1GB vs 2 GB RAM

R

risk1

Hi, all

I plan to buy a Dell Precision workstation with a Core 2 Duo CPU, and would appreciate some input on how much RAM to use.

Previously, I thought that 1 GB RAM would be more than adequate. However, I've recently read that it's a good idea having 1 GB RAM for each CPU or core for dual CPU or core PCs.

I run concurrently IB's TWS and Oanda's platforms (both Java-based), as well as Firefox and IE. No gaming. Win XP Pro is the OS.

If, in future, a third Java program is to be run at the same time, perhaps 2 GB RAM is a better bet, especially when there's already a resource hog like TWS?

Relevant article:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/memory/display/2gb-ram_9.html

"Another situation when 1GB of memory will not suffice for comfortable work is when there are several simultaneous tasks working with the memory. The dual-core processors that can process several computational threads at the same time very often push us towards this working algorithm. Why should we wait for the video encoding task or movie rendering task to be completed? We could easily do something else in the meanwhile, especially since CPUs based on dual-core architecture have more than enough resources for successful multi-tasking (without irritating delays) even if there are some resource-hungry applications running in the background."

Fair comments in the passage quoted above?

Your thoughts , please!
 
you can figure out your required RAM easily. Here's how:

First, load up all the programs you described above.

On the charting program: open all the symbols you plan to track.

On the FireFox: Open as many tabs as you would needed on a busy day. (because each tab takes up additional memory.)

then:
Open your Windows Task Manager,
go to the Performance tab,
look under Commit Charge.
Look at the Total number.

Make sure this is no more than 75% of your RAM size.


p.s. RAMs are so cheap these day. Why do you even worry?
 
Why bother with Core 2 Duo? when you can get 64x2 ?

I am not trying to start WW3 here.

Here's my rationale:

We always have high demand on our software and hardware. Sooner or later, we will run into the 2 GB RAM limitation of the current 32bit Windows environment. (this is easily done when you are running multiple charting windows, and if each window is tracking multiple symbols in real time, and if each graph has umpteem indicators tacked to its back. Plus browsers, chat room, etc.)

My thought is, won't 64x2 a better bet than a 32x2?

I would like to hear your thoughts.



disclaimer: I do not own any AMD or INTC shares.
 
Quote from Tums:

Why bother with Core 2 Duo? when you can get 64x2 ?



My thought is, won't 64x2 a better bet than a 32x2?

I would like to hear your thoughts.



disclaimer: I do not own any AMD or INTC shares.
More...


But core 2 duo is 2x64 bit processor.
What are you talking about?
 
Quote from Tums:

you can figure out your required RAM easily. Here's how:

First, load up all the programs you described above.

On the charting program: open all the symbols you plan to track.

On the FireFox: Open as many tabs as you would needed on a busy day. (because each tab takes up additional memory.)

then:
Open your Windows Task Manager,
go to the Performance tab,
look under Commit Charge.
Look at the Total number.

Make sure this is no more than 75% of your RAM size.


p.s. RAMs are so cheap these day. Why do you even worry?
More...


Mine says - Total 451240, Limit 2518560, Peak 462720

Hows that ?
 
Quote from Joab:

Mine says - Total 451240, Limit 2518560, Peak 462720

Hows that ?
More...

that means your current session is using 451MB of memory.
Even at the peak level, you were only using 462MB.
i.e. 1GB of memory is plenty for your operation.
 
Tums, I don't know much about the architecture of Windows kernel specifically, but in general I don't think your rule of thumb is good. Most operating systems, and I assume Windows kernel as well, uses uncommitted pages as an IO buffer cache. This can vastly speed up your system since it doesn't go to the hard drive as often.

I think more RAM is generally the most cost effective upgrade you can make, as long as it fits on your motherboard. People focus a lot on a few percent differences in CPU performance when in practice the CPU spends most of its time waiting for IO and cache misses.

Martin
 
Quote from Sparohok:

Tums, I don't know much about the architecture of Windows kernel specifically, but in general I don't think your rule of thumb is good. Most operating systems, and I assume Windows kernel as well, uses uncommitted pages as an IO buffer cache. This can vastly speed up your system since it doesn't go to the hard drive as often.

I think more RAM is generally the most cost effective upgrade you can make, as long as it fits on your motherboard. People focus a lot on a few percent differences in CPU performance when in practice the CPU spends most of its time waiting for IO and cache misses.

Martin
More...

Not true. Lots of studies have been done about amounts of RAM in Windows (some even show that excess RAM SLOWS the computer due to "increased latency").

Tums is right on this one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top