right after i built my system i stumbled upon 4gb of ram for $20, so naturally i took it. being almost identical to what i had i saw no harm in just installing it. ever since then iv had 4x2gb pc6400, but iv never noticed my computer using more than 2gb.

does having that much make accessing time faster? or was it simply a waste of 20 bucks?

What OS are you using, 32 bit or 64 bit, XP or Vista?

The only time I've come close to using 4GB of ram on my machine was when I was ripping a dvd and compressing it. Games don't really need that much memory (as in 3GB+), although someone may say that there are one or two that can use that much.

Anyways to answer you question in a sentence:
The only way to utilize 8GB today, is to use video editing and compression software.

I'd have to agree with dragabain. Unless you are running several video/audio applications or running a server there isn't much need for the 8GB. However you could always create a large ramdisk and install a few programs onto that.

I would call $20 for 4 gig of ram a waste, unless a 32 bit OS was being used. If a person is using the computer for task intensive pruposes, then 8 gig of ram can be very useful. Some early tests, such as the one Tom's did on Feb 15, also show some speed increases as Vista (64 bit of course) doesn't spend as much time accessing the hard disk. Right now, very few games will go over 2 gig usage, but expect that to change during the next two years.

I certainly wish I could run across 4 gig of ram for $20, but I haven't been so lucky. Then again, I have business computers which seem to ask for every bit of ram they can get.

right now im running winXP 64bit. iv recently started backup up my collection of dvd, which is when i noticed it finally crack the 2gb barrier. i was planning on upgrading(?) to vista x64 this weekend, just to test it out and see if i notice any difference.

in a few months i plan on converting this system to a htpc. will that help make the ram more useful?

iv also heard of disabling file paging (might be wrong term) for system performance gains. will that be something worth checking into?

I don't think 8GB is very useful for normal users or gamers/power gamers. You need to be running a 64 bit OS...I know Vista can eat RAM for breakfast, but that OS is donkey anyways so I'd say stiff it.

With SP1 coming out for Vista, it should pick up some of its performance. I've had XP64 Pro for a long time and prefer it to the 32 bit XP, but except for my gaming computer, I do business stuff that demands performance and lots of ram, which XP64 or Vista 64 give. Well, Vista 64 still lags a bit, but its not as bad as some people say and it is the future whether or not anyone likes it. M$ says the next OS will be purely 64 bit, so there won't be a choice of 32 bit XP, and by the time the next OS appears, the argument might not be over 2 gig or 4 gig being minimum, but whether 8 gig or something more is the minimum.

That said, Waspy is correct that for now, 8 gig is not all that useful for gamers or common users. It is showing some advantage in FSX, but that is a power hungry app to start with. But a year or two from now, who can really say what we'll be using ramwise. I know that I can't.

What 8Gb of RAM is useful for is in Vista 64 to completely turn off disc cache. Then the computer never fetches to the disc whatsoever. I think I read that article mentioned in this thread. Of course there is the danger of a complete system crash if you happen to go over the 8Gb when disc cache is completely disabled but...if you think about it more system ram is just a natural evolution towards all functions residing in solid state memory. Look at the way hard drives are evolving now. Solid state hard drives should become commonplace in the next few years.

Illiminating disc cache is the way to go! As soon as I find some 4 4 4 12 2Gb sticks I am going for it!

Except using 4 sticks of ram can commonly cause stability problems and completly ruins overclocking.

Just use 4gb 2x2 you wont notice any difference. If you want to spend more money for for some ddr2 1066.

You're right about having over 4 gig and getting stability problems hatman. But I don't overclock my business computers. Reportedly, SP1 for Vista is supposed to fix that, but I don't have any direct experience with it yet, so I can't say whether the fix is a good one or not.

I full agree, for the time being, a 4 gig 2x2 setup is good. Not sure about the money spent for DDR2 1066, though, as some of it seems to merely be overclocked DDR2 800 with a raise in the voltage. In such a case, I can raise the voltage and overclock to 1066 myself.

Vista 64 loves ram. It will try to anticipate your needs and load things into ram in anticipation of your request. This will not show up as ram being used. If you are doing lots of multitasking, extra ram can help. Some programs are 64 bit capable and will use lots of ram to improve performance. I went to 8gb because it was cheap. I think things are a bit snappier, but I have done no testing.

The only downside I know of is that it is harder to overclock 8gb. For stock operation, it should not be an issue.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/02/15/vista_workshop/

Above is the article on speed with more ram for vista-64...

