as future proof as possible.

__________________

Judas

personally, i haven't found any damn good reason to jump to DDR3..... no different then it took me until mid last summer to jump from ddr1 to ddr2..... it's in no way really that justifiable...

i think anyone making heavy use of large amounts of ram.... is better off with more slower ram, then less faster ram...

Faster ram isn't going to help you if you've already ran out of it.. at which point your thrashing all to hell on the hardrive..

it's kinda like having the worlds fastest car, and having it floored at all times only having to whale on the breaks all the time to make your corners.... while in mind it seems like the fastest way about it, your better off and sometimes its surprising, that the slower lower performance car somehow managed to gather an average speed that was overall faster then that massive muscle car.

__________________

mike2h

judas, except for the 1st paragraph, your post has no basis in fact whatsoever. common sense should be banging on your skull, trying to get in. please dont ignore it.

__________________

mike2h

i know what you mean. prices have been dropping slowly, but should start to drop faster in the next couple of months as demand increases, production ramps up, & yeilds keep getting better. so it could still be an option for you.
im hoping for 20- 30% by the time i do my upgrade.

__________________

Judas

how so...

common sense?

Hasn't is always been preferred that having more ram rather then marginally faster memory been the rule of thumb.

I thought i made myself rather clear, considering that if you happen to use up all your fast ram, the only thing left is thrashing on the hardrive. That is fact, how isn't that fact, i've seen it myself, some consumers have asked why when they thought they got a steller fast setup with 1gb of ram at blazing speeds, only to realize there gaming requirements used that emediately, and the result was constant lagging and slow loading.

4GB is a considerable amount of memory, should do for most any games and programs for a good year or 2 from now yet. What i'm saying is, that at this point, 2gb of insanely powerful DDR3 will likely underpreform vs some decent good speed 4Gb DDR2.

I'm not reffering to memory benchmarks, i'm refering to overall system performance.

__________________

dipstick

I think he means something like that you are better off with 4GB DDR800 than 2GB of DDR1200. I will have to agree with him 100% on that

dr0p_z0ne

When I moved up to 4GB on Vista x64 I thought that was the tits.

Now I have 8GB and my tits are lactating

Judas

that's precisely what i said...

2gb ddr3 vs 4gb ddr2.... or 4gb ddr3 vs 6-8gb ddr2

__________________

dipstick

Yeah I wasn't even thinking of ddr3. Its way too expensive and I don't expect it come down for quite some time. You can easily get 8GB of higher performing ddr2 for about what 2GB of crap ddr3 runs for.

Judas

lol yep..... 8gb of DDR2 is dirt cheap.. and you can get some damn good DDR2 4gb kits easily...

just need some companies to start pumping out 4gb DDR2 modules and were set for the end of DDR2's life.....

__________________