2 Gigs of RAM

[Viper22]

How much difference would I expect installing 2 gigabytes of RAM into my PC, going up from 512MB?  Im not just talking flight sim, but also other games like battlefield 2, and switching between programs and stuff.

Thanks.

[congo]

RAM doesn't "do" anything, it's temporary storage space for data.

If the apps you use require more ram than you have, you'll benefit from more.

I feel that 2gb of ram is a little bit of overkill unless you run specific apps that need over 1gb.

Still, if you can afford it, why not? It's bound to be of some use sooner or later.

Some people report amazing benefits after installing 2gb of ram, I can only think they have so much junk running on their PC's that their system must be starving for headroom.

[legoalex2000]

ditto, what is the main use for the extra, lets say 1 gb of ram you will have?

Ramos

[Weather_Man]

512 to 1GB would give a noticable improvement across the board for nearly everything you do in WinXP and gaming, mainly in responsiveness (in windows/apps) and stuttering (in games). Adding RAM does not increase FPS in games except when replaced with lower latency modules. Even then, the increase is not usually noticable (1-3 FPS). What you will see with 1GB is shorter load times and possible alleviation of stutter/micro freezes caused by HDD access during the game.

1GB  to 2GB would yield little to no improvement except in certain circumstances. Very few games to date utilize greater than 1GB, BF2 being one. Don't have it to test, but that's what I hear. FS9 hovers around 750MB usage on my PC with max settings, Il2/FB/PF around 900-1000MB. Only certain applications like video/sound editing or very large database apps or servers would exceed 1GB and benefit from 2GB (or multiple apps open, combined usage).

Certain chipset/motherboard models may actually lose slight performance when exceeding 1GB or when using 4 DIMMS. Some require reduced speed setting with 4 DIMMS in use (ex.: DDR400 must be set to DDR333), or it may induce added latency due to increased overhead required for memory management.

I know some people will swear by their 2GB in their machines, but I do not recommend it. Unless you have special circumstances, it's wasted money. I do, however, highly recommend 1GB. No more, no less.

That's my opinion/experience, for what it's worth.  I'm not taking into account Windows Vista, FS10 and other hardware/software we don't have yet. Things obviously change and 2GB may well be the standard in the near future. Not, IMO, with any machine bought before next April. lol

[candle_86]

Ok 2gb has an advantage most don't know who havnt used a copy of Vista. On my 64bit computer I noticed a serious increase in loadig times, and stutter on games I have had it before on, aka HL2.  If you inted to upgrade to Vista in November then I would strongly recomend everyone to get 2gb, Vista uses about 512mb with all the features turned on. And turning of Aero wont help, only disabling glass does. Areo is so much better intergrated into the OS than Luna was on XP that you gain very little in go to classic. 2gb is a worthy upgrade if you intend to use Vista.