Saturday November 21, 2009 1:16 PM AEST

Memory usage myths

  • Email a Friend
  • Print Page
 »
Memory usage myths

X-Ray: Oodles of memory is all good, right? Kinda. The truth is, too much of it is probably going to waste. Here's how to fix that problem...

There's a lot of hoo-hah at the moment about memory, especially with the rise of 64-bit operating systems and Core i7 practically re-defining the base volume as 6GB. And certainly, as memory has come down in price and with memory vendors always wanting you to buy more, the theme at the moment is that when it comes to memory, more is always better.

Only that's not always the case.

Having memory in your system is not the same as it actually being put to use. For the most part, this is a function of the heritage of both operating systems and applications. You may be sitting on a beefy 6GB or more system, but a large chunk of it may never actually make a difference, and the money spent on it is wasted.

How do you know if your uber-gigs are working hard? That depends on how much you actually need, and this is first dependent on how much you can actually use.

Which is not as simple a statement as it sounds.

How much do you really use?
Having a 6GB system is good for the e-peen stakes, but is nothing more than a hole in your wallet if you use little more than 2GB. And, for most people, this is often the case.

Clearly, the type of applications you run will determine how much memory is taken up as demanding programs like games and image and video editing can eat up lots, as does running many large applications at once. But this doesn't apply to most of us. And, more importantly, even if you do you may not realise that many of your programs are actually artificially limited to 2GB anyway, meaning much of your memory still isn't being used.

What about games? Even ball busting cutting-edge games can find it hard to push 2GB. And since when you play games these are usually the only main application you run, again that extra 4GB on your 6GB system isn't doing anything.

Part of the problem lies in how much memory is actually useable as opposed to how much you have installed. But, you say, I'm running a 64-bit OS so I am making best use of all my RAM! Well, actually, not entirely. The operating system is only one part of the equation - the applications you run determine how your memory is used, too (more on this below).

Finding how much you use isn't as simple as pulling up Task Manager to see, either - in fact if this is what you do to measure memory usage you're using the wrong tool. In addition to the memory programs use, there's also what the operating system uses and what's been assigned to cache - this latter is important, as the cache can grow as long as there is memory for it to expand, but beyond a certain point a large disk cache doesn't really do much for you. Meaning, if that's where much of your RAM is going, you'd probably have been better not getting that last 2GB module and just saving your dough.

At the moment 4GB will often do even for the most demanding games and programs (previous era Core 2 and similar systems), and 6GB (thanks to Core I7's three channels) is plenty for now. Any more than this, unless you happen to be working at WETA animating the next block buster movie, is probably going to waste on a home system.

If you want to see how much you're using and specifically how much individual programs suck up, grab System Internal's Process Explorer.

 
 »
 
This article appeared in the September, 2009 issue of Atomic.

The latest issue is on sale now!

Want to learn all about Diablo III? Want to find out what the best Solid State Drive is on the market today, and how to look after it? Want to catch up on the latest hardware, games and in depth tech from Australia's best enthusiast mag?

Get your copy today :)
9 Comments
Thoughts on this article? Add a comment below.
bu14-1
Aug 14, 2009 5:04 PM
"32-bit application on 32-bit Windows: 3GB"

2GB?
SlickGrunt
Aug 14, 2009 5:08 PM
very well put. just like the article on power supplies. too much being a waste in summary. but hey let people flash their wallets with their assets :P more money for the industry... and humour from my end.
SlickGrunt
Aug 14, 2009 5:11 PM
btw thx for recommending that program; process explorer - extremely helpful for me! (was unknown to me until now)
Michel Merlin
Aug 16, 2009 11:38 PM
More RAM is ALWAYS better
~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
The only exception I knew of was
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general/msg/381f4171c51ac103
« SOLVED by hotfix KB909095 (Hibernation disappears in XP if 1GB or more) »

Currently the max RAM really available and usable in the real world has stalled at 2GB for a while. With prices down and OSes up, it is 3GB under 32bit Windows, 6GB (apparent standard) for 64bit editions of XP or Vista, and given the progress and the manageability of RAM, it will soon grow much higher.

Now don't be too hurried: the memory that costs a car now will cost a hamburger in little time (hence e.g. my buying of 32MB extensible to 256MB in 1999). So, don't worry buying all you need and a little more, but don't build too much stock.

Versailles, Sun 16 Aug 2009 15:38:50 +0200
Michel Merlin
Aug 17, 2009 12:22 AM
Buy moderate RAM, but HIGHLY EXTENSIBLE
~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
I forgot the main point: while being moderate in the quantity you ACTUALLY buy NOW, do choose much bigger extensibility, whatever gurus may be saying.

