How Much RAM is too much RAM?

sithlink · Post by **sithlink** » Sat Mar 31, 2001 10:00 am

I know my motherboard supports up to 1.5 GB or RAM but everyone knows that is too much and you won't even notice much (if any) difference in performance if you had 500MB less. So my question is, how much RAM is too much? and how much RAM is just right?

b-man1 · Post by **b-man1** » Sat Mar 31, 2001 10:14 am

depends on what you use the 'puter for.

if you are just using email and surfing...then 128mb is plenty.

here's my opinion:

up to 128mb: normal use. word processing/email/surfing
128-192mb: light gaming + above

256mb is plenty for most 3d games, etc.

the only reason you need more is if you are doing lots of multitasking, photo editing, etc.

i think people with 512mb of ram for home use is a waste...even if it is cheap. they say it's faster, but all they say is "it seems quicker". well, that's because they are trying to justify having that much in there.

if you're using win2000, check the task manager and you can see how much RAM is being used, and the size of your page file, etc.

.02

madthumbs · Post by **madthumbs** » Sat Mar 31, 2001 11:11 am

b-man1's advice sounds good to me. I wouldn't over invest in sdram right now since PC2100 is out. It sucks when you have to upgrade a cpu/ mobo/ and ram all at once... moreso if you had a ton of ram.

sithlink · Post by **sithlink** » Sat Mar 31, 2001 1:14 pm

kewlness thx.
and i was wondering, can i mix Cas 2 ram and Cas 3 ram?

Coco · Post by **Coco** » Sat Mar 31, 2001 3:24 pm

Yes, but all of your RAM will be forced to run at Cas3.

madthumbs · Post by **madthumbs** » Sat Mar 31, 2001 5:12 pm

Actually Crucial Cas3 ram and some others are known to handle CAS2 setting fine. You set the CL or CAS in the CMOS.

sithlink · Post by **sithlink** » Sat Mar 31, 2001 10:34 pm

awesome guys. thx for the help =)

Slugbait · Post by **Slugbait** » Sun Apr 01, 2001 1:38 am

Basic rule of thumb: he who dies with the most RAM, wins.

Kazer · Post by **Kazer** » Sun Apr 01, 2001 10:14 am

If you using Windows Me or 98 and use more then 512MB of ram your computer won't work correctly, might not even be able to get into Windows.

Windows 2K works with more than 512MB ram though. SO if you were to get more than %12MB you would have to go with Win2K.

madthumbs · Post by **madthumbs** » Sun Apr 01, 2001 9:37 pm

There are ways of making Win9x/me use the extra ram past it's limitation. ie; create a ram drive and use it as the swap file, or install a game like Q3a for insanely fast level loading. There are other ways to allocate the ram for cacheing I just didn't pay attention when reading about it. Personally if I had the money, I'd use it for faster stuff than that much ram.

Mike89 · Post by **Mike89** » Mon Apr 02, 2001 3:10 pm

This topic always brings out many opinions, so I might as well give mine. For me, the more Ram the better. I have 384 megs (Crucial PC133) running ME and 98 (different computers). Suits me just fine and yes, Windows will use every bit of it! I have seen this happen with my systems enough times to know. Do you need it? That is the question. It's what you want and what your system will do with it to suit you. I have this thing about swapfile access. Don't want it happening period! I can still do things that will make that happen, even with 394 megs, but I have to work really hard at it. Ram's pretty dam cheap right now so money is not nearly as big an issue as a year ago. Just make sure it's good RAM, especially if you overclock. Some RAM won't run at Cas 2 at overclocked speeds which kind of defeats overclocking in the first place because Cas 2 gives (me anyway) a performance increase. About like the difference of a 50 mhz increase in CPU's.

I will also make a comment about defragging. My system with all my Ram is squeaky clean. What I mean by this that my HDD's hardly fragments at all. And I do a lot of stuff. I can defrag every two weeks with heavy use and it takes 5 minutes! That's a definite benefit to me to know my system is very efficient thanks to the amount of Ram I have. HDD's and CPU don't have to work as hard.

Speaking of a kick ass defrag program. Try Vopt Millenium Edition. Best dam defragger I have ever seen. Stomps Windows defragger in the dirt! I had previously had Diskeeper defragger, which is also good. But Vopt is better still. Costs $45 but it is sure worth it to me.

[Edited by Mike89 on 04-06-2001 at 01:46 AM]

Gumby · Post by **Gumby** » Mon Apr 02, 2001 3:59 pm

I'll have to agree with mike89. I have 512MB ram in both desktops, even my junker machine has 256MB and so does my laptop. But in my defence I do development so I can and do use about 400MB of Ram and I go most of the ram when it was really cheap. Although since my wife just surfs the web I think 512MB is probably a bit much for her

bootmeup · Post by **bootmeup** » Fri Apr 06, 2001 11:02 pm

256megs - 512megs , seem to be the best . Also ram is dirt cheap now , so buy PC133 cas2 , PC150 cas2 , PC166 cas2 or faster if you need it or not .

FuNPoLiCe001 · Post by **FuNPoLiCe001** » Sat Apr 07, 2001 1:03 am

is it possible that adding ram can make ur system slower?

I have 384 (133 fsb, cas 2) right now, and my computer seems slower than when i had 256...

I m running win2k so the OS shouldn't be a problem

Post by **FlyingPenguin** » Sat Apr 07, 2001 10:22 am

Some tests someone posted once here or on VE (can't remember) seemed to imply that Windows gets a tad slower with 384Mb or more, but I've never seen it confirmed anywhere else. Possible, but my personal experience goes contrary.

I can tell you for a fact that Win2K runs faster the more ram you throw at it up to 512Mb. I've systematically added 128Mb to my system every few months starting at 128Mb using Win2K. However I'm a power user and use VERY ram hungry apps such as Photoshop and I like to have several apps running when I work.

For the average Win2K user or gamer who doesn't do much multitasking, I'd say 256 Mb is the MINIMUM (the OS alone needs about 100 Mb to load and I noticed a DRAMATIC difference going from 128 to 256). 384Mb is more than enough for most people unless you use Photoshop or it's ilk alot.

I definately feel a subjective difference between 384 and 512 when I do web design work.

With ram being as cheap as it is right now ($30/64 Mb or less) might as well load up. Just buy PC133 even if you don't need it - it'll be worth more than PC-100 later.

I wouldn't worry too much about the new types of ram coming out. SDRAM will be with us for a while yet.

My suggestion for the average PCAbuser user:

Win2K: 384 Mb
Win9x/ME: 256 Mb

For the average Joe on the street who just browses, types the occasional letter and plays Solitaire or Deer Hunter, 128Mb is more than plenty (my rule is that if you like to play Deer Hunter you should not have more memory in your computer than you have brain cells in your head, and at 128Mb it's a close thing...)

WARNING: The previous statement is My Opinion. My Opinion is considered by some to be "full of hot air". In a small percentage of cases My Opinion has been known to cause mild side effects such as difficulty breathing, loss of appetite and stroke. In a very small percentage of men (less than 3 percent), My Opinion has been shown in the laboratory to cause loss of sex drive and hair loss. Pregnant women should avoid My Opinion because of the risk of a certain type of birth defect. Remember My Opinion is not a cure, but if used regularly it can alleviate most of the symptoms...

[Edited by FlyingPenguin on 04-07-2001 at 11:27 AM]

PCA Forums

How Much RAM is too much RAM?

hmmm