survey

S

sins

Gawd
Joined
Nov 1, 2002
Messages
710
It seems nowadays that the standard for the amount of memory is at 1gb. I have never gone anywhere near that. I've encoded movies before but still keeping it under 512.

who hear as actually found 1gb of memory useful?
 
when ive been doing CAD and photoshop work ive seen my comp eat over 900mb of memory, thats with several large part files open in ProEngineer and some high res renderings being touched up in photoshop, plus media player and probably a few instances of internet explorer opena t the same time, and using the regstry tweak that forces windows to run itself from ram rather than keep using virtual memory. So yeah, 1gb is pretty useful :)

oh yeah, and im usually the first one on the map in desert combat and battlefield veitnam when we have block lan games hehe.
 
For CAD, computer animation, simulation engines, basically anything that does a ton of floating point and co-ordinate transforms.....I think it's hard to have too much RAM.

Running a GB here in my and the wife's P4 systems (mine is sigged). A GB at work in my dual Xeon workstation. A pair of 512's seems the latest "sweet spot" for most apps, now that the OS's are capabile of putting it to use.

Rock on - B.B.S.
 
I completely understand your question. When I built my current system I went 1 Gb and then felt like I had wasted my money for quite some time. But recently I got into doing I high resolution scans and I somtimes I find that I don't have enough memory to apply certain Painshop Pro/Photoshop filters.

Also, UT2004 allows you to allocate system memory to speed up load times. If all games allowed for this kind of flexibilty it would rock.

My take is if you are not doing very high resolution photoshop work or doing 3-D renders it is probably a waste of money to go beyond 512 Mb.
 
You don't need to be doing graphics to find yourself wanting more memory. If you find you're running multiple applications at once and have a large number of windows open, you may find more memory to be a big help. On my machine at work, I'm stuck with only 512MB and find it isn't enough for smooth performance when I get knee deep into things (running multiple instances of Enterprise Manager, Query Analyzer, Visual Studio, MSDN Library, etc.). Given the right scenario, more memory gives a far better user experience than a much faster CPU. I have a machine at home with double the memory but less than half the clockspeed that is more pleasant to use under similar loading.
 
My thinking is the more the ram, the larger the champ man databse you can run :p

Anyways, I was thinking, to fully utilise 1GB of ram youldn't you need a hyperthreading processor? Because most programs won't need that much, and so you'd need it to do multiple things, which would go slow on a non-ht processor. That's what I was thinkin anyways, I'm probably wrong
 
see sig :p

but then again some aps actually can employ that
while others cannot, most processes are limited to 2GB (for instance Photoshop)
that rig is specifically for 3D
 
:eek:
That has nothing on my Pentium 4 1.8GHz with 768mb pc133 sdram :p. That must've cost a fair few bob to cobble together :D
 
Indeed, the ECC alone cost more than most rigs
I saved up quite awhile
 
ReNeGaDe* said:
My thinking is the more the ram, the larger the champ man databse you can run :p

Anyways, I was thinking, to fully utilise 1GB of ram youldn't you need a hyperthreading processor? Because most programs won't need that much, and so you'd need it to do multiple things, which would go slow on a non-ht processor. That's what I was thinkin anyways, I'm probably wrong
Click to expand...

Whether you've got hyperthreading or not, the same workload requires the same amount of memory, so paging can bite you either way. Even if you're not actively doing something with an application, having running will use memory. I don't use Enterprise Manager non-stop, but if I need it for a while now and need it again fairly soon, exiting it now and restarting when I need it again isn't a time saver. Multiply this over several applications and you'll be eating a lot of memory without being short on CPU cycles. Run out of real memory, and you'll be using virtual memory. Going back to applications that have been completely swapped out to disk equals a nice hunk of lag. Cycle through enough apps frequently enough when you're using the paging file heavily, and you'll be dragging ass no matter what kind of processor you have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top