Is there any reason to have 8 GB of RAM?

[-n7-]

enaberif has a very skewed bias against Vista for unknown [& unfounded no doubt] reasons, so there's not much point in arguing with him.

I run 8 GB, & i wouldn't go back to 4 GB actually.

Contrary to the nonsense he spouts, i've found it actually does improve things, & since i actually use Vista, & have used it with 1, 2, 4, & 8 GB, i actually can speak on this accurately.

There is no question Vista loves RAM.

It's not really at all like XP in how it manages things.

In XP, if you are only actively using 900 MB of RAM, you will see no benefit from going from 1 GB to 2 GB.

In Vista, you will not only see a benefit in having more RAM, you will actually see the amount of RAM Vista actively utilizes increase.

Superfetch does help speed things up; in general, everything just seems snappier.

But as i mentioned, the other benefit is actively utilized memory actually increases in Vista when you have more...
If you check task manager on an indentical 2 GB vs. 4 GB vs. 8 GB system, you'll see idle usage just for the OS alone is higher the more RAM you have.

I find myself easily running 3-4 GB actively a lot, especially with games & stuff running in the background.

I will say that 2x2 GB is likely the sweet spot for Vista x64, no doubt.
I won't say going to 8 GB is going to help a basic user much; it likely won't.

But for multitasking gamers, you'll not regret 6 or 8 GB.

I don't really think you can have too much RAM with Vista; it will proactively utilize as best it can, though obviously the higher you get, there will be diminishing returns eventually if you cannot utilize it all.

[MushkinGreg]

Yup I can't wait for nahalem, I want to run with 4GB of ram, while having 8GB of a software ram drive. (finally enough to fit tf2 )

[belgolas]

Well according to this one benchie 8GB of ram increases frame rates in Crysis by like 2 FPS. Also Vista is a lot faster going from 4gb to 8gb to some reviews. Always check reviews before arguing.

[ChuckleBrother]

While I'll agree that it makes things snappier(though I pulled 2 and went down to 4gb so I could use the 2gb in another machine) I would say that unless you have felt your system slowing or you plan on doing something really ram intensive, it will likely not be worth the money. If you have spare ram laying about though, throw it in, if you're running Vista your OS will love it.

As for some realistic numbers, on XP Half-Life 2 loaded to the main screen in about 45 seconds, in Vista(same exact machine, both blank installs) after 3 loads it was down to 20 seconds to load. Not bad at all imo considering that Half-Life 2 has one of the nastiest initial loads I have ever seen. Barring Morrowind on the Xbox that is:)

[ByteMe]

Back to the original question, games aside, if you do 3D work on your computer, more and more, 64 bit operating systems and 8 gigs of RAM or more are getting to be an absolute necessity. I use ZBrush on my Vista x64 dual core AMD 6000 machine, with only 4 GB of RAM and it's recently begun seriously limiting the mesh density I can work with. That 4 gigs gets eaten up FAST. It never was a problem before, but recently I've been doing work which requires far more subdivisions.
I'm building a new PC later this week, an Intel quad core 9450 and 8 gigs of RAM with Vista x64, but I bet I'll find a use for every last little bit of those extra 4 gigs. ;-)
Speaking of 3D, rendering can also wipe out your RAM pretty quick. Programs such as Maya, 3ds max and LightWave 3D use roughly ten times the file size in MB of an image map, in RAM when rendering, so a huge scene with lots of image maps can quickly eat away at that RAM... a 1 MB image map becomes 10 MB in RAM. Well, we optimize those images as well as possible, and use instances when possible, but even so, still it can get up there. Fighting such program's hunger for RAM has become an art form all its own. ;-)

That having been said, aside from a whole lot of multitasking and 3D, 4 gigs of RAM should be enough for most anyone, and definitely enough for current games, but as has been already said, Vista x64 will benefit from the more you feed it.

[t0m]

Originally Posted by Mars

If you need more than 4gb of ram, you'll know it, and won't have to ask. ;)

this pretty much says it all. if you are using apps that require more ram you will know that you require it. like ByteMe says, in 3d and video editing, you need as much as possible, and you will definitely know that you dont have enough when it comes down to it. aside from 3d, video editing, working in photoshop at print resolutions, and doing simulations (data, physics or other 'work' related stuff), there isnt much reason to go nuts on the ram (yet).

[Jmac]

When I see 4 GB PC2-8000 kits going for $95 w/ a $30 MIR, I find it hard to argue against going 8 GB ... Assuming you get your rebate back, it's a $65 difference. Not a huge cost increase.

[enaberif]

Originally Posted by Jmac

When I see 4 GB PC2-8000 kits going for $95 w/ a $30 MIR, I find it hard to argue against going 8 GB ... Assuming you get your rebate back, it's a $65 difference. Not a huge cost increase.

And because of reasons like this you know you have to much money and need to spend some.

[waxbytes]

8 GB is better because it fills up all the ram slots (4x2GB) and I like all the ram slots filled up. Looks better.
If we pared out PC's back to only what we really need, this would be a sad and dull forum indeed.

[zlojack]

Originally Posted by waxbytes

8 GB is better because it fills up all the ram slots (4x2GB) and I like all the ram slots filled up. Looks better.
If we pared out PC's back to only what we really need, this would be a sad and dull forum indeed.

Yeah, but there's a difference between having something that's fast and having something that's there and never gets used.

I mean, what's the point of 4GB of RAM sitting there in your system never being used?

If you somehow use even a bit more of it...say 6GB in some application, then good, but otherwise, it seems to me that it's a waste.