512 to 1024 memory upgrade?

[waynezo]

I am thinking of adding another stick of 512mb of pc3200 memory to my system. I am doing video editing and dvd burning. What kind of performance increase should i expect from this upgrade? Will it increase speed for converting dv-avi files to mpeg-2?

[lordsmurf]

Probably none. It's all about CPU.

[Suntan]

I agree with lordsmurf, although I am not an expert. I notice that when crunching DVD to DivX with Vdub the CPU is pegged at 100%, but the memory used (by Vdub) is only around 50 meg out of 512. Which means that about 350 to 400 meg is not being used at all (with XP hogging the rest for no good reason.)

I would assume mpg2 conversion would be similar.

[Gazorgan]

I upgraded form 256 MB 133 Mhz Sdram to 512 MB 266 DDR RAM and had no increase in encoding speed. The bottleneck is always the processor. This is why Celerons can encode faster than most people think, despite the crippled bus speed.

You still want 512 MB minimum, it matters in other areas (like gaming). 256 MB is enough to boot XP, but not enough to do anything useful :P

[sitlet]

yeah, i say that 512 is perfect for doing anything in windows xp. anything more than that is not really needed

[gcutler]

It is all about how much memory is required to boot your OS, and all those little apps in your system tray.

Win2000 or XP take around 100MB to 120MB (respectively) just to boot. On my system with XP and anti-virus and other apps I am using 135MB. So pretty much everything else is gravy.

128MB would be all swallowed up just booting OS, just say no to 128MB.

256MB leaves around 100MB+ for running applications, this can be eaten up by large applications (and/or poorly desitgned applications), it can be a personal preference if you want/need more (I'd say on average it is cutting close and would want 512MB for more safety net before hitting major swap file usage...)

512MB+ leaves 350MB+ for apps and I think chances are your encoding of authoring would use up all your CPU way before your memory was close to used up.

Now some applications will take advantage of more ram (usually they will inform you) and the next version of MS Office will probably suck up more ram so that 512MB may be a limitation.

Unless the additional cost of memory is cheap and you don't want to go digging into the machine to upgrade in the future, the sweet spot for PCs is 512MB. Now if I was buying a new machine, and they offered me an additonal 512MB (for 1GB total) for $100 I might take it just knowing I would probably be covered just in case

[johns0]

i would add another 512mb which i did,it adds better performance in that progs open faster when multitasking and quicker response when working with big files

[Mxbubs]

I have 1024 megs of ram........NO BIG DEAL.

It doesnt help much when encoding, authoring, editing video.......The real key is CPU, or processor speed. I have a 2.4 anthlon, and wish I had a 3 gig.....

Spend your money on a processor, not ram.

[theDruid]

512mb is adequate for 2K/XP at the moment - I agree that there probably will come a day soon when more would give a performance boost, but unless you're doing something pretty unusual, it's not here yet.

The only thing I have ever seen come close to using all the 512mb I have in my PC is DVD2SVCD with CCE.

I've always thought that encoding is so number-crunching intensive that the CPU is the bottleneck, and RAM doesn't really come into it, so I was surprised to see CCE (in a multipass VBR encode) swallow up aroung 300mb.

However, the system still didn't have to resort to page file - so I'm in no hurry at all to splash out on extra RAM - I think it's overkill at the moment.

By the time we need it, it'll be cheaper anyway (unless you upgrade to the fastest DDR etc..)

If you monitor your system (task manager, and then performace and/or processes) while it's doing some demanding things (encoding, handling a huge doc or pdf), you'll see whether you ever get close to using up all your RAM.

If there's always a bit of headroom, an upgrade would not be of any benefit.

johns0 - I'd be interested to know what you do on your PC that makes you need 1gig of RAM. Have you tried monitoring the system as above?

I have a feeling some of the performace gain you've noted may be psychological. No offense intended mate.

As we've already said, that extra 512mb might well get used with the next release of M$ Office etc.. (did someone mention badly written programs using up lots of memory?!) but I doubt it ever gets touched just now.

cheers,
mcdruid.

[Hardcoreruss]

I just upgraded a fortnight a go. Windows runs a bit quicker and programs open faster but no real change in encoding speeds.

