Quote:
Originally Posted by Etheric
Even with a minimum of 2GB needed, the 3GB that computer has is more than enough in my opinion. Unless you're going to be running any processes that are memory hogs (intense gaming, mass photo/video editing, etc) I don't think you'd see much difference between 3GB and 4GB. I'm fairly new to W7 though, so the OS might hog more memory than I realize =P
|
You are quite correct in what you have stated. Tom's Hardware did an excellent article back in April of 2009 about how much RAM do we really need.
This is from the "Conclusion" section of the article dated 4-9-2009:
Quote:
Not much has changed since 4 GB of RAM became the “sweet spot” for performance and price in the enthusiast market. While 32-bit operating systems previously limited those 4 GB configurations to around 3 GB of useful memory space, today's test shows that 3 GB is still usually enough.
We remember days when having multiple Internet Explorer windows open could cause a system to become sluggish. But even that scenario has become unrealistic, as all the configurations we tested in this review supported over 100 open windows simultaneously.
If 3 GB worked so well, why do we continue to recommend 4 GB to 6 GB triple-channel kits for performance systems? Perhaps we’re just a little too forward-looking, but we can certainly imagine scenarios a typical “power user” could encounter where 3 GB might not be enough, even if today’s tests didn’t reveal any of them. For those folks, stepping up to a 64-bit operating system at the same time is undoubtedly the best course of action.
We can only recommend larger capacities of 8 GB to 12 GB for professional applications where its usefulness has already been documented and for servers. None of our tests required high-memory capacities and wasted RAM is a burden both financially and ecologically.
|
Similar Threads
