4GB Ram installed by 3.5 usable.

[S.T.A.R.S.]

Eh sometimes, could help my games run a bit better, and as for running Win7, it takes a bit more memory as well, I'm gonna contact Asus or HP to see if they can release a BIOS update.

Holy crap that was a fast respond xD

Anyway if some of your games lag then trust me that it is NOT because of RAM lol.What kind of the game requires 4 GB minimum lol?That sucks lol!
If your game lags,while the game is running,open task manager and take a look at memory usage there and I BET that the game doesn't use so much.If your game lags,it is more because of processor then that RAM.Hell man I was playing Crysis on 512 MB of RAM and it didn't lag.

 

[johnb35]

Eh sometimes, could help my games run a bit better, and as for running Win7, it takes a bit more memory as well, I'm gonna contact Asus or HP to see if they can release a BIOS update.

Games depend more on cpu and gpu. Are you using onboard graphics instead of a dedicated card?

As Stars as said, open task manager when you are using your pc at full potential and check how much memory is being used. I bet you'll see its not as much as you think. Windows 7 uses less memory then Vista does.

 

[S.T.A.R.S.]

Games depend more on cpu and gpu. Are you using onboard graphics instead of a dedicated card?...Windows 7 uses less memory then Vista does.

True.

If your game lags,it is CPU.If it works slow,it is GPU.Or maybe both if both sucks lol.But trust me it is NOT because you have "ONLY" 3.5 GB of RAM unless if you are playing 5 games at once lol.

You must also pay attention on your operating system.If it's in a crappy condition then the games will also lag even if you have super strong hardware.

If you are watching too much porn,stop
That was a joke lol



Cheers!

 

[Okedokey]

My machine uses over 5GB during battlefield bc2. Windows 7 will use as much RAM as you give it and handles memory differently to other versions. I frequently use more than 4GB so your assertions that 3.5GB is enough is not necessarily true.

 

[S.T.A.R.S.]

My machine uses over 5GB during battlefield bc2. Windows 7 will use as much RAM as you give it and handles memory differently to other versions. I frequently use more than 4GB so your assertions that 3.5GB is enough is not necessarily true.

Over 5 GB of RAM for Battlefield BC2???Are you sure lol?My brother played that game on Vista and he has 2 GB of RAM and it worked perfectly lol.Also the MEM usage was about 1.1 GB or 1126.4 MB approximately while playing that game plus all the background programs and processes.
Also Windows never uses ALL your memory unless if neccessary and it will be neccessary only if you have opened many many background or especially foreground programs or if you are encoding many video files at once.I don't know what you do with your computer when it uses more than 5 GB of RAM,but it is surely not because of just Windows,standard processes and game running in the same time lol.Because if that's true,nobody wouldn't buy Windows 7 (or some other edition such as Vista or XP) and that game if it reguires so much RAM in order to run lol.
The only explanation would be that your GPU is weaker than supposed to be so Windows uses more RAM to share it with the GPU in order to speed it up a little bit or you have maybe enabled the virtual RAM to the maximum in order to use it for something else while playing the game lol.But there is NO WAY that Windows OS and that game requires 5 GB of RAM in order to run lol.If I was able to play Crysis on perfect speed without lag on just 512 MB of RAM than I am pretty sure that Battlefield doesn't require SO MUCH lol.



Cheers mate!

 

[Okedokey]

The only explanation would be that your GPU is weaker than supposed to be so Windows uses more RAM to share it with the GPU in order to speed it up a little bit or you have maybe enabled the virtual RAM to the maximum in order to use it for something else while playing the game lol.But there is NO WAY that Windows OS and that game requires 5 GB...

You don't really get it do you, there are several misconceptions in your post but that doesn't matter. Its not about requiring it, its about if it is there, the system will use it. Its also a fact that Win 7 has a low footprint so it can run on low end machines, but if it is there, it will try to utilise as much as possible. One of the only reasons why Vista has a higher footprint is that it would double cache the GPU memory on RAM. Windows 7 doesn't do this.

