Is it worth adding more memory?

[Jeremy Harris]

I have a fairly old, but still quite capable, Core i5 machine that runs Windows 7 and gets used mainly for Autocad work, but because it's often on I do tend to use it (like now) for surfing the web.  The problem is that Firefox tends to use vast amounts of memory, so I frequently find that memory usage is up around the max for the machine (it has 4Gb) and then it starts performing like a slug, as it starts using the page file.

 

I've tried other browsers, but frankly I quite like Firefox, it's just the nasty habit it has of grabbing loads of memory that's annoying.

 

I  only really notice the problem on this Windows machine, the Linux machines always run a lot faster, even one that has a pretty slow processor, and they mainly have 4Gb of RAM, except the new Kaby Lake fanless one that has 8Gb.

 

I can swap out the 4Gb in there at the moment for 8Gb, but have to replace the existing RAM, as there are only two slots on the motherboard and each currently has a 2Gb stick in it.  The cost will be around £50 to do this, so the question is, would doubling up to 8Gb make a significant difference?

 

I can't see me getting rid of this machine for some time, as I need a Windows machine to run Autocad, so anything I invest in it will likely get a year or two of use at least (unless someone gets a move on and releases ReactOS properly).

[ProDave]

I solved the Firefox / memory / slow issue by (on your suggestion) using Pale Moon instead.

[Guest Alphonsox]

Which version of windows ? The 32bit version can only access 2³² bytes of memory max which is 4GB. You need a 64bit version of windows to make use of any more.

[MikeSharp01]

I have 8gb in my windows 7 machine and Firefox still gets it to 90% sometimes. I just use task manager to kill it and restore session brings it back to a reasonable 38%. Just why Firefox is so bad I have no idea but Chrome is not far behind sometimes. Autocad can be a slug as well though. 

[MikeSharp01]

PS what I meant to say was that the 8gb does give you more time between slugs!

[AliG]

Assuming that you have 64 bit windows, when my office PC was upgraded to 8GB it made a very noticeable difference to performance.

 

Many applications will use virtual memory to speed themselves up so they will use up all the memory available.

 

I would also if you haven't already done so replace the hard drive with a SSD. The difference that makes is well wort it.

[Jeremy Harris]

It's a 64 bit machine, running 64 bit Win 7, with a Core i5-2320 running at 3 GHz processor, so reasonable for a five year old machine (it benchmarks about the same as my brand new 7th gen Kaby lake processor).

 

The boot drive was replaced with a Samsung SSD about a year ago, which made a significant difference.  I think one problem is that I'm just used to the Linux machines I mainly use being a heck of a lot faster and never, ever, having any problems.

[Guest Alphonsox]

10 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

It's a 64 bit machine, running 64 bit Win 7, with a Core i5-2320 running at 3 GHz processor, so reasonable for a five year old machine (it benchmarks about the same as my brand new 7th gen Kaby lake processor).

 

The boot drive was replaced with a Samsung SSD about a year ago, which made a significant difference.  I think one problem is that I'm just used to the Linux machines I mainly use being a heck of a lot faster and never, ever, having any problems.

 

I think that is pretty much the same as the dual boot system I have upstairs - With the difference that I'm running with 8GB of memory.

Got a favourite benchmark ? I'd be interested in the comparison.

[AliG]

I had an even older desktop until recently which was fine for web browsing etc. As you say processor speed had not been increasing so quickly recently. The graphics card was what was letting the machine down.

 

But I upgraded from a hard drive to SSD a few years ago, now you can get a 240GB SSD for around £60. That and extra memory will make your machine fly.

 

Eventually I gave up using my desktop as my laptop is just as fast and its always right there available to use. It is a MacBook Pro and again it is the SSD that makes all the difference, once you have a machine that starts up almost instantly and doesn't chug away for ages installing updates etc it is very hard to go back. I was a big proponent of PCs being better value for years, but as the price of PCs increased if you wanted a nice spec and Apple eventually cut prices, the premium of maybe £200 seemed worth it if the machine lasted longer (I did buy a refurb to keep the price down).

 

Anyway 4 years on it still feels like a new machine. Every other PC based laptop I have had had given up the ghost by now, an almost £1000 HP laptop didn't last three years before the screen broke. My wife has an even older Macbook Air that only cost £665 and it is still going strong. I do feel that the very fast SSDs help a lot. The aluminium casing is a lot more durable also. I have been hankering after a new one but I just cannot justify it when this one works perfectly fine.

[Guest Alphonsox]

3 minutes ago, Alphonsox said:

 

I think that is pretty much the same as the dual boot system I have upstairs - With the difference that I'm running with 8GB of memory.

Got a favourite benchmark ? I'd be interested in the comparison.

 

My mistake - Its an i5-3470 with 16GB

[Onoff]

@JSHarris, what memory is it Jeremy as I might have a couple of sticks lying around spare? FOC if they'll fit. Deffo got 8GB of something or other doing nothing.

[AliG]

I just checked and I think the machine I just threw out was a Core 2 Q6600 from 2009. It was still going string with a RAM and SSD upgrade. So even older.

