Bridging the Gap

I have no idea what you guys are talking about. I run 6 GB of RAM with an i7 and have never went above 2.5 GB of memory usage. I run Symantec Corporate and SpyBot besides 4 gadgets, TS3, FF W/multiple tabs, and 2 games at the same time and still won't go above that. 12 GB is overkill you will never utilize it, well at least with today's applications. I run this gadget that shows core usage and memory usage on a separate monitor 24/7 so I'm not just making up numbers like it seems that some of you are. If anyone is interested it can be downloaded here:

Windows Live Gallery
 
Just so Soulzz can see what I mean I opened 60, yes 60 new tabs in firefox 4 to show the memory usage in Win7. Mind you I only have a few background apps running but this further enforces that your claim about needing 6g more of memory for web surfing is pure bullshit.

5701429314_90b6b18e34_b.jpg
 
Soldier4Real said:
I have no idea what you guys are talking about. I run 6 GB of RAM with an i7 and have never went above 2.5 GB of memory usage. I run Symantec Corporate and SpyBot besides 4 gadgets, TS3, FF W/multiple tabs, and 2 games at the same time and still won't go above that. 12 GB is overkill you will never utilize it, well at least with today's applications. I run this gadget that shows core usage and memory usage on a separate monitor 24/7 so I'm not just making up numbers like it seems that some of you are. If anyone is interested it can be downloaded here:

Windows Live Gallery
Click to expand...

orly7.jpg


desktop.jpg
 
Well I opened firefox 4 i answered a PM, I read a news article I watched a video on youtube then loaded up meebo. I then went to about:blank after closing the only other tab open. After all this light web browsing I am now using 209 MB of ram for firefox, I went to post this in a second tab and now its using 237. An extra blank tab no more usage... then loaded up engadget for a new total of 276 MB.

Prior to posting this I closed the blank and engadget tab and now am using 232 MB of ram for firefox. (One less tab then before and erased some prior info stored in that tab is why its a few mb less). Yes 6GB of ram for browsing alone is a bit crazy, No the current 4.0.1 doesn't use 1GB of ram after starting up for me. Yes if you view enough pages despite all the memory that does get freed you can still infinitely waste ram. Its sure a hell of alot better than 2.x was.

@Soldier4Real, I dont need stinken gadget either my CPU MEM and Battery are read out on a secondary display. For my actual computer usage 4GB isnt enough, 6 for me is but since not everyone is 3 slotting it why not do 8 lol.

I am slightly surprise to find my overall usage at 33% in 7 rather than say 45% in vista, but it probably has more to do with the fact that this install is gaming only and there are less background apps sucking up my ram.

@Sixer nice btw I couldnt see if u had something in the tabs when I was at work, but you do !!!
 
I guess it's real easy to show a SS of your computer in the middle of some intense task to support your point but you know it's rarely if ever that high. I'm sure if I wanted I could do something, especially run Photoshop and four different FF instances with lord knows how many tabs in each to support my invalid argument. I'm talking real world stuff not some shit you just made up to try and prove a point. How do you think it's possible that our server has 8GB of RAM and runs how many different games? Oh right, exactly. Now for some actual information and not just some made up shit, go troll somewhere else:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/memory-module-upgrade,2264.html
 
Nah restarting does nothing. It's firefox and chrome. Take a lok at how many processes/threads I have open:-p

edit: You need to understand...I didn't open anything extra. This is my normal desktop. Photoshop is open probably half the time I'm on here. The sigs ive done for TBG members should be a testament to that. That's a big reason i want to get more ram as well. But yah, I didn't even turn on a game to give you a REAL look at how full it gets.

edit2: Dedicated servers for games use MUCH less ram than client version because they aren't rendering graphics. You should know that. That link (which is over 2 years old I might add) also doesn't apply to me because I'm not an average computer user. I consistently maximize the resource usage of the PC's I use. Webbrowsing with 100+ tabs open, torrenting, photoshop with multiple projects open, each with it's own history of changes, steam, trillian, remote desktop software, anti virus, mirc...So no, I'm not "trolling". Wasn't too long ago when no one would EVER need more than 1 gig of ram. How'd that work out?
 
Soulzz, if you want more memory then just get it and feel good about your manliness. We have similar rigs and the only time I have seen > 65% usage was when I was burning a CD and video editing with some presentation shit (Powerpoint and Publisher) in the background along with a few Chrome tabs.
 
Bot I would recommend changing how windows utilizes your memory for better performance. Photoshop is a resource hog regardless, but you should be able to get better utilization.
 
