Is 2 gigs useful in Vegas , etc.

Stonefield wrote on 6/26/2005, 7:57 PM
I've got my new system almost ready to go, but I've been keeping my eye on the price of memory right now and it's really low. About 100 bucks Cnd for a gig of Kingston PC3200 ram.

I've already got two matched sticks of 512 megs ( 1 gig ) and was just wondering would I notice much difference. I keep recalling something about Windows XP not using more than a certain amount of ram. (???)

I'm curious if I'd see a difference between 1 gig and 2 gigs of ram in Vegas, Acid, Photoshop, After Effects, 3D Studio Max ?

Comments

busterkeaton wrote on 6/26/2005, 11:39 PM
I think you would. Vegas 6 seems to like RAM. Also RAM renders are helpful. Have you used those? If you ever work on a few of those programs at once, it helps to have more RAM. It would be helpful if you work with mutiple instance of Vegas open at the same time.
If you work in large, large Photoshop files, you will appreicate more RAM. XP will use up to 4 gig of RAM I think. A single program can use up to 2gig, there is a tweak to get around that though.
JJKizak wrote on 6/27/2005, 5:10 AM
2 is nice. Personally I would like about 20.

JJK
StormCrow wrote on 6/27/2005, 5:30 AM
I don't know if your using Vegas 4, 5 or 6 but if I recall correctly ram will not improve your render speed in 4 or 5 but I'm not sure with 6 since they improved render speed. It may help out but I've always been told that Vegas relies on the power of the processor and the bus speed and not the RAM. Maybe someone who knows better than I can jump in.
farss wrote on 6/27/2005, 5:36 AM
Obviously faster memory if the CPU can use it is good, more memory means more code can be kept in RAM if running multiple instances of Vegas and more but I think 1 Gig is more than adequate.
Win32 can only address 2G of RAM I'm told and it can get a bit twitchy as it approaches that boundary. Win64 is good for at least 1Tbyte.
Bob.
JJKizak wrote on 6/27/2005, 7:41 AM
Win2K can go to 32 gig if you pop in a quickie download from Microsoft.
XP 32 says 4 gig.

JJK
Coursedesign wrote on 6/27/2005, 7:53 AM
XP 32 can indeed go to 4GB RAM, but part of that is reserved space, and you can only use 2GB per application.

There is a tweak available from MS to raise the usable amount of RAM in XP, to 3GB if I remember correctly.

Photoshop can use lots of RAM, and 3DS Max never gets enough.
AE can also use 2GB, but it depends on what you do if you will see a big difference.

The 32GB Win2K hack I think is for servers, it still won't give each regular app more RAM.
riredale wrote on 6/27/2005, 9:47 AM
See for yourself. Download a little freeware applet called "RamPage" which sits in your system tray and shows how much ram is currently unused.

I think you'll discover that there will be very few times when even 1GB of ram is in use. Frankly, there have been only a few times when my projects tapped the full 512MB of ram that my system holds. You might need more or less depending on your settings.
Stonefield wrote on 6/27/2005, 9:51 AM
I'm using Vegas 5. Sounds like 2 gigs are cool for Win32 XP. I use RAM renders all the time because of the many fx in my work. Great tool.

And yes, Photoshop is truly a memory hog. 3DS Max I think would also benefit from a 256 meg video card so that'll be at the end of summer.

Can't wait. It'll be like discovering the fun of these applications all over again.

EDIT **

Oh while I'm here, what are the benefits ( Vegas, PS, etc ) of the 1meg cache that will be on my new 3 gighrtz CPU ? My current CPU has about one quarter of that.
busterkeaton wrote on 6/27/2005, 10:49 AM
I meg cache means more stuff can be "held" right next to the CPU. But it today's processors are so fast that often the CPU is so fast, it doesn't back up enough code.

I think Anandtech and Tom's Hardware are the most often cited CPU review sites.