Hardware What Hardware Should I Buy? - May 2009

I wouldn't build a machine with less than 4GB of RAM in it these days. For the most part though, I'd be looking at 6 or 8GB minimum - 4GB just doesn't cut it for me in a desktop machine, although I've just specced up a new laptop with 4GB of RAM in it and it's an ultraportable. It'll be installing Windows 7 x64 (I've specced Vista Business x64) when it arrives.

Case in point is that I've only got five browser windows open (maybe 20-30 tabs total) on my work machine at the moment and I'm using 48 percent of the 8GB installed. I don't see any reason not to buy lots of RAM these days since it's so damn cheap. I remember a friend of mine telling me "you can never have too much RAM" when 2MB of RAM was a lot and that still rings true today IMO.

It's not about whether it makes a massive performance difference in one application benchmark - computing is changing and I'm fairly sure you don't just have the one browser window open and nothing else running in the background. It's impossible to consistently benchmark typical system resource usage without spending days testing, but adding more RAM to an ailing system generally gives it a new lease of life.

As for 64-bitness, there are benefits to 64-bit beyond just increasing the amount of addressable memory. 64-bit computing is probably one of the biggest areas of computing where there is a lot of confusion. The problem at the moment is that most of us are still running 32-bit operating systems and when development budgets are tight, you're only going to write one piece of code... it's the 32-bit version of course, because it runs on both x86 and x86-64 CPUs in 32-bit mode, regardless of the version of Windows you're running. If you head into the world of Linux, you'll see some big advances with 64-bit applications thanks to the open source software development community.

 

As more people adopt a 64 bit OS, developers will start to code for larger amounts of RAM, for multimedia and gaming 6/8 GB will soon become the the little black dress, in a gamer's closet.

NB - I do not wear dresses!

 

I do agree as I mentioned that in some circumstances more RAM is not only recommended but needed. However, with regards to Bindibadgi... you say 4GB is the min and the only comment regarding this is because 'it's too cheap not to pass up'. Just because something is cheap does not mean you need it, or should I fill my spare drive bays with DVD writers? I'm sure that is not the point you intended but it is how it came across to me. In response to Tim S... Browsers are known to be ineffiencet with RAM resources with Firefox as an example. If that is left open doing nothing at all eventually it consumes growing amounts of RAM and needs to be closed (unless tweaked to drop resources when minimized) to release the cached RAM. However, as I have said, I have 4GB in a 32bit system and even with multiple browsers+tabs, 50GB+ music loaded in to Media Player, Google Desktop, Outlook, Messenger Live... all running my RAM is stable around 35-40% (of the addressed 3-3.5GB). If you are using Vista, then that is another example of how inefficent Vista is and is something that is much better within Win7. So far in XP or Win7 my system is yet to cross 50% usage unless gaming and even then the max I have seen upon viewing Task Manager is around 70%. But my opinion is that to say you need more RAM just incase you want to open multiple browsers with even more tabs is not a good arguement.

 

In Tim S's case, I imagine a large chunk of ram is taken up by Photoshop et al.

 

The price difference between 2GB of DDR2 and 4GB of DDR2 considering the potential performance benefits for Vista (and Win 7) is considerable. It's been well documented.

I'm currently running about 4-5 programs and I've USED 2.1GB of memory. With Photoshop open that will jump to over 3-4GB out of my 6GB.

You're saying "oh inefficient use of memory" but that only means you NEED MORE to use the programs. I LIKE using Firefox with all its addons, and I leave it open all day because I'm on the net all day. I don't want to have to worry about memory management about as much as I need to worry about overheating or my internet dropping - and nor do others.

Many modern games use a large chunk of memory so why limit yourself when investing in space and free overhead is really not that much money at all?

You're only seeing 70% memory use because you're likely using more pagefile. Windows will always aim to keep a certain percentage free to prevent a sudden slowdown on sudden program access - chances are your PC is slower because of it.

 

lol @ Turbotab...

I'm not so sure. Technology advancement doesn't seem to be going the way of just using more RAM. Look at current i7 rigs and they use 3-6 as standard. The industry is pushing faster RAM by using DDR3 and even DDR5 on GPUs. There is a need to increase possible amounts for those who need it to run certain software or for those who just want to ever push the 'Extreme' benchmark but as standard, for the average user or even gamer? I think we are a long way off from 4GB being the upper limit.

 

Bindibadgi - I believe you are mistaking NEED for WANTS. You WANT your browser open all day... you do not NEED it open. I also said that there are certain scenarios where you NEED more RAM and your use of Photoshop and the other software is such an example. Please don't take your own experience as an example of average. Photoshop is most definately NOT software for an 'average' user. As for gameplay, there have been tests to see if it improves games performance (link posted above) and there was little performance benefit from using more than 2GB of RAM.

 

There was an article on Tomshardware that looked into the benefits of games and 64 bit OSs. The main conclusion was right now there is little benefit, however if a developer codes for 64 bit, they will be able to utilise much larger textures etc, that could push photorealism even further.