I don't shut down programs etc and play games and it will on occasion use over 5GB - if i didn't have that RAM, it would look to the hard drive - performance decrease. Currently it is at idle and uses 27% of 8GB (over 2GB). Unlike other versions, Windows 7 caches as much as it can in RAM to improve performace. That means if you have over 4GB it will say "thank you very much" and use it when required. Vista attempted this with Readyboost. Although Windows 7 still supports RB, the order of preference is: CPU die cache, RAM, SSD, RB, HDD>

Windows 7's goal is actually to use 100% memory with the lowest latency , which is RAM (except for on die (CPU) memory cache). That is why the whole argument about not being able to use more than 4GB of RAM is redundant, and given that RAM is so cheap, you are better off having more than 4GB if you are using Win 7 64bit. Now there is a logical limit to this benefit of course. Putting 25GB or ram in there is useless, but since 2 x 4GB DDR3 is so cheap, its worth it. Although, in future, Win 8 will improve on this and eventually you will see more and more RAM being used, this is not a bad thing as long as the bottom threshold is suitable for low end machines.

Games depend more on cpu and gpu..

Also, this is highly dependant on the game, some are much more GPU limited than CPU since DirectX 11 yet again puts the focus on graphics card performance.

If you have a dual-core CPU at around 3 GHz, then invest your money into a graphics card, as most games are GPU-limited. This is not something that will change with new DirectX 11 games.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/game-performance-bottleneck,2738-16.html

To the OP

Go here and check for updates.


*edit*, opened a few more websites, now sitting at 30% (2.4GB RAM)

 

[Aastii]

Chrome with 6 tabs (1 Youtbe, 1 gmail, 1 CF, one league webby, one clan webby, one clan server control panel), Steam, TeamSpeak, League of Legends, Minecraft, Call of Duty 4, Xonar audio centre, Zune and all programs in the background.

total memory usage: 78%, or 3.08GB, 440MB cached

I have yet to get close to 100%, and I have yet to hit with 4GB total. I also have yet to lag with any program, be it a game, a utility, anything, and that is with 4GB.

If you can afford the extra to go to 8GB, take it, but some are on tight budgets and more than 4GB is absolutely pointless for the vast majority of people

 

[Okedokey]

Its a similar debate to SSDs isn't it?

 

[Aastii]

Its a similar debate to SSDs isn't it?

Not really, because this is pretty clear cut - extra memory gives 0 performance gain for most people if they already have at least 4GB. I was on 8GB for a bit, it made not a blind bit of difference

 

[Okedokey]

Aastii, no, you are wrong, if a machine calls 5GB of ram, the alternative is that it would pagefile it if that ram was unavailable. I suggest you research a little more and look at the latest MS white paper relating to memory handling for Win 7, because as is often the case, your opinion is based on anecdote, not fact.

Also your machine is rubbish, hardly an example of cutting edge so of course you will never experience first hand what i am referring to nor a benefit, but i however do. Ive explained why it matters to have more ram, its cheap, available and with Win 7 uniquely useful. The 4gb ram paradigm is silly and outdated. But of course, as expected you will come back with a massive essay about how this is not correct.

The fact here is, that my machine which is reasonable, calls for over 5GB when gaming. this is because it can. If it didn't have that resource, it would look to the next available resource (being a slower hard drive - which btw doesnt show on your "4gb is fine" scale"). The problem here is you guys are looking at used RAM and min RAM as some kind of benchmark. that is the false preposition.

My basic principle here is, Win 7 handles RAM differently, that is it will utilise as much RAM as it can, minimising latency, maximising efficiency and this is different fundamentally to other versions of windows.

Pleeeezzeee dont come back with a million quotes, charts and figures that somehow prove a point. The fact is, Win 7 will use what you have. If you can afford it, then install it, if not fine.

 

[Aastii]

I won't come back with any figures, or some long answer, all I will say is this:

It is the same as benchmarks. you put whatever you want on paper, but 9 times out of 10, it doesn't relate to real world performance what so ever. I may have, to quote you with your almighty, top of the line computer (yeah right ) a "rubbish" computer, but even with my 4GB of memory, I am running every single game out now without a problem, even with things running in the background.

You can say what you like for how Windows 7 works, I don't care. At this moment in time it means diddly squat because for the average user, even one that is using their system for just gaming and daily use (internet, office software, media etc), 4GB is plenty.

