Cost of Memory

Saurian

Saurian

Member
So, the cost of DDR2 memory has skyrocketed, no? When will the prices come back down to more reasonable levels. As it takes its place as the "primary" memory and DDR fades back a bit, how much longer till the prices fall accordingly. I want to make my upgrade, but the memory being so expensive is enough to make me want to stick with what I've got longer.

Thoughts? Opinions?

Almost enough to make me stick with DDR and get DDR500 Ballistix memory.
 
I don't know when it will come back down, but I bought 2GB of DDR2-667 for $215 CAD, the next day they were close to $300 CAD, that was about a month ago and the prices haven't really gone anywhere after that raise
 
Unless you really need gigabytes of memory, then I would not get anymore than 256 MB.

The problem is that most DDR2 memory is not available in less than 512 MB.
So, you have no choice but to pay more, for what you do not need.

Win 2000, for example, can run on 64 MB.
 
Yeah, and Win 3.1 can run on 16 or less. What's your point? XP needs a minimum of 512 to run well, Vista should really have 1GB. So it isn't like you don't need it.
 
Haha.

My comp has 512. Vista eats up 400 of the 500 megabytes of ram, and has 700 megabytes of page file on the hard disk. Obviously, at least a gig is needed minimum for Vista.

And yes, I do want Gigabytes. :) 2, eventually. :)

It's just rediculous that I could have bought some ram like 3 months ago for 2/3 the price. Blah, damn C2D.
 
It will drop soon just wait, the holiday season should increase sales and drop prices on a lot of electronics.....

hopefully


I am building a new C2D system as well. Haven't decided if I will go SLI or XFire yet, but I definitely want one or the other. I just hope memory prices come down soon because video cards ain't cheap either, and I am not made of money!
 
Vid cards ought to drop a decent amount with G80 releasing in November. Should push down the ceiling of hi perf 7-series.
 
SirKenin said:
Yeah, and Win 3.1 can run on 16 or less. What's your point? XP needs a minimum of 512 to run well, Vista should really have 1GB. So it isn't like you don't need it.
Click to expand...


I've been using Win XP for several years.
It runs very well with 256 MB. More than enough.

Look at this link.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/upgrading/sysreqs.mspx

95% of users don't need lots of memory to do what they need.
99% of them don't realize it. That is the point.

I agree about Win Vista. This will be one needless memory hog.
 
I support windows XP for a living. I can tell you right now every single work station/laptop in my whole school district (about 10,000 computers minus 7% mac population) all run with the minimum of 512mb of ram.

256mb of ram performs like crap
 
XFs said:
Unless you really need gigabytes of memory, then I would not get anymore than 256 MB.

The problem is that most DDR2 memory is not available in less than 512 MB.
So, you have no choice but to pay more, for what you do not need.

Win 2000, for example, can run on 64 MB.
Click to expand...

So you think that a mid/high end gaming machine should only have 256MB of RAM because Windows can run off of only that?
 
XFs said:
Unless you really need gigabytes of memory, then I would not get anymore than 256 MB.

The problem is that most DDR2 memory is not available in less than 512 MB.
So, you have no choice but to pay more, for what you do not need.

Win 2000, for example, can run on 64 MB.
Click to expand...

Yea, and Windows 2000 is slow as hell on 64MB. It's slow enough on 384MB.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top