OMG - 8GB is faster than 4GB
- Thread starter dugdiamond
- Start date
dugdiamond
New member
Sick, man! I've just noticed you live in South Wales as well.I'm currently in my final year of computer animation, specializing in character rigging.
are you at caerleon? on what app? do you need any need?
Just because Task Manager says the RAM isn't being used by a program in a direct way doesn't mean it's not still doing something. Sometimes that something is just waiting, having been allocated to a task that thinks it might in some way somehow sometime in the future. Or that something might be acting as insurance for people who don't think they need a swap file or something.
I recently took out half of my RAM because one of the 6 sticks didn't work very well (went from 12GB+no swap file to 6GB+swap file), and it feels like I went from a Lamborghini to a minivan my computer feels so sluggish. Of course, it's not sluggish by any means but it sure isn't as blazing fast as it was when I had 12GB and no swap. Maybe not all of that 12GB was ever close to used, but I would never have disabled the swap file if I only had 6GB. (A side note: an SDD + lots of ram + no swap file = no HDD noise = HEAVEN IN A CASE!)
It's so ironic that we, the very people who push the limits of this state-of-the-art technology, continue year after year after year to deny that more of something is better, when obviously it will be the norm the very next year, and probably is much better already!
2011: "8GB?? Overkill! Task Manager says I'm only using 2GB. 4GB is all you'll ever need!"
2006: "256MB of video memory is more than enough. Don't buy the 512 card."
2001: "40GB hard drive and 1GB of RAM? Overkill! You just wasted your money!"
1996: "Doom requires 4MB. If you think you need 16MB you're a fool."
1991: "CDs for computers? Crazy talk! If we need more space we'll just use two floppies! They're high density, you know!"
1985: "Why make DOS support more than 640KB of RAM? Crazy Talk!"
1981: "Floppy?"
The people who deny that more than 4GB of RAM is beneficial are the same people who say that humans can't see more than 24 or 30 FPS. Even if you say that I can't see over 30, I'm looking at my 120Hz monitor right now and I'm telling you it's way smoother than that 30 FPS game over there. Same situation here, but with memory instead of FPS. Trust your eyes and not the short-sighted people of the PC world (I'm probably one of them too, I am not pointing fingers at anybody in this thread!).
Yes, 8GB is better than 4. Excellent upgrade, OP!
I recently took out half of my RAM because one of the 6 sticks didn't work very well (went from 12GB+no swap file to 6GB+swap file), and it feels like I went from a Lamborghini to a minivan my computer feels so sluggish. Of course, it's not sluggish by any means but it sure isn't as blazing fast as it was when I had 12GB and no swap. Maybe not all of that 12GB was ever close to used, but I would never have disabled the swap file if I only had 6GB. (A side note: an SDD + lots of ram + no swap file = no HDD noise = HEAVEN IN A CASE!)
It's so ironic that we, the very people who push the limits of this state-of-the-art technology, continue year after year after year to deny that more of something is better, when obviously it will be the norm the very next year, and probably is much better already!
2011: "8GB?? Overkill! Task Manager says I'm only using 2GB. 4GB is all you'll ever need!"
2006: "256MB of video memory is more than enough. Don't buy the 512 card."
2001: "40GB hard drive and 1GB of RAM? Overkill! You just wasted your money!"
1996: "Doom requires 4MB. If you think you need 16MB you're a fool."
1991: "CDs for computers? Crazy talk! If we need more space we'll just use two floppies! They're high density, you know!"
1985: "Why make DOS support more than 640KB of RAM? Crazy Talk!"
1981: "Floppy?"
The people who deny that more than 4GB of RAM is beneficial are the same people who say that humans can't see more than 24 or 30 FPS. Even if you say that I can't see over 30, I'm looking at my 120Hz monitor right now and I'm telling you it's way smoother than that 30 FPS game over there. Same situation here, but with memory instead of FPS. Trust your eyes and not the short-sighted people of the PC world (I'm probably one of them too, I am not pointing fingers at anybody in this thread!).
Yes, 8GB is better than 4. Excellent upgrade, OP!
Its horses for courses, my PC doesn't need more than 4gb for what I do but if I did what dug does I would want 24gb to make sure it had plenty of ram to spare.
Z
As for the 120hz screen, I'd say its mostly placebo effect. Your brain knows what it is so tells your kind its better. I was watching a documentary about the Pacific ocean on a shop full of 1080 screens a while back, different sizes and Hz from 60 to 600 and the best picture wasn't on the all singing 3d ready one but a smaller 60hz screen. Maybe it was just setup better out the box, maybe it just did better with those 24 frames per second it was filmed in idk but if it wasn't for the stickers saying which was what I would of said it was the Mega high Hz not the others. As for fps, well I ain't ever sat watching a film or TV and thought dam this is a slide show.I do know 1 thing tho, I wouldn't want to play games with only 24fps as that is a slideshow lol
Z
As for the 120hz screen, I'd say its mostly placebo effect. Your brain knows what it is so tells your kind its better. I was watching a documentary about the Pacific ocean on a shop full of 1080 screens a while back, different sizes and Hz from 60 to 600 and the best picture wasn't on the all singing 3d ready one but a smaller 60hz screen. Maybe it was just setup better out the box, maybe it just did better with those 24 frames per second it was filmed in idk but if it wasn't for the stickers saying which was what I would of said it was the Mega high Hz not the others. As for fps, well I ain't ever sat watching a film or TV and thought dam this is a slide show.I do know 1 thing tho, I wouldn't want to play games with only 24fps as that is a slideshow lol
dugdiamond
New member
lol
Hehe, I can certainly personally tell the difference between 30 and 60 and 120Hz. But the FPS issue is an argument for another day and another thread!
Just using it as an example to show that naysayers will still say nay no matter what.