If you use msconfig and shut down some processes at startup it would greatly reduce your resources.
 
balls2dawall said:
If you use msconfig and shut down some processes at startup it would greatly reduce your resources.
Click to expand...

It's almost entirely firefox/chrome. Shutting them down puts me at 2.01 gigs used as opposed to 5.2 gigs. So yah...huge diff.

And Bob I probably should, Ill poke around at some point.
 
Right click My Computer
Select properties
Select the advanced system settings
then select the advanced tab.

Piece of cake. (Above instructions for Vista / Win 7, but similar for XP)
 
Note that for his case Any image editor photoshop whatever and other apps including firefox etc. When you open an image its decompressed into memory KB of images become MB of image. A 9MB raw file might end up 75MB, its been awhile but its all to do with the resolution and then the bit depth. That shit adds up quick. There is a quick formula for simple 8 bit images i just cant spit out a res and size off the top of my head atm.

If you never edited 33MP shots for a bill board then you dont know what ram usage is. I think bots is a bit high for the webbrowser but between leaks, inefficiency and then maybe having images loaded up in tabs etc anyone doing image work uses ram badly.
 
Ok so I'm still drooling over this. I'm also considering the cheaper Biostar board but, in the more distant future, I'm pretty sure I'll want the extra SATA ports. What's incredibly vain of me is to want either white or blue spreaders on the RAM. That way it matches the color of the motherboard. The other thing I want is DDR3-1600 CL8. On the other hand, there looks to be some very decently price Z68 motherboards. I don't need the IGP at all, though.

I currently have this Patriot 2x4GB kit in my cart, but I'm thinking of changing to this cheaper Patriot kit.

Maybe I should just find a black PCB motherboard so that the current kit looks better. Plus it will match my XFX HD5850. I can also see about shopping around XtremeSystems for another HD5850 on the cheap. Preferably the same model. That'd give me the 2600K, 8GB DDR3, and HD5850 CF. Last-gen on the graphics card but a better upgrade for the money than anything HD6900.


Considering these combos with the i7-2600K:
#1: Gigabyte GA-Z68X-UD3P-B3 for $460
#2: MSI P67A-G45 (B3) for $435
#3: Gigabyte GA-Z68X-UD3-B3 for $440

The only real differentiators are CPU power phases (UD3P: 12-phase, G45: 4-phase, UD3: 4-phase?), PCB color (UD3P: black, G45: brown, UD3: blue), and number of SATA ports (UD3P: 8, G45: 6, UD3: 8). Of them, UD3P seems the top choice and it's only a few dollars more than the P67X-UD3.
 
It's not vain at all to want the right color heat spreaders :p I am currently rejecting cases based on their interior color lmao.

NOTE that the Z68 board you are looking at does NOT make use of the IGP "Discrete Graphic Card is required" is on the page and no video port. So not only did you not need it your not getting it. The only feature you will get is the ability to use the onboard gpu for video acceleration.
 
I have my HD5850 so I don't care that there's no IGP. Wouldn't matter much either way. The reason I'm looking at it is because it's cheaper than the equivalent P67 model and has a 12-phase VRM.
 
Bobsama said:
The reason I'm looking at it is because it's cheaper than the equivalent P67 model and has a 12-phase VRM.
Click to expand...

I am actually glad you mentioned that. Had to look it up but thats something else I might be looking for now, trying to hit 5 Ghz and all. Cleaner power is nice.
 
Well in case anyone was wondering, my question about why there werent any good timings out anymore has been answered by a rep from Mushkin.

______________________________________________________________________________
Hey Kevin,

We have had some issues sourcing the chips we use to build higher performance DDR3 2GB modules. I know we have some samples coming in next week for testing. We hope to have some new parts soon. We apologize for the inconvenience. Please keep checking with us.



Cheers,

The Mushkin Sales Team



From: Kevin
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 10:52 AM
To: Info
Subject: Info on the 998691 - 6GB (3x2GB) DDR3 PC3-12800 6-7-6-18 Redline



I purchased this kit over a year ago because of its great timings. But, after looking online to pick up a second kit I see that this product is at its EOL. Can you explain why there are no other products sold by Muskin that have timings as good as the 6-7-6-18 that the 998691s had?
 
I'm considering Mushkin still but I found single sticks of Kingston HyperX DDR3-1600 CL9 for $30/ea [after MIR (limit 2)]. They're very blue. I do like the black look though and the black matches everything else so I think I'll stick with the Z68X-UD3P and Patriot RAM. I heard back about my projects and ALL of them were fantastic. I got an "A" on every one of them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top