I could go and read every single white paper, I could go and look at the Windows source code, I could go and speak to every single programmer and learn the intricate details for how every single part of the Windows 7 OS works, it still wouldn't change the fact that for real world usage, 4GB is plenty, no matter what you say

 

[Okedokey]

anecdotal yet again. at the end of the day we're talking about 50 bucks difference. wow!

i haven't once said it wont 'work', i said for 80 bucks you have 8gb and your win 7 machine will say thank you (backed up by MSDN white papers). that is all. if you don't have that you won't know the benefit (as in your case).

my machine isn't top of the line (i said reasonable), but i certainly see the benefit.

Aastii, do you reckon we could develop a test for this? A CF bench?

 

[Aastii]

anectdotal yet again.

but not wrong

By the way, why call it out for being anecdotal, yet have a little episode saying "don't come back with facts and figures"? Do you not like being proved wrong?

=EDIT=

in response to your edit, as I said, I have been on 8GB on this system, I have been on 8GB on other systems. No noticeable difference what so ever. the only reason I would upgrade over 4GB is if it were for a good price, or when 4GB is no longer enough

 

[Okedokey]

mate, dd3 modules come in 4gb pretty much for 30 bucks

as i said, win 7 has changed its memory management (read research the white papers), thus 8gb is not unreasonable.

i am not going to argue any further, but the facts are Win 7 will continue to strive for as close to 100% RAM usage as possible as this is the target efficiency curve.

not long ago i wouldve agreed with you, but since Win 7 64bit, what you are saying is not all together correct.

 

[Aastii]

Will say it again, 4GB, Win 7 x64, doing everything fine, no performance difference between this and 8GB. Benches, white papers and everything else mean jack, real world performance speaks for itself. Some point in the future, what I am saying will be wrong because programs will actually be using 4GB of memory, but until then, 4GB is enough

 

[2048Megabytes]

You guys are talking about 4 gigabytes of memory versus 8 gigabytes and here I am with 2 gigabytes of RAM. I wish I could afford 4 gigabytes of memory. Good thing the most demanding game I play is X Plane 9 right now.

 

[Amplified]

er.. can I get some help to enable my full 4GB though? LOL.

 

[Okedokey]

To the OP

Go here and check for updates.

You check this?

 

[S.T.A.R.S.]

er.. can I get some help to enable my full 4GB though? LOL.

Can you give me the number of your motherboard?
In the mean time,go in your BIOS and see if maybe you can enable the full RAM support in the case if options are disabled.Also be sure to NOT use MEMORY HOLE option lol.

To Mr. Aastii and Mr. Bigfella:

You are both right.Each one of you have different opinions,but they are both partially correct.So no reason to talk 4 GB of RAM vs 8 GB of RAM because 4 GB of RAM is plenty like Aastii said and also 8 GB of RAM is great like Bigfella said.
Here is the point:

Windows never uses as much as RAM as possible.It only uses as much as it needs.If it uses as much as RAM you have,then all your work you start doing would work like crap.Windows uses RAM as much as it needs and once it runs out of it,it will continue executing programs anyway by using all your used RAM plus adding more virtual RAM called PF (page file) which is the empty place on the HDD which Windows uses as the REST of the NEEDED "false" RAM in order to complete the execution no matter what is being executed.Once the programming code in the programs has been partially executed,Windows automatically optimizes the code and removes unneccessary things from RAM using so called GARBAGE COLLECTOR.As soon as Windows notices that there is finally some RAM available,it automatically continues the rest of the execution in your REAL RAM and terminates the PF in order to increase the peformance.Also the programs and games CONTINUE to execute,but once the execution of the code in programs and games reaches the certain level where some of the components such as STRINGS,INTS,CLASSES,CODE METHODS,GRAPHICS DRAWING and so on are no longer needed,Windows will automatically DISPOSE the managed and unmanaged code and remove it from RAM completely in order to increase the free RAM amount and therefore improve the speed and performance of OS,programs,games and so on.
However Windows CANNOT do everything by itself.The RAM usage also depends on how the program was programmed.For example...if the programmer made a program which does tons of things in the same time,but did NOT dispose in the code ANY of the parts which are no longer neccessary to execute,they will remain in RAM memory and therefore continue killing the performance for no reason and that results to more RAM being used then neccessary.In most cases Windows handles performance automatically,but there are many games and programs who's part of the code is many times written using unmanaged code such as API and if the programmer did not write to code to dispose the unneccessary unmanaged parts when they are no longer neccessary,they will remain in RAM and therefore eat your performance and that results to slower OS,slower programs execution and game lag and all the equals to MORE RAM being used than neccessary,and you can see that in the Task Manager.
Let me ask you.Do you think that it's possible to make big 3D programs for media and that their RAM usage is less than simple Notepad???
You probably think: "No it is not possible."
Well here is the real answer: "Yes it is possible."

