More RAM or faster RAM?
Discussion
My daily computers (old Optiplex 780s, Intel Core2Quad Q8300 & Q9400) each have 8GB RAM (4x 2GB).
Most of the time they're using about 4.5GB, occasionally 6.5GB but never noticed them at 7+GB even when doing updates.
Someone has suggested that the computers would run better with 16GB RAM (4x 4GB - despite their age they will accept 4GB modules).
However, their current (4x) 2GB RAM modules are 9-10-B0 while the only readily available 4GB modules are 11-11-B1 (which will work). I would gain RAM capacity but lose RAM speed.
Am I likely to gain anything by fitting more but slower RAM, since I'm not usually even close to using all their current RAM?
Most of the time they're using about 4.5GB, occasionally 6.5GB but never noticed them at 7+GB even when doing updates.
Someone has suggested that the computers would run better with 16GB RAM (4x 4GB - despite their age they will accept 4GB modules).
However, their current (4x) 2GB RAM modules are 9-10-B0 while the only readily available 4GB modules are 11-11-B1 (which will work). I would gain RAM capacity but lose RAM speed.
Am I likely to gain anything by fitting more but slower RAM, since I'm not usually even close to using all their current RAM?
hyphen said:
Any reason for not wanting to upgrade the PC itself to a newer one?
They're the most trouble-free and pleasant-to-use computers I have ever owned. My wife and I have newer computers but they're more troublesome.Also they are Windows 10 (previously other versions of Windows) but despite being W10 their hardware/drivers etc seem to have a magical combination of being able to perform modern computing while running many older programs without the need for much tweaking in compatibility mode.
RVB said:
They're the most trouble-free and pleasant-to-use computers I have ever owned. My wife and I have newer computers but they're more troublesome.
Also they are Windows 10 (previously other versions of Windows) but despite being W10 their hardware/drivers etc seem to have a magical combination of being able to perform modern computing while running many older programs without the need for much tweaking in compatibility mode.
If you don’t need the RAM, you don’t need it. There is very little performance difference for day to day computing between fast / slow RAM. Unless you are doing something RAM intensive, I wouldn’t bother.Also they are Windows 10 (previously other versions of Windows) but despite being W10 their hardware/drivers etc seem to have a magical combination of being able to perform modern computing while running many older programs without the need for much tweaking in compatibility mode.
I once ‘upgraded’ to faster RAM, noticed zero performance improvement, but I did need the extra GB’s to stop Photoshop from grumbling.
This is definitely a case of if it ain’t broke…
Bluffers guide to memory....
1) Memory is a hierarchy - but in essence, it is about giving the CPU rapid access to data. At the top of the tree you have CPU cache, then you have system memory (the stuff you are talking about in the OP), and at the bottom of the tree you have disk,
2) The further up the tree your data can be, the faster your experience will be.
3) Data is programs (software) and, well, data, the stuff you are using. So the CPU needs access to the instructions (what to do) and the things you are trying to manipulate (what you are doing it to). As an example, if you are editing an image, the image editor code will be accessed, as well as the image itself.
4) Step 1 is having enough memory to keep your active programs in memory. Inactive programmes will be "swapped out" to disk quietly in the background. You get problems when the active programs are swapped out - this is when the disk light just goes on, and the screen freezes. Disk is up to 1000x slower than memory.
5) Step 2 is having enough memory to keep your active data off disk. This depends on what you are doing. Editing a 10 MB image is easy. Editing a 20 GB video means that you have to have a load of memory or the editor will be hitting the disk (slow) for the next section.
6) Step 3 is having enough memory so that the data you haven't used is in memory. You have so much memory that the video you edited yesterday is still in memory, so when you edit it today, it is instantaneously there.
For most people using a Windows desktop "normally" they need 8 GB to get into Step 2. At 4 GB, they will experience "swapping" where the system is busy managing memory rather than being useful. If you are a "power user", 16 or 32 GB (or more) is great, but you're into diminishing returns as you stray into Step 3.
Note that I haven't really mentioned memory "speed". CPU cache is ~100x faster than memory, memory is ~1000x faster than disk. If you get really expensive "fast" memory, these figures might change to 98x faster and 1010x faster respectively. You'll be much better off getting more "slow" memory than the same amount of "fast" memory, assuming you are not deep into Step 3. You'd get a much better result sticking an SSD in if your current disk is made of spinning rust.
Fast memory will give you better benchmarking results, and a gamer might, possibly, maybe be able to notice the difference - but again that difference will be in reported FPS, not actual gaming experience.
1) Memory is a hierarchy - but in essence, it is about giving the CPU rapid access to data. At the top of the tree you have CPU cache, then you have system memory (the stuff you are talking about in the OP), and at the bottom of the tree you have disk,
2) The further up the tree your data can be, the faster your experience will be.
3) Data is programs (software) and, well, data, the stuff you are using. So the CPU needs access to the instructions (what to do) and the things you are trying to manipulate (what you are doing it to). As an example, if you are editing an image, the image editor code will be accessed, as well as the image itself.
4) Step 1 is having enough memory to keep your active programs in memory. Inactive programmes will be "swapped out" to disk quietly in the background. You get problems when the active programs are swapped out - this is when the disk light just goes on, and the screen freezes. Disk is up to 1000x slower than memory.
5) Step 2 is having enough memory to keep your active data off disk. This depends on what you are doing. Editing a 10 MB image is easy. Editing a 20 GB video means that you have to have a load of memory or the editor will be hitting the disk (slow) for the next section.
6) Step 3 is having enough memory so that the data you haven't used is in memory. You have so much memory that the video you edited yesterday is still in memory, so when you edit it today, it is instantaneously there.
For most people using a Windows desktop "normally" they need 8 GB to get into Step 2. At 4 GB, they will experience "swapping" where the system is busy managing memory rather than being useful. If you are a "power user", 16 or 32 GB (or more) is great, but you're into diminishing returns as you stray into Step 3.
Note that I haven't really mentioned memory "speed". CPU cache is ~100x faster than memory, memory is ~1000x faster than disk. If you get really expensive "fast" memory, these figures might change to 98x faster and 1010x faster respectively. You'll be much better off getting more "slow" memory than the same amount of "fast" memory, assuming you are not deep into Step 3. You'd get a much better result sticking an SSD in if your current disk is made of spinning rust.
Fast memory will give you better benchmarking results, and a gamer might, possibly, maybe be able to notice the difference - but again that difference will be in reported FPS, not actual gaming experience.
Gassing Station | Computers, Gadgets & Stuff | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff