1024gb would be freaking nuts. How about mb or megabytes.

I use 512 myself and it never gets maxed out, I usually have 39% to spare.

 

lol GB would be nutz :eyemove:

 

Well that depends on the OS/eyecandy. For xp it should be more than 256mb. 512 is about right for most. However if you find yourself running lots of large programs similtaniously then consider more.

 

512MB is good enough for XP, but 1024MB is future proof, and if I had the choice of 2x512MB or 2x256MB for a new PC now, I'd go for the former (I'm taking Dual-Channel into account here). Even on my (slow ATM) 768MB I have now, I can run any RAM-intensive snizzle I want. RAM is a good upgrade since it boosts performance at a cheap price. Try to get fast RAM though, it limits future upgrades to get the slower modules (I price I have to pay right now)

 

I was planning on getting 2x512mb sticks, right now I have 2x256mb. So I will have a total of 1536... Is that overboard for what I run?

I dont want to spend more then needed. But RAM is an important upgrade I guess :heh:

 

You will be able to open more files and larger ones to edit with photoshop if you have 1gig of ram. Better make sure your mobo has 4 dim slots first. Else, just use the 2x512.

 

And also make sure it can use all four slots, some only have four incase one slot fails.

 

I had to go back to 256 a while back, and the difference was surprising. 512 should really be the minimum now with 768 or a gig being useful for futureproofing and increased performance. Much above that is a little pointless at the mo IMO.

 

256 is the minimum standard now, while 512 is the 1337er standard. Which I have.

 

No, 512 is the norm now. I have 768MB, whoop-de-do. I've seen a few people with 2048MB months ago.

 

512 should be fine for just about everything, never had any memory bottlenecks or slowdowns, if your skeptical, get 768.

 

yeah 512 is really a need today... but I still have 256mb of ram...

cause im totally broke this days... im goin to buy alot of things...

 

IMO get 512, that's perfectly fine for 99% of stuff. i use Adobe Premiere a lot, so i got 1024...but for now get 512 and if you need more later, it will be cheaper later on.

....never run with 128 or less, my god my other comp has a 800mhz celly with 128ram....good lord

 

256 is the minimum standard now, while 512 is the 1337er standard. Which I have.

Do you have 1337 OCZ PC2700 DDR @ 400mhz(3200 sp33dz0rs) with 11-3-2-2 timings(11 for the nvidia nforce memory matrix flaw) WITH heatspreaders?

 

512 is the bare minimum you want nowadays, a gig if you want some kickin performance...but 512 should be fine for anything at the moment (just about)

 

512 is minimum in my opinion nowadays. sure 256 is good for playing games at the bare minimum. but games like ut2k3 and battlefield really likes the extra ram.

playing with photoshop, i found no difference in performance between 256- 768MB of memory.

 

More memory really does help for multi-tasking. With 256MB RAM, stuff like WinAMP can skip when you load up your internet browser. With 512+, you can do several things at once without any crashes or slowdowns. I find this particularly useful, although I'm not the heaviest of multi-taskers.

 

so many things to buy... i think i'll buy one next wik... i stil lhave 2 slots free... so maybe a 256mb would do for now...

 

It really depends on what you do and how much your system requires. If you find your computer resources becoming scarce or programs thrashing a lot then you might want to take more RAM into consideration. A good way to check RAM usage is Windows Task Manager. If after a day's work the System Cache and Commit Charge peak are at or above your physical RAM count then you need more RAM. If not then don't worry about it.

 

you won't need more that 512MB if your a hardcore gamer.....you only notice so much difference.

I can get away with 384MB...I usually always have 50% free during idle times

 

I am suprised no one mentioned the swap-file factor:

When I was running 512mb, I would occasionally run out of memory. Windows would do its annoying pop-up, and enable virtual memory and chew up 1GB of disk space. For super-large disks, thats fine. I however feel that 2 40GB disks set up as a dynamic volume is more than adequate. Now that I am at 1024mb, I have never needed to enable virtual memory. However if you have a program that REQUIRES virtual memory, remember your optimal swap size is at least twice to three times your amount of RAM, so if you have 1024mb of RAM, windows will default to a 2048mb swap file.

 

I agree alot with Demigod...... Check it first then, if necessary, buy the needed amount.
BTW, I still have 512MB and it's large enough for all my uses (DVD Authoring, Games, Audio,......). I rarely open more than 5 simultaneous apps and I reduced the numbers of active services.

 

I am suprised no one mentioned the swap-file factor:

True.... if you plan to increase ur RAM, don't forget to re-adjust the swap file to 1,5 the RAM size... Windows will not do it for you.....

 

forget readjust. If you are running a gig af RAM, just turn the da mn thing off.

 

More memory really does help for multi-tasking. With 256MB RAM, stuff like WinAMP can skip when you load up your internet browser. With 512+, you can do several things at once without any crashes or slowdowns. I find this particularly useful, although I'm not the heaviest of multi-taskers.

i had 256 for a really long time, i never encountered this in an winnt environment when multitasking, in fact... i don't think i've ever encountered any skipping, i have winamp on all the time and never once did it skip.

only happens when i'm in a win9x environment though.