I am a programmer for a long time and I also know one very good programmer who made 3D media center program which loads more then 10000 media files in 10 seconds,plays music,plays videos,surfs the internet and performs nice 3D effects ALL in the same time and guess what???The RAM usage of that 3D media center program is smaller then the simple Notepad RAM usage.
How did he manage to do that?Well the answer is simple.He has done tons of the optimizations on many code parts and always removes unneccessary things which in the SPECIFIC second are not neccessary at all and automatically frees up the RAM.

So...for example...if you have a simple program for viewing the images and it uses 15 MB of your RAM memory (which is too much by the way) then the program was not made well and the programmer did NOT dispose any of the unneccessary code when neccessary and therefore it stays in RAM all until the main thread of the program has been completely disposed (managed and unmanaged part) and once the program has been completely disposes THEN you finally get some free RAM.Windows usualy does all this for you,but now always,especially if the programmer mostly used unmanaged code.

So who ever tells me that 4 GB of RAM is not enough for the programs you are using and the games you are playing then the programs and games you are using are having bad written code with the crapy optimizations,crapy garbage collector usage and crapy disposes.Or maybe the programmer DID use that,only on the wrong places.It happens a lot believe it or not.Even to me and other programmers I know.

Now take my RAM for example.I have ONLY 512 MB of RAM DDR1.I also have about 30 background programs to start on Windows startup plus I am using other foreground programs in the same time such as video editing,programming,file compression and I am also playing a game such as Half-Life 2 Episode Two or Doom 3 or Crysis or F.E.A.R. (or whatever the game I am playing) ALL in the same time and guess what?My RAM usage is about 450 MB tops and nothing lags,nothing works slow and everything works perfectly.Of course if I really overreact then I might need more than 512 MB of RAM which is logical,but I will never play 5 games at once.
So as you see 512 MB of RAM can also be plenty if you know how to use it properly and everything will work with no lag at all.

So whoever tells me that 4 GB of RAM is "not bad" or that 2 GB of RAM is not good or that you must upgrade from 4 to 8 GB of RAM because your computer lags then go and kill your self lol.
(No offence to anyone of course)...




Cheers!

 

[Okedokey]

Unforutnately your understanding is outdated. You have both forgotten superfetch. SuperFetch speed ups booting your computer and launching applications as several benchmarks have proven, but a consequence of this is that you simply cannot rely on the "free" memory statistic - in fact, you should add up "cached" and "free", because there is no penalty for using cached memory; it frees up instantly when called upon, as if it were free memory. That's why, in Windows 7, Microsoft has changed the value from "cached" to "available". And that will increasingly be where you see Windows try to achieve as close to 100% RAM usage as possible. http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/02/behind-the-windows-7-memory-usage-scaremongering.ars This is essentially why you see many posts saying "my memory usage is too high" = its meant to be.

Long-time computer users are more familiar with the opposite: that hardware stays ahead of operating system requirements. "On current-generation hardware right out of the gate, Windows 7 is maxing out the resources. The old trend just isn't the case anymore.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9158258/Most_Windows_7_PCs_max_out_memory

"Windows 7 machines have almost twice as much memory to work with," said Barth, "but the numbers show just how much larger and more complex Windows 7 is than XP."

http://news.techworld.com/operating-systems/3212968/over-90-of-windows-7-pcs-max-out-on-memory/