As DDR3 becomes mainstream, DDR2 RAM prices will probably increase as production falls. 1 GB of DDR sodimm still cost ~ £30, as DDR2 is so cheap, it wouldn't be such a bad idea to buy another 4 GB if you intend to keep your system for a couple of years.

 

Turbotab - I totally agree with you. The problem is that if you actually sit back and look at 'gaming' on a whole, more and more developers are moving towards the console environment and the idea of cross platform developments. So any future development with respect to RAM will be held back to keep in line with current console technology.

P.S. I will be getting the extra RAM shortly, but as mentioned, that is because I WANT it, not because I NEED it. lol

 

SchizoFrog:

Graphics memory is consistently increasing - it wasn't long ago when 256MB was the 'norm' and 512MB was considered 'too much' - mainstream graphics cards now come with 512MB as a minimum and most high-end cards feature 1GB. It won't be long before we double again, I reckon. The lust for AA and higher quality textures, despite the improved texture compression algorithms, is only going to continue the increased frame buffers - we've already seen a few 2GB cards. It's insane today, but in a few years it most definitely won't be.

With regards to Vista/Win7... there's a lot of application caching going on which means memory usage is quite a bit higher than XP by default. But the result is a more responsive OS when it comes to running the programs you use regularly.

Memory usage won't stop at 4GB... not a chance. I remember when Bill Gates said how nobody will ever need more than 640KB of memory... how wrong he was.

 

I would bet Adobe will argue differently. Photoshop Elements *is* designed to be everyday user. Many of us multitask with several documents and things open at once - otherwise there would be NO need or desire for a quad core CPU.

I DO NEED my Firefox open all day because I work on the internet *ALL DAY* as do a lot of people I know, whether it's work or play. How many people have facebook open all day? flash games? forums? email? etcetc

More memory affords faster task switching, faster game boot times, better minimum frame rates in games so it's smoother.

2GB for my Mum is not going to make a difference. She never opens more than one thing at once. However we live in a world of multitasking and doing more at once and anyone reading this site will benefit from 4GB or more.

Tom's also did no proper multitasking either by the looks of it.

 

Tim S -
I agree with you that the situation with GPU's and their memory is an intriguing one. I would say though that it will still be some time before 2GB+ is standard on gaming cards. I bought a 4600Ti around 7years ago and that had 128MB or Memory and if standard is now 512MB then the memory on my old card has only doubled twice in all that time. But then according to steam, most PC gamers are still using old GPUs and gaming at 1280x1024. Not to mention that PCs with dedicated graphics are still a minority even if they are far more common now than they used to be.
I agree once again that 4GB will not be the end of memory increases but I do believe it will be some time before companies decide to tackle the sticky issue of 64bit with the average PC user.

 

mid range build has a typo in the gigabyte mb us price table compared to the ud3r description at the bottom of the page.

 

Bindibadgi - From my experience you and your PC usage is more advanced than that of the average user and I would dare to say that the 'average user' is much more in line with your mum, who I am guesing isn't a gamer and wouldn't need a GPU either?

 

And wouldn't be reading bit-tech?

 

A HD4890@£159 is a steal! http://www.pixmania.co.uk/uk/uk/2719635/art/pixmania/radeon-hd4890-1-gb-ddr5-p.html?srcid=369

 

Too cheap, fishy?

 

The Ti 4600 was a high end card in its day. Look at the Radeon HD 4870 X2 - it has 2GB of memory on board. A £160 graphics card like the 4870 has 1GB of memory on it these days. An £80 graphics card like the 4770 has 512MB of memory.

 

Tim S - That was my point. It was a high end card. So would you agree that it may be 5 years before the standard is around 2GB? Gaming is not the average use of a PC and even then high end GPU cards are a slim minority when compared to the mass of PC's sold every year. With the current gaming development trends I don't see games coming out that will push GPU memory that much more than they already do, otherwise the developers will be in danger of losing out on the cross platform option with consoles. Crytek have already announced that they are rewritting the engine for Crysis so it can play on a console. How many PC games come out though that push like Crysis has?

 

Precisely.

We don't write for people who buy from PC World.

SchizoFrog your point is valid for those who will buy a netbook or a £299 Dell. People who do barely more than one or two things with a PC, but for our audience of (heavy) multi-taskers, gamers, workstation users and PC enthusiasts I'd like you to stress "2GB is enough" to them

What games max out a PC like Crysis? Stalker 2 and GTA 4 come to mind. But games are developed to hit a good frame rate on what products are available - people complained that they couldn't run GTA4 at the highest settings, despite the fact the developers claimed they built in "more features" than current hardware could power.

We've already seen 512MB not enough for the 4870 in the middle of last year and gaming at 1980x1200 is not uncommon because 24" monitors are cheap. Once you start labouring on AA and cranking up the texture resolution then you need plenty of memory. Consoles are simplified, compressed, cut down and mostly don't feature AA - which is a nugget of why PC gaming is still popular.