Call Out: 1GB vs 2GB

[Elbatrop1]

So, we've all said it:
"1GB is all you need, and 2GB is excessive."
"The difference between 1GB and 2GB is minimal."

I know that 2GB is useful for video/picture editing, etc.

BUT, I would like to see a benchmark to actually prove this. Yes, I tried Googling it, but I couldnt find any actual benchmarks, just more opinions.

I think this is pretty important, because we all recommend 1GB instead of 2GB....

 

[majistic]

Go with the happy medium...1.5GB...how's that ?

 

[Elbatrop1]

Go with the happy medium...1.5GB...how's that ?

Hahaha

I think you misunderstood me.

I am looking for an actual benchmark. Not another opinion.

 

[digitaloracle]

I would check out Aquamark. You can set the filters and run two searches, just change the ram size for each one. I would imagine that most of the performance gains would be measured in real gamepaly, not a synthetic bench, with games/apps loading faster and running smoother.

 

[Elbatrop1]

Good call. I never thought about that.

 

[Kadahaf]

you need more ram for higher settings, but if you run all low then it wont help at all

 

[gaara]

I don't have any benchmarks on hand to prove this but I know you're fluent with bandwidth aspects so it should make sense.

You have 1GB of data space accessed at 6.4GB/sec, and 2GB data space accessed at 6.4GB/sec. The memory controller has to proccess all of the data on all of the chips meaning that the memory bandwidth in theory gets cut in half because you're dedicating half the bus to each GB.

The data basically gets scattered across all of the different chips and the memory controller has to do a lot more work to recollect them as it has to scan a larger area. Obviously if you need 2GB there's no avoiding this but it's obvious in most all cases 1GB in supplementary.

In all honesty I'd recommend the smallest amount of memory possible, if you are doing simple word processing and internet browsing on XP 512MB is sufficent and I'd suggest that 1GB would be a performance decrease for the same reason.

 

[Elbatrop1]

Thanks for that gaara

I guess, because 1GB isnt ever really filled up (by watching my Task Manager) then 2GB just doesnt make sense, because of the memory controller thing.

All this talk of memory controllers makes me think of my A+ class...I really should take that test

As a side note: I've seen XP run fine on a PII 400 with 256MB RAM

Even going from 512MB to 1GB on my own computer, the only difference I noticed was load times on games, and photoshop responding better all together.

 

[Elbatrop1]

Oops double post

 

[gaara]

Of course, I have XP Pro on a 366 Celeron with 256MB right now. I believe horndude was the one who I can quote when I say hardware has surpassed probably at least 75% of the market need, most people would be fine with a 1.8Ghz Duron or a PIII, XP is unfortunetely a resource hog though.