[Dark RevenantX]

It costs like $45 to get 8GB of RAM.  As far as I'm concerned, the 4 vs 8 argument is a moot point because of how cheap the superior option is.  For almost everyone, the memory is the cheapest component.

And yeah, you want to just upgrade everything.

[Fury]

That is because 32-bit applications are restricted to 2GB per process. To go higher, a game would either need to spawn multiple processes or go 64-bit. Sharing information between two processes can be tricky at best, so obviously 64-bit is the way to go. Unfortunately this is hampered by remaining popularity of WinXP as well as 32-bit editions of Win Vista and 7.

It is beyond me why MS felt it was necessary to still have 32-bit editions with Win 7 and 8. At this rate we'll never get rid of the skimpy memory limit because people out there may have 32-bit Vista, 7 or 8.

Well, Vista and newer are able to use that extra RAM as a cache. That includes your usual routine work and games. 4GB is enough, 8GB is plenty. Above that is overkill really. But that didn't stpp me from getting 16GB for my new rig.

It costs like $45 to get 8GB of RAM.  As far as I'm concerned, the 4 vs 8 argument is a moot point because of how cheap the superior option is.  For almost everyone, the memory is the cheapest component.

And yeah, you want to just upgrade everything.

DDR2 is actually getting more expensive than that I'm afraid. As time passes, it'll get even more expensive until you can't find them anywhere. DDR3 is cheap though.

[BloodEagle]

  I visibly notice areas in games that I wouldn't if I had gone for the extra ram.

...... wut? 


that aside

Did you have a point, there?  I only ask because find it difficult to respond (defend my point of view) to skepticism when nothing is offered as evidence and no further questions are asked.

[Klaustrophobia]

that response was my poor verbalization of my being unsure if you meant the game environment literally expanded just by having more RAM, combined with my thought that it seems quite far-fetched if that was indeed what you meant.  especially now that i know thanks to fury that 32 bit programs (the vast majority of games) can't use more than 2 GB.  so... what specifically were you referring to? what game/what actually changed?

[BloodEagle]

System memory can drastically impact performance (esp. w/regard to stuttering) in games.  Examples include: TES III+, Total War: Shogun 2, etc.

I.E., I visually notice the difference between having and not having that extra RAM in games.

[Nuke]

That is because 32-bit applications are restricted to 2GB per process. To go higher, a game would either need to spawn multiple processes or go 64-bit. Sharing information between two processes can be tricky at best, so obviously 64-bit is the way to go. Unfortunately this is hampered by remaining popularity of WinXP as well as 32-bit editions of Win Vista and 7.

It is beyond me why MS felt it was necessary to still have 32-bit editions with Win 7 and 8. At this rate we'll never get rid of the skimpy memory limit because people out there may have 32-bit Vista, 7 or 8.

Well, Vista and newer are able to use that extra RAM as a cache. That includes your usual routine work and games. 4GB is enough, 8GB is plenty. Above that is overkill really. But that didn't stpp me from getting 16GB for my new rig.

It costs like $45 to get 8GB of RAM.  As far as I'm concerned, the 4 vs 8 argument is a moot point because of how cheap the superior option is.  For almost everyone, the memory is the cheapest component.

And yeah, you want to just upgrade everything.

DDR2 is actually getting more expensive than that I'm afraid. As time passes, it'll get even more expensive until you can't find them anywhere. DDR3 is cheap though.

why are people still having this conversation. 32 bit is dead. its been at least 5 years since ive had less than 8gb in my system. even then i started using xp pro x64 pretty much as soon as it came out, and this was before the suckfest that was vista and i think i had 2gb ram at the time. address space isnt the only benefit of 64 bit. you can do 2 32 bit ops per cycle. so when running 32 bit code, it runs twice as fast and it can do 64 bit math without having to do a second cycle. people really underestimate the benefit of having fatter registers and a thicker bus. if your running a 32 bit os on a 64 bit processor you are pissing away performance. if you want reverse compatibility, dual boot or emulate, dont cripple everything else.


but anyway last 3 times i bought ram, it was pretty damn cheap. and it was performance ram each time. but ive been on 8gb forever and i dont think ive ever ran low. next comp i will step up to 12gb, because ddr3 likes to do tri-channel. you can really **** over your memory speed by using more than one set of ram though. so there is some degree of tradeoff there. i stopped buying mobos with extra memory slots to keep me from upgrading them and loosing memory performance. memory after all is a huge source of latency in your modern computer, so you want it running as fast as possible. i even considered dropping down to 4 gig on this rig to get faster memory, but ultimately decided against it.

[Klaustrophobia]

System memory can drastically impact performance (esp. w/regard to stuttering) in games.  Examples include: TES III+, Total War: Shogun 2, etc.

I.E., I visually notice the difference between having and not having that extra RAM in games.

ok, yes that makes sense.  it's also in line with what i said earlier, which is that adding ram can fix problems like stuttering (i think i used the words "load hitching" before, same thing), but if you already have enough that this isn't happening, adding more on top of that isn't going to get you much extra performance at all.