Is there any advantage to having more than 512Megs of RAM?

[joeAgain------]

I don't know which area to ask this. But thought that possibly conversion would be the best place since I think it is resource intensive.

My new XP computer came the a multiGig CPU, but only 256Meg of RDRAM.

I need to make a decision quickly about how much RAM to increase it to for personal reasons.

SO, is there any really benefit in video work to having more than 512? (my other option is 768Meg because of my Motherboard and RDRAM system) I guess I could afford it, but would rather use the extra money for more than 512 in other ways if there wasn't much real benefit.

What does everybody think, please.

thank you

[El Torro]

sure it's good, programs are getting more and more heavy for your comp, so, more ram = a faster comp

btw, conversion is about converting all sorts of movies into other types of movies... eg: Avi -> mpeg => newbie or general 's be a better forum

[Epi]

Just Remember What Bill Gates Said:

PC's will never use more than 640k of RAM

If you have the money and the price is right, go for it.

-Epi

[tgpo]

One word: Ram Drive.....no wait
Two Words: Ram Drive

[Greydog]

I have one computer running an XP 1.7, Abit Kg7a and 1gig of Crucial 2100 ecc ram. My other machine has an XP 2.0, MSI KT3 ultra with 512mb of 2700 Crucial ram. The hard drives are all equal and I have tried Win 2000 and XP on both machines. I make home movies using Premier 6.5, backup movies with DVD2SVCD /TMPGEnc and backup movies with DVD X Copy. I don't see a significant difference between either machine. It does seem I can load more images in Paint Shop Pro 7. Gues it doesn't hurt to have more ram but I'm not rushing out to add more to my XP 2.0 system.

[joeAgain------]

what is a RAM Drive, Tgpo?

that would cost more than the $90 it would cost me to increase my RDRAM from 512 to 768, wouldn't it?

[tgpo]

It basically turns part of your ram into a hard drive. Programs can access the information much faster than your regular HD. It's useful under certain conditions.

[ZippyP.]

conversion .... since I think it is resource intensive.

Conversion is CPU intensive not Ram intensive. Going beyond 512 Gb won't speed up conversion noticibly but it may have some use in other applications. If you're on a budget don't bother.

[joeAgain------]

that can't be much storage though, right?

I typically work with multiGig video files and do a pretty good amount of rendering. Would it or more RDRAM be good for that?

I'm looking for speed and to make that and other video processing easier on my computer recourses.

??

[ZippyP.]

An extra 256Mb won't give a Ram drive big enough to put on Giga size video files, so I think that's out. Like Greydog said, if you have multiple files open, or multiple programs, it can speed things up. The OS (windows) can store and retrieve info from memory which is faster than swapping from the hard drive. If you intend to have multiple projects open at the same time, while you change back and forth, then it might be worth it. I don't think it will change rendering times at all. Your choice.

p.s You might want to read this thread: https://www.videohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=146002

[tgpo]

The new Macs support 2GB of DDR Ram. So you could have a 1.5 GB Ram drive if you wanted. Like I said, It's not useful to everyone, but it is an option.

[antoniosgubba]

Ignore me if I'm wrong here...but doesn't RDRAM have to be installed in pairs?...if this is the case you wouldn't be able to install an extra 512 on it's own anyway...either an extra 256 to match the one you've already got...or ditch the 256 and get 2 512s to make 1024...I'd just get another 256 personally.

[mrdisky]

If you're on a budget don't bother.

I would agree with this, Games, multiple applications, and manipulating large images in memory is where you would see the most performance increase.

For an average pc user 256 mb is sufficient. If you have some spair cash and can afford it, go ahead.. One thing to consider is, its a good chance that a few months down the road, the Rdram will probably be much more attractively priced...

[gcutler]

THere is an easy way to test it, either load Performance Monitor if they have it or do CTRL-Alt-Del and bring up Windows Task Manager(Performance Tab) and see how much pysical memory is being used (it stays in forground) do everything you normally do (edit, burn DVDs, encode) If you have physical memory available during those processes then you don't need more memory. Some programs will take as much memory as you have so the results can be skewed.

I'm a big fan of 512MB+, as right now on XP Home, all I have loaded is IE 6, but have resident Anti-Virus, Intellipoint Mouse drivers, Roxio Drag To Disc, HP Deskjet Toolbox and I'm using up 215MB of my 512. If I load my DV editor with nothing in it, and I'm using 250MB, Up to 270MB with my DVD authoring tool with nothing in it. For my needs above 512 probably won't help me. But 256 would be hurting me now. Oh, forgot, takes 196MB just to boot up my XP with all drivers and such (with tight control on apps in system tray)

[jarvis1781]

@antoniosgubba

actually he can easily get an additional 512mb by adding a pair of 256mb sticks

i have an RDRAM system myself and the only requirement is that the RAM be installed in pairs and the pairs within themselves have to be identical.

so slots 1&2 could have 2x128=256 and slots 3&4 could have 2x256=512

256+512=768mb

[antoniosgubba]

yeah thats right, 768 is possible....as I said, ignore me if I'm wrong! lol

[lukesjr]

actually the truth about ram is, incremental increase in performance but not linear. what i mean is that when you go from 64mb to 256mb, you get a significant increase, like 80% or something, its alot. but when you go from 256 to 512, you only gain like 10%, approximately, i dont know the exact number but it is alot less. and the increase from 512 to 1gig, is only like 4%. so if you have the money to burn, get your 4%, but if you dont, dont get the ram.

but,
there is one additional performance tweak that you can do when you do have a gig of ram. you can set your pagefile.sys, to 0mb, which forces windows to load your entire pagefile into ram, vice to your harddrive, which is obviously much faster, and gives a fairly significant performance increase. but you need a gig for it to work well.

[alucard2050]

lukesjr- how do you set the pagefile to 0?? and what kind of increase should i see? also, i went from 256ddr to 512ddr to 1024ddr...i agree with not much notice in performance...encodes are a little faster but not much at all...the one major difference i notice is i am able to run more programs at the same time without bogging down my system...if i can find gig sticks for less than $600 then i'll be a happy camper......

[Greg12]

You shouldn't set ur page file to 0 because if u run out of ram u will blue screen.


I would recomind Tweak XP. Set it to "force windows to load into RAM" and limit the page file.

[joeAgain------]

Thans, everyone.

So, it looks like the consencious is that 512 is kind of a "sweet spot" that wouldn't be significantly improved on, unless I was able to afford 1Gig (and make some settings changes or make a Ram Drive)?

Am I reading this right?
(when I do my video work, I never do anything else on the computer until that process is completed....no multitasking during those times)

[ZippyP.]

Am I reading this right?

I think you're right on!

[lukesjr]

control panel/system/advanced/performance/settings/advanced/virtual memory/change/custom size

then set both initial and max to 0. and despite what was said, it wont cause you to blue screen.