[gcutler]

i would add another 512mb which i did,it adds better performance in that progs open faster when multitasking and quicker response when working with big files

Only when all the programs you are running use up more than 512MB total. And to be honest with the CPU usage while encoding, you should probably not be "Multitasking" as that will just increase your encoding time (or better just make your multitasking time less efficient).

Closing unnecessary programs is often more efficient than spending money to go from 512MB to 1.0GB

[Gazorgan]

CCE and Bittorrent appear are RAM hogs. Bittorrent in the form of cache and CCE with internal cache. Some programs will use every thing you have, use task manager sometime to view what's where. The numbers never add up, the difference is in system cache.

More ram means re-launching programs is quicker.

[birdygal]

Does that apply to P4 with hyperthreading I ran across one post forgot where that they need 2 chips instead of one. I just built a new Computer P4 2.8G H T and I am only using one stick of 512 ram I know tempgenc encodes alot faster on the HT than my laptop which is 2.8Ghz with a 533 Mhz bus but then I also use an external drive on the laptop which may slow it down some anyway.

[NightWing]

The only real catch on going from 512mb to 1024mb is your OS.

If your running 9x/ME DONT DO IT!. Top limit is around 752mb.

If running W2k or Xp ok.

[SIRCOOKS]

damn...and i though it was going to make a real difference when i first installed my second 512 ddr ram stick.....but i am at p4 2.0, ...so what yall saying is if i upgrade to p4 3.2ghz, i should see a difference..holla back

[K(c)offee]

It would help alot with editing really large movies I would think. No swap file use or very little. But doubt would help with encoding.

[holistic]

The only real catch on going from 512mb to 1024mb is your OS.
If your running 9x/ME DONT DO IT!. Top limit is around 752mb. ..

Wrong : http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;304943

Settings for WindoZe 98
1GB RAM : Limiting VCache IS ESSENTIAL (Win98, SE, Me, 95)

Enter the lines in this color in the [VCACHE] section of SYSTEM.INI

Mainly games usage:
minfilecache=131072
maxfilecache=131072
You can try lower but a gain is unlikely (increase/decrease in steps of 2048).

Mixed usage:
minfilecache=131072 (or do not set it)
maxfilecache=491520

Mainly Windows/Applications usage:
maxfilecache=522240 (MaxFileCache should not exceed 524,288). No MinFileCache

All Users:
When you are satisfied with the VCache size, you can add the following lines under the above:
chunksize=2048
namecache=4096
directorycache=96
Note: If you ARE setting a MaxFileCache and have more than 128MB RAM, then you should first try limiting MaxFileCache to about 70% of total RAM. MaxFileCache should not exceed 512MB.
• Read ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1 (limit paging if RAM >96MB & there's little/no paging).

][

[holistic]

Ignore "Enter the lines in this color " .... am tired ... not paying attention.

[NightWing]

The catch is this. Its a workaround NOT a solution as MS state at that page. I have seen on too many systems that had 1GB, even with "limit" set, still leave a possible shaky system when running 9x/ME.

Better off with 768MB total if using 9x/ME. { 256MB + 512MB sticks ) You dont wast any ram/money. It keep it stable without using the "Workaround". And is plenty for a 9x/ME based system. If I had the choise of lot of ram/shakey/workaround or less ram/stable system, its not hard for me to pick which one.

If you want to use more memory and be stable, then change the OS over to XP or even W2k. They will give better usage of ram without workarounds.

Back to thread
waynezo. If you dont mind, what exactly is your current HW/SW setup? Not capture but basic OS/CPU/HD etc.

[slnorth]

BRAVO! waynezo You asked the question well and got great answers I've been looking for also. I had thought I had to work on the video card end when mine burned up but this old 16mb voodoo banshee is hanging in there. I have an upgrade stick of ram in the mail from Tigerdirect with a great rebate but am going to send it back now.

Thank you all for those great posts

I now must return to figuring out why Pinnacle 8 worked so well before I registered and downloaded an upgrade and why it thinks my winXP is a win2k and I can't insert stills in my video project.

(*)(%$&^&(%)(*&)*&@$$!$$)*$%$@!