Memory need is a function of specific applications....I run design simulations tools that use whatever memory is on my pc...8 Gbyte. At work i use a computer with 36Gbyte the program use it as well to max.

For games and regular office applications 4Gbyte is more than enough...

Memory is cheap our time is not...For my need that $20 is well spent...

I found that article pretty disappointing. "Where's the beef ?" The article talks about a test setup but they did no real tests. Sure they talked about what happens if ya turn the swap file off and "yeay we had no problems at 8 GB". But again, where's the beef ?

Where's the benchmarks ? Where's the results with 2 GB, 4 GB, 8 GB ? I don't really wanna know that "yeah well theoretically of you don't have to write to the HD, it should be faster". I wanna know the numbers. They said that Windows ran fine at 8 GB with no swap file but at 2 GB they ran outta of memory loading 3 GB files....well duh !

They also say "Our testing brought us to a clear conclusion: if you often use several memory hungry applications simultaneously, then there's really no way around upgrading your system to 8 GB. Working with applications, and especially switching between them, is much more efficient than with a typical 2 GB configuration."

Again, 1) I saw no test results and 2) "no way around upgrading to 8 GB ? I see nothing explaining why 4 GB is this huge roadblock.

All I got out of this article is "I bought 8 gigs of RAM and here's my attempt to justify it". If it's better it should benchmark better. And if it's multitasking argument, I wanna see what the tester is multitasking. And not some silly "I downloaded SP1 while running a backup, while running writing a DVD while running my AV scans while defragging my drive, while running a find and replace in a 2 GB word file wile editing a PhotoShop Image while compressing a movie...."

Machines can multitask but humans can't. While it is valuable to be able to run programs in background while getting work done, the test should have some semblance of reality. An intelligent user, runs AV scans and backups at night for example. And if you are editing a movie while editing a photo while editing a word file, you are not doing any of those things well.

I have no problems with normal things.....like having some programs open and playing a game....that is something that happens everywhere....I routinely do that during lunch at the office. I fan PCMark and Futuremark with a many as 10 programs open including Adobe Acrobat and Designer open, AutoCAD open others and I still failed to generate significant differences in benchmark results between having all 10 programs running and having all 10 programs off.

What the reviewer failed to acknowledge is that these page file writes are not repeating which is why I figure he didn't back up the claims with benchmarks. Let's say you have those 10 programs loaded .... even when you load the first one, windows will stick some of it in Virtual memory (VM). Right now I have over 1 GB of physical memory free. Yet:

AutoCAD 360MB in memory / 356 MB in VM
Firefox 119MB in memory, 95 MB in VM

The assumption that Windows will not offload memory to VM if there is physical memory available is a myth. When I load 3D Mark, the system may offload parts of those 10 running programs but then those programs are simply idle. There's no swapping going on for the next 15 minutes or so while the benchmark completes. The only way multitasking generally becomes an issue is if the machine is being forced to switch its focus from task to task 2 task 3 every few seconds and the reality is very very few users find themselves in that situation.

I have always over bought RAM. I never put less than 2 GB in an XP box.....never put less than 1 GB in a Win2k box, never put less than 512 MB in an NT4 box and I'd never put less than 4 GB in a Vista box. But as the OP said, he's never seen his system use more than 2 GB.....to which I'd say "then you should have 4". Cause if you just had 2 GB, you'd see Windows paging more cause it always seems to wanna have half the RAM free. It's pretty simple to see if 8 GB will benefit you.

-With 4 GB in, open all the programs you are likely to have open on any given day at one time. Run PCMark and 3DMark and anything else you wanna run. Record the numbers.
-With 8 GB in, open all the programs you are likely to have open on any given day at one time. Run PCMark and 3DMark and anything else you wanna run. Record the numbers.

If there's not a statistically significant difference between what you recorded under both scenarios, then the 8 GB isn't helping ya any. For a mainstream Vista PC, I'd be more inclined to invest in memory with faster timings at 4 GB then boosting run of the mill memory to 8 GB. There are instances where the extra 4 GB will help. For example, when multiple virtual machines are used, such as those provided by VMware and Microsoft Virtual PC, we are outside "mainstream user".

Finally, the author's comments on "issues" with using 8 GB should be considered:

"Nonetheless, even veteran users should expect to encounter a few setbacks when using 8 GB of RAM. Be prepared to encounter driver problems, and not just on exotic hardware. Some system tools may also spring a nasty surprise on you."