RAM - How much do you use?

reamenterprises wrote on 4/5/2003, 8:16 AM

VV Users,

Some of you may be aware that I have had rendering issues through out the last few months. I recently received some feedback from you fellow users, which led me down the road of possibly having some bad RAM.

I was previously using 1 Gig of DDR RAM (All Components), and the projects would not render, about 15 minutes into it the program would error out or the system would reboot automatically.

I switched out the memory to a 128 MB stick from APACER and everything worked fine. I then re-installed only a 512 MB Stick (All Components) and the system is working well. My question is how much memory are you using, and have you heard of any problems with VV and to much memory. I have had this same issue with 2 systems one using SDRAM and this one using DDR.

Thanks!
Chad

Comments

Bear wrote on 4/5/2003, 8:26 AM

I use two PC 133 256mb sdram total of 512 no problems

way2slo wrote on 4/5/2003, 10:53 AM

i am running 1g pc2100 266 ddr ram without any problem. i upgraded from 512 to 1024 a month ago, so far so good.
my system:
P4 2.0a
Asus P4B533 mobo
1024 samsung ddr ram
Matrox G550 dualhead video card
Seagate cuda 40g and 80g harddrive
Ibm 60g external mounted hadrdrive via 1394
Echo Gina 24 audio interface
Adapter firewire card
UAD-1 plugin DSP card
Zalman 300w PSu
Pioneer A05 dvd writer
LG dvd rom

riredale wrote on 4/5/2003, 11:41 AM

I went from 256 to 512 a few months back, when I needed to keep three instances of Vegas running at the same time. I think 256 is plenty for most tasks. Out of the dozens of programs I use, there are only two that max out the ram: SteadyHand and DVDxCopy.

Maverick wrote on 4/5/2003, 2:39 PM

Hi

I started with 256MB then added a 512. Now, with 768MB, I haven't had any problems either with VV3 or 4.

FuTz wrote on 4/5/2003, 3:18 PM

Went from 128x3 to 512+128+128 without problem. Brand name, not "generic"...very fussy mobo (Abit KT-7raid) so I watched my back! ;)

JJKizak wrote on 4/5/2003, 5:57 PM

P111 1gig 786 meg PC 133

JJK

Jsnkc wrote on 4/7/2003, 4:08 PM

I have 3 sticks of PC2100 256MB DDR ram in Mine Athlon XP 1800 Works great

Caruso wrote on 4/7/2003, 5:10 PM

My system is 900 Mhz with just 128 MB RAM. This probably seems terribly inadequte, but my system and Vegas 3 and 4 run just fine on it. I wouldn't mind upgrading someday, but I'm in no rush. I have no need to improve my real-time previewing, and I let my renders run overnight or during the day when I'm away at work.

I don't know how much (if any) more RAM would imrove my rendering times (I'm guessing not much since this is more disk intensive), but, perhaps someone else can comment.

Caruso

Chienworks wrote on 4/7/2003, 6:15 PM

Caruso: you're correct; rendering is much more disk intensive than memory intensive. However, if you have too small an amount you'll end up using swap space more which adds to the amount of disk activity and slows everything down. It's also handy to have enough memory to run other programs in RAM besides Vegas so that you don't have to use swap space to, say, check your eMail when you wake up at 3am ;) However, once you've got enough to avoid swapping, any more than that isn't used. Probably with 128MB you're hitting swap space quite a bit. With 256MB you'll probably be in the clear, at least with Vegas 4 and non-HD video.

robertp wrote on 4/7/2003, 6:48 PM

funny, when i had my first computer it was 166Mhz with 128Mb RAM. It would be running about as fast as anything and I was always able to run multiple programs at the sametime. Now I have dual 650Mhz with 512Mb RAM. I could always use more RAM but as of yet I have no need for it.

Rob:D

frank_jarle wrote on 4/8/2003, 4:09 AM

I have 512MB DDR400 Corsair (Corsair VMS3200)
i2.4Ghz

To my big surprise i decided to run the Render test at sundance-site, one with and one without Norton Antivirus and Internet Security 2003 Pro.

Ok, lots of people have said to turn off this and that, so i just decided to run the Rendertest one with and one without the NAV&NIS, to my surprise the differente was only by milliseconds, as in 1min11sec115millisec and 1min11sec445millisec.

To me it seems that if you have a fast CPU and lots of memory it seems to be no problem to run background task, does anyone have similar experience as me?

Frankie
Singapore