Vista and RAM: How much do you really need?

[Opinicus]

Is there any consensus on this?

And what about graphics cards?

 

[Mike Brannigan]

Is there any consensus on this?

And what about graphics cards?

The minimum is of public record - anything above that is up to you.
The same goes for graphics cards.
You should base your system configuration on YOUR requirements in
terms of applications you intend to run etc.
So the answer ranges from 500MB to multiple TB on x64 systems.
There is no point in asking for a typical system etc as again one
persons system may not be suitable for your requirements.
(all of the above is relevant for graphics cards to - in entirely
depends on your requirements)

 

[David Hearn]

I have 1GB RAM + 128MB on graphics card and it's pretty good (on Athlon
XP 3000+). I've also got a 2GB ReadyBoost drive set up though (not bad
for £20 when both memory slots are full and would cost £140+ to buy
2x1GB sticks, leaving me with 2x512MB sticks which I can't use)

Building or buying a new PC? Go with 2GB minimum, and ensure you've got
spare slots free (ie. don't go with 4x512MB, rather 2x1GB if you've got
4 slots).

If you've already got a machine which is full of 1GB RAM - then you'll
probably be okay, but more the merrier.

I guess more graphics RAM is better too, but 128MB hasn't been a problem
for me.

Thanks

D

 

[Mike Brannigan]

Opinicus,

Charlie Russell, MVP, is the Guru of Vista, his suggestion that "1.5
gigs
RAM is
the "sweet spot" for main memory." is most accurate.

From my personal experiences using Vista on several machines; 1.0
Gig RAM
performs great; 2.0 Gig RAM performs excellent. So, that renders the
1.5 Gig
RAM as the sweet spot.

For a wise shopper, the financial expense between 1.5 and 2.0 Gig
RAM is
minimal.

As I said however this is a purely subjective area and the "1.5GB
sweet spot" as you and Charlie call it is totally unsuitable (too
small) for some of the work I do and this may be the case for other
users. We should all be extremely careful when making sweeping
generalisations - users should buy the system specification
appropriate for THEIR workloads and not really too heavily on generic
statements.
It is all about workload.

 

[Dennis Pack]

Carlos:
I won't tell Charlie, but you mis-spelled his last name. Have a
great day.

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

If you power on your computer and the lights don't dim, add more ram. The
Vista Get Ready site has links to the video card manufacturer's website
where Aero compatible cards are listed. Without knowing how you use your
computer no one can advise you. Different usage profiles suggest different
solutions.

 

[Richard Urban]

Sweet Spot = the point at which the addition of additional RAM makes little
to no difference in system performance.

If you are getting better performance with 2 gig of RAM, as opposed to 1.5
gig of RAM, then 1.5 gig is not the sweet spot for your computer.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

 

[Mike Brannigan]

Sweet Spot = the point at which the addition of additional RAM makes
little to no difference in system performance.

If you are getting better performance with 2 gig of RAM, as opposed
to 1.5 gig of RAM, then 1.5 gig is not the sweet spot for your
computer.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Sorry for the repetition - but your sweet spot entirely depends on the
workload.
This is pretty much a redundant conversation unless someone wants to
talk about a specific workload. If you turn on Vista and want to watch
the screen saver then the system min spec is your sweet spot - if you
want to manipulate massive memory mapped files etc then your sweetspot
will be different.
Anyone making any statement about memory sweetspots without specifics
on the workload is making effectively pointless statements

 

[Roscoe]

Opinicus,

Charlie Russell, MVP, is the Guru of Vista, his suggestion that "1.5 gigs
RAM is
the "sweet spot" for main memory." is most accurate.

From my personal experiences using Vista on several machines; 1.0 Gig RAM
performs great; 2.0 Gig RAM performs excellent. So, that renders the 1.5
Gig
RAM as the sweet spot.

For a wise shopper, the financial expense between 1.5 and 2.0 Gig RAM is
minimal.

Have you taken classes in being a moron, or is it just something that comes
naturally?

 

[Garth H]

even if 1.5GB is the "sweet spot" 2GB is what a typical consumer should
be looking for.

Why? because 1.5 requires 3 x 512 MB or one 1GB and one 512MB module,
which actually reduces system performance because neither configuration
supports dual memory channels.

If you're doing data modeling, high end graphics, autocad, solid works,
maya, 3dstudio max or other high end workstation type tasks then more
ram is better. Up to the 4GB max for 32 bit, or "how big is your wallet"
GB for 64 bit.

Video cards? check the vista read list.

--
Garth H
(e-mail address removed)
Microsoft Certified Technology Specialist
Microsoft Certified Professional
Macromedia Certified Developer

 

[Erik Funkenbusch]

even if 1.5GB is the "sweet spot" 2GB is what a typical consumer should
be looking for.

Why? because 1.5 requires 3 x 512 MB or one 1GB and one 512MB module,
which actually reduces system performance because neither configuration
supports dual memory channels.

Uhh.. what about 2x512 and 2x256?

 

[Erik Funkenbusch]

Is there any consensus on this?

It depends on the apps you plan to run. 512MB is fine if you're going to
run Vista Home Basic with simple apps like Office or simple games.

If you're a hard core gamer, you'd probably want 4GB because games are
becoming more and more memory hungry, and Vista Ultimate idles at about
800MB (though it will reduce the resources it uses if you have less
memory). DirectX 10 games will likely use a lot more memory than DX9
games.

If you do a lot of work with media, like editing videos or using photoshop,
you'll also likely want at at least 2GB, as these applications can be
memory hungry.

Vista itself uses more memory than XP did, but regardless, you still have
to take into account the kinds of applications you plan to use and their
memory requirements.

And what about graphics cards?

Again, depends on your needs. A hard core gamer probably wants the latest
nVidia 8800 GTX (though no vista drivers will be available until the end of
hte month). If you're an occasional gamer, and don't care about the best
performance, you'll do fine with any middle of the road video card for sale
today.

If you already have a video card, make sure it has at least 128MB of either
shared or dedicated video memory to use Vista's Aero Glass user interface.
These are not that expensive, with cheap models as little as $50.

You have to ask yourself, what your price for performance level is. If you
want cheap, you can get by pretty well cheap. But if you want absolute
best performance, it will cost you.

 

[Stan Kay]

Thanks for the feedback about RAM size. My machine has 4 Gb of memory. The
bios recognises 4 Mb but Vista states that I have 3 Mb. So, I guess that I
have satisfied the "sweet spot" requirement and the problem lies elsewhere.
The error messages I get (about every 2 second or so) ALL releate to the
Intel 82801 HR/HH/HO SATA raid controller and specifically state that
iaStorV.sys (an Intel driver) "did not respond within the timeout period".
I assume this means that I do NOT have a memory issue and that the problem
is a conflict between iaStorV.sys and the bios version 0903 supplied with
the Asus P5B deluxe motherboard. However, I hasten to add that I cannot
confirm this as I cannot find any references to this issue on the web sites
of either Asus or Intel and am not aware that anyone else has experienced
the same problem.

I presume I shall have to wait for the problem to be resolved.