- In 1981, I bought the Sinclair ZX81 with its "whoppy" 1KB, that most people found unreasonably big.
- In 1999, std was 16MB (for a laptop), I bought not too much (32MB) but highly extensible (256MB), which later appeared a very good choice
- In 2006 std was 512MB (for a laptop), I bought 2GB (was cheap, currently busy nearly 100%
- In 2009 I am shopping for a new laptop, the ONLY reason being AGAIN the RAM capability (will prolly wait for an i720 laptop with Windows 7 64bits).

Remember that any single tiny bit swapped to the HD, takes as much time as ONE MILLION more info in RAM (access time 1E-8 sec in an 1GHz RAM, 10ms on a HD), so *the RAM size will remain paramount* until RAM is as big as the *used volume on system partition* (currently often 40GB, growing fast).

Versailles, Sun 16 Aug 2009 16:22:10 +0200
Nicolaos
Aug 22, 2009 1:32 AM
Well yeah, but some people want that number (Virtual Lenth ;) ).. even if they dont relise that most of the time having 2x6gig sets whilst trying to overclock will more then likely give you less performance then with a single 6.. as you will have to raise your V's... me i have to have 12 gig of ram, no for measurement, but to run 6 - 10 VM's on my machine at anytime...

but hey all that said, let stupid people by more ram cause that will hopefully bring down the prices.. :P
strifus
Aug 22, 2009 7:47 AM
I beg to differ Merlin. If you read the article again, and I tend to agree with it in the first place, it is the OS which decides whether or not to swap out to HDD under any circumstances. So, giving it as much RAM as you can get shoved down the slots doesnt necesarrily mean it will get used for that instance if Windows gets its way.
Michel Merlin
Aug 25, 2009 10:01 PM
Misc replies
~-~-~-~-~-~-
"Nicolaos", MOST people have to do something else than seeking "performance" on their PC, thus "have to have" enough memory that it's not the bottleneck; VMs, 1st are more frequent that you seem to think, 2nd are far from the only or main reason to need RAM; just surfing EFFICIENTLY (hence smoothly and swiftly) needs a lot, at least for the ones (still existing, albeit now a minority) who think and check before posting, which with the current sticky web requires 50-100 buttons on Taskbar, or at least 2GB RAM. And I recall, 4GB RAM in great brand and high quality is 40 EUR now in France (surely cheaper elsewhere). BTW calling "stupid" the ones you seem unable to understand lessens YOUR image more than theirs.

"strifus", I don't see anything in your post that would differ with mine - excepted that YOU appear to NOT have read me before "answering".

Versailles, Tue 25 Aug 2009 14:01:25 +0200
elmo198
Aug 26, 2009 7:54 PM
well here is a question I have been meaning to ask for sometime.

I have vista x64, running when possible 64bit apps. but I also have a vid card that has 2gb of ram ati 4870x2 and my sound card has 64mb too, along with 4gb installed system ram.

now say I am playing 32bit games. which comes first of the 2gb limit? my vram or OS installed ram? how are they doing their magic in the background?

now as far as I can tell, in x64 windows will use 6gb or so ram, this includes my 4gb system ram and 2gb vid ram is addressed. but in 32bit apps, does this mean I only have access to 2gb total system ram, because of my vid ram is 2gb?
Login or register to submit a comment.
 
 
 
Atomic Magazine

Issue: 107 | December, 2009

Atomic is a magazine aimed squarely at computer enthusiasts, gamers, and serious PC upgraders.

Every month we bring you the latest reviews of new technology and PC components, in depth features on everything from overclocking to console hacking, and gaming previews and interviews.
 
Latest Comments
"Done.

.
..
..."
by theflyingswan | Nov 21, 2009 10:41 AM
 
""sudo preupgrade"
...failed to download installer metadata
------------
So ..."
by wlayton27 | Nov 21, 2009 8:16 AM
 
"I thought Vista outlived it's usefulness about the same time it was released , lol"
by mr.gargoyle | Nov 21, 2009 12:28 AM
 
"^ I find with CoD4 that I can jump on an empty server and be joined by 6-12 others before the ..."
by Ezekill | Nov 20, 2009 10:10 PM
 
"check

LOMAC
DCS Black Shark
X-plane"
by Bastard Child | Nov 20, 2009 8:13 PM
Latest User Reviews
Shenmue II
10%
asdfasdf
 
EVGA X58 Classified
90%
great board, a few things could be better
 
EVGA X58 Classified
90%
Gorgeous looking
 
Sapphire 4890
90%
So good, I immediately wanted a second one!
 
MSI 790FX-GD70 motherboard
90%
Allmost the prefect gaming board