Too much RAM slows down a computer...

[Super Fast]

I noticed that some people up here have mentioned that the more RAM you have in a computer, the faster it is.

 

Is this necessarily true? I know that having an ADEQUATE amount is VERY important, but after say, 3 GB, 8 GB, 16 GB, etc, aren't we really reaching the point of diminishing returns? Most of us probably never use over 1.5 to 3 GB RAM, & having 8, 16, 32 GB RAM just ensures that we have absolutely HUGE swap files on the computer. Having a huge swap file is means that programs that are installed & used must be routed around these huge areas.

 

Think of it as one huge, reserved, unusable area (because it is dedicated to swap file use). A dead zone, if you will. There are ways around it, of course, such as setting no swap file. But if your computer runs out of RAM with NO swap file, it will bluescreen. If your using a web browser that has a memory leak, this could easily eat up ALL the RAM, given enough time, & blue screen. You can set a smaller swap area, but then, if you set it for a max size, then Windows will still blue screen once the virtual RAM has been used up. You can let Windows handle the swap file automatically, & you won't bluescreen when you run out of RAM, although you WILL slow down while using Virtual RAM on your harddisk drive. And your swap file will be guaranteed to be huge if you have a lot of RAM.

 

If you have 32 GB RAM, & 48 GB swap file space, that will take forever to resume from Hibernate or Sleep, I would think. Hope MS fixes their antiquated ways of handling RAM swap file space. No longer do we need it based on % RAM installed, because that was when RAM was expensive. Not many people back then had over 128 MB, 512 MB, or even 1 GB RAM back in the day, but now, it isn't uncommon for 4, 8, or even 12 GB RAM to be standard.

 

A better practice would be to base swap file on % RAM for systems up to 1 GB, but have a max of 1 GB VRAM on machines with more than 1 GB RAM. They do need to update the coding, so you can allow Windows to automatically INCREASE the size of the swap when/if needed, but have a default of no more than 1 GB to eliminate wasted space, & make resume lots faster.

 

If something isn't done, we may soon be looking at 1 TB drive machines with 100 GB RAM & 150 GB unused swap file space!

 

Imagine how long resume from hibernate would take with 150 GB swap file space? What a huge "dead" area on the drive!

 

Edit: Worse, still... Imagine trying to set up a 50 GB HDD with 100 GB RAM & 150 GB swap file space? There won't be anything left to use!

[Nergal]

it depends on what the ram is needed for, Photoshop, video editing, video rendering all love RAM. MSOutlook running all day gathers ram and hordes it.

[Winapp2.ini]

After a certain point, you really don't need a swap file. I run my computer without one, and have since I had 4GiB RAM. I now have 12, and rarely find myself using anywhere close to half of it unless I am running firefox alongside several games.

 

Sidenote: both Explorer.exe and Pidgin.exe like to hoard memory as well.

[Andavari]

I noticed that some people up here have mentioned that the more RAM you have in a computer, the faster it is.

 

I can't say I've noticed this, however back in my Win98 days maxing out the RAM made the computer take significantly longer to boot however the benefits of maxing out the RAM outweighed the lengthy boot time, i.e.; programs such as scanning software no longer complaining there wasn't enough RAM to scan the image.

 

With this old WinXP box I'm still using (been almost 9 years now) I made certain to double the RAM when ordering the system although what my needs are today I should've just maxed it out. The next system I get (whenever that may be) will be maxed out on RAM simply for all the video editing/encoding and audio production I do nowadays.

 

Also can't forget having more than enough RAM in the display card!!!

[Super Fast]

 

Also can't forget having more than enough RAM in the display card!!!

 

 

How much is enough? I have an ATI HD series with 1 GB Ram. But there are other factors, such as Cuda Shaders with NVidia, & Stream Processors for ATI that make a card faster or slower. I am wondering if you want more RAM on your card, or a faster card?

 

If you want it faster, here are options to check into:

 

- 256 Bit 32x PCIe slot as opposed to 128 bit, or less. More is faster/better.

- 800 or more stream processors (if your going with ATI), as opposed to 320 or, even 120. More is faster/better.

- GDDR5 RAM (Not to be confused with DDR5, Graphical Double Data Rate is considerably faster, & version 5 is the highest).

- More RAM. This one is obvious, of course.

 

I am not sure how familiar you are with the others listed, but I currently have a 1 GB ATI card, so just wondering how much ram you have on your video card, as well as how much your wanting on a video card when you do get a new one.

 

If speed is important vs ram, I'd look into the highest PCIe edition with GDDR5 RAM & as many stream processors as possible. If RAM is important, the other factors will help, but perhaps not so much as adding the amount of RAM your seeking will.

[Andavari]

How much is enough? I have an ATI HD series with 1 GB Ram. But there are other factors, such as Cuda Shaders with NVidia, & Stream Processors for ATI that make a card faster or slower. I am wondering if you want more RAM on your card, or a faster card?

 

I haven't crossed that bridge yet since I'm still on this old XP system and I won't be upgrading RAM or display cards anymore unless they go bad since anything else more expensive could easily go kaput in it because of its age.

 

I wouldn't buy an Nvidia ever again! This current Nvidia card I have was probably one of my absolute worst computer hardware purchases simply because the drivers have been horrible over tons of versions causing graphical issues. Don't get me wrong I've had more than enough issues with ATI as well such as their display cards burning out within six months to one year, and issues with their drivers too but only in trying to get them to install however once installed the drivers themself haven't given me noticable issues. I've learned with ATI that once the drivers are installed and working good leave them the hell alone and don't bother updating them, etc.

[Corona]

NVidea had its heyday in the 90s. It's dead now.