Originally Posted by Maine_Coon
IMHO, it is an overkill. I am not a gamer though. Moreover, I've seen reports that 2GB actually decrease performance of XP. Don't quote me on this, but I've never seen even more than 712MB of my 1GB RAM taken with minimal or no swap usage even while running Photoshop, IE and MPEG2 encoding.
This thread is one of about three that are currently going on regarding optimal RAM amounts, Page File allocation, and their settings.
What I have found in many articles so far on this issue is that you can have all the RAM the OS could ever use, but if you don't have it optimized for program and system cache use, it's about useless.
For the past three hours, I have been running Paint Shop Pro 8, NFS:Underground, along with a handful of other programs and 72 background apps. I have been monkeying with Page File size and settings as well as cacheman settings, and I feel confident that I've tried nearly every combo for PF settings up to 3 GB. I have 2 GB RAM, and cacheman is allowing me to monitor RAM usage on the taskbar.
I have not been able to make my system use more than 760 MB, unless I start up Prime 95, which has a RAM specific tester.
However, Explorer is noticeably sluggish with all that crap going on, despite having more than 60% RAM left to tap into.
Can anyone explain this?
Also, the same thing in cacheman that allows me to monitor RAM also allows me to monitor Virtual Memory usage instead. I had been running a 2 GB minimum & maximum setting for my PF, and I would consistently see only 50-60 MB of the PF in use. Much of this is probably the small memory dump or kernel dump (-a whole other topic that I don't understand yet
Unfortunately my only test for sluggishness that's actually quantifiable was the frame rate of my games, which was consistently 60+ fps with anti aliasing turned all the way up.