That and RAM has application apart from being used directly by programs.
Just using it as an example to show that naysayers will still say nay no matter what.
That and RAM has application apart from being used directly by programs.
We might not be able to tell Frame FROM Frame, but we sure can perceive silky smoothness.
SieB
New member
No one said that 8gb over 4gb wouldn't improve speed because it obviously does but only in certain apps.
Doug said in his original post that windows 7 and apps load faster which they wouldn't and it's what everyone was questioning, he later went on to say that he sees speed improvements in the apps he listed which would be true.
If he had said that in the first place no one would have questioned it but the fact that he didn't and he mentioned Windows 7 and apps loading faster which isn't true people did question it.
Doug said in his original post that windows 7 and apps load faster which they wouldn't and it's what everyone was questioning, he later went on to say that he sees speed improvements in the apps he listed which would be true.
If he had said that in the first place no one would have questioned it but the fact that he didn't and he mentioned Windows 7 and apps loading faster which isn't true people did question it.
/Thread
The denying continues
Sure, Windows wouldn't load faster with more RAM if it had the standard number of services and programs to load. But what if the OP has a whole lot of programs loading at startup--many users do--is it too much to imagine that they might benefit from the extra memory and therefore his time from power on to a non-hourglass-cursor is lowered?
Or that superfetch might use that ram? Or that he's running lots of 64-bit programs? Or that the apps that he uses are ones that tend to need lots of memory? Which we actually know is true now.
It's all entirely within the realm of possibility.
I'd call BS too if it were a completely unbelievable situation, but first I'd exhaust all possible options if there were any doubt.
In general, yeah you might not expect it to boot up faster, but that doesn't mean he's lying to us or himself.
Sure, Windows wouldn't load faster with more RAM if it had the standard number of services and programs to load. But what if the OP has a whole lot of programs loading at startup--many users do--is it too much to imagine that they might benefit from the extra memory and therefore his time from power on to a non-hourglass-cursor is lowered?
Or that superfetch might use that ram? Or that he's running lots of 64-bit programs? Or that the apps that he uses are ones that tend to need lots of memory? Which we actually know is true now.
It's all entirely within the realm of possibility.
I'd call BS too if it were a completely unbelievable situation, but first I'd exhaust all possible options if there were any doubt.
In general, yeah you might not expect it to boot up faster, but that doesn't mean he's lying to us or himself.
JezEngland
New member
Dual vs Tripple Channel:
http://www.ninjalane.com/articles/general_information/dualvtriple/page3.aspx
Single vs Dual Channel:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/PARALLEL-PROCESSING,1705-11.html
Here it says what I learnt, that twice the info can be processed as it's using 2 channels. The memory controller will process that information so if it's overclocked we'll get alot more done I think:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-channel_architecture
Google stuff because there's probably info somewhere
http://www.ninjalane.com/articles/general_information/dualvtriple/page3.aspx
Single vs Dual Channel:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/PARALLEL-PROCESSING,1705-11.html
Here it says what I learnt, that twice the info can be processed as it's using 2 channels. The memory controller will process that information so if it's overclocked we'll get alot more done I think:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-channel_architecture
Google stuff because there's probably info somewhere
Dual vs Tripple Channel:
http://www.ninjalane.com/articles/general_information/dualvtriple/page3.aspx
Single vs Dual Channel:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/PARALLEL-PROCESSING,1705-11.html
Here it says what I learnt, that twice the info can be processed as it's using 2 channels. The memory controller will process that information so if it's overclocked we'll get alot more done I think:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-channel_architecture
Google stuff because there's probably info somewhere
2 2GB sticks are already in dual channel mode. Doubling the sticks from there doesn't give you more bandwidth. With 4 sticks it's still in dual channel mode.
dugdiamond
New member
omg - what have i started? lol
okay guys... humour... the world does not revolve around me...
it revolves 'round the sun...
which shines out of my butt !!!!
roflmao
okay guys... humour... the world does not revolve around me...
it revolves 'round the sun...
which shines out of my butt !!!!
roflmao
Maxing the slots normally causes an increase in latency from the men controller too which loses overall performance.
Like I said in my first post, well paraphrased, with what dug does on his box its not a shock that more ram helps because virtual machines eat ram like you wouldn't believe if you haven't used them.
Like I said in my first post, well paraphrased, with what dug does on his box its not a shock that more ram helps because virtual machines eat ram like you wouldn't believe if you haven't used them.
Grizzly
New member
dugdiamond
New member
i noticed the speed change upon installing the memory and through the first few boots.
now, i do not notice it, as it has become the new norm.
now, i do not notice it, as it has become the new norm.
JezEngland
New member
I don't think so because I think each channel is colour coded and on my H55 and P55 board the 1st 2 memory sticks must go into slot 2 and 4 wich both are the same colour so to use the other channel wich I think is the other colour we need 2 more sticks
Or they aren't the same colour?
EDIT: I did read that 2 x 4GB sticks is better than 4 x 2GB sticks and I've just found this at a Forum:
Blue and white are different. Blue is going to be designated for dual channel performance. To put it extremely simple: Two slots but it sees it as one stick. Example: Instead of two 2GB sticks it treats it as one 4GB stick. You get a significant performance gains from it.
For this to work you are going to need 2 sticks of identical (Same brand, speed, voltages and latency) RAM that is dual channel rated. The white slots are there for extra RAM.
The white slots are for extra RAM. But be aware if you fill all four slots it won't work like dual channel. So if you are wanting dual channel performance, you will want to buy two sticks of high capacity (like 1GB or 2GB) low latency (Latency is the amount of time it takes to access info to and from the RAM to the Northbridge/CPU) RAM.
Source: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080214041946AAe65vg
Anyone design motherboards, anyone. . . .