 

I also upgraded to Windows 10 whilst the upgrade was free. That also helps performance a bit.

[Onoff]

+1 on the SSD. 

[Jeremy Harris]

Current spec is that this machine boots from a 250Gb Samsung Evo 850 SSD, with the data relegated to the old 500Gb HDD, so it's mainly using the SSD,

 

The memory sticks are DDR3-1600 UDIMMs, PC3-12800, I believe.  I have a few 1Gb and 2Gb sticks around, but no spare 4Gb sticks.  It seems I collect old memory every time I upgrade a machine.

 

It annoys me that browser seem to hog so much memory, as that seems the root cause.  What's curious is that this doesn't happen with Firefox on Linux.

[Vijay]

Would overclocking help? Did that to my PC which is quite old and the difference was night and day

[Onoff]

16 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

Current spec is that this machine boots from a 250Gb Samsung Evo 850 SSD, with the data relegated to the old 500Gb HDD, so it's mainly using the SSD,

 

The memory sticks are DDR3-1600 UDIMMs, PC3-12800, I believe.  I have a few 1Gb and 2Gb sticks around, but no spare 4Gb sticks.  It seems I collect old memory every time I upgrade a machine.

 

It annoys me that browser seem to hog so much memory, as that seems the root cause.  What's curious is that this doesn't happen with Firefox on Linux.

 

 

Pretty sure the ones I have are DDR3. I'll look when home (from the curry house ). 

[Jeremy Harris]

2 minutes ago, Onoff said:

 

 

Pretty sure the ones I have are DDR3. I'll look when home (from the curry house ). 

 

Thanks, that's be really great - let me pay the going rate plus postage though, just to be fair.

 

[Onoff]

28 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

 

Thanks, that's be really great - let me pay the going rate plus postage though, just to be fair.

 

 

Any use? x2 4GB sticks:

 

 

Don't get your hopes up it's just in a Hyper-X box

 

 

[newhome]

I had a similar issue with an old i3 also running Windows 7, but it was light, smallish and comfy like an old pair of slippers so I was reluctant to change it and resort to the mega gaming laptop which is too heavy and too big. I generally run a dozen or more Chrome sessions and it became unusable. I upgraded it with as much memory as I had slots for (cheap as chips) and the difference is outstanding so the gaming laptop still plays with itself ?. 

[Jeremy Harris]

10 minutes ago, Onoff said:

 

Any use? x2 4GB sticks:

 

 

Don't get your hopes up it's just in a Hyper-X box

 

 

 

 

Thanks very much for digging these out, I think, from looking at the Kingston website than these should fit OK.  Kingston say that the compatible memory is:

 

Quote

4GB Module - DDR3 1333MHz

Part Number: KCP313NS8/4

Specs: DDR3 , 1333MHz , Non-ECC , CL9 , X8 , 1.5V , Unbuffered , DIMM , 240-pin

 

 

I "think" these are OK - I'm just checking to be sure - be back soon.............

 

[SteamyTea]

I think I used this to free up memory when using Firefox.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/free-memory-20/

  I use SeaMonkey at the moment as it seems quite good, but is getting old and the portable version is now unsupported and not upgradable.

I do find that using portable apps seems easier on a PC.  I only have the normal Windows 10 stuff installed, plus Office 2007, TurboCad, Python 2.7&3 and Photoshop.  Everything else is a portable app.

Edited March 10, 2018 by SteamyTea
forgot the link

[richi]

@JSHarris, you say everything grinds to a halt when it's paging. Does that mean you've forced the pagefile to be on a spinning-rust drive, rather than the SSD?

 

If so, I'd advise against tweaking it: With very few exceptions, the best place for the pagefile is the SSD. Just let Windows manage it.

[Jeremy Harris]

1 hour ago, richi said:

@JSHarris, you say everything grinds to a halt when it's paging. Does that mean you've forced the pagefile to be on a spinning-rust drive, rather than the SSD?

 

If so, I'd advise against tweaking it: With very few exceptions, the best place for the pagefile is the SSD. Just let Windows manage it.

 

 

"grinds to a halt" really just means it's a heck of a lot slower than the Linux machines I have.  All my PCs and laptops boot from SSDs now, the Linux laptop and one of the Linux desktops only have SSDs, with no spinning drives.  The machine in question originally had just a 500Gb HDD, but around a year or so ago I pulled all the data files off to another backup, shrunk the remaining Windows image down so it would fit on an SSD and restored it to a 250Gb Samsung Evo 850.  It both boots and runs all the programmes from the SSD, as well as having the page file there, so it's going as fast as it can.  The 500Gb drive was cleaned and then reloaded with only data, so the windows "pseudo folders" like "My Documents", "My Photos" etc all now point to folders on the 500 Gb drive, not the SSD (that's really just to keep the SSD cleaner and allow simpler backups).

 

I can speed it up momentarily by clearing out all the cached stuff that Firefox seems to stuff into memory, but it doesn't take Firefox long to fill the memory up again.

 

The real problem is Firefox, I know, as it's the one application that consistently uses loads of memory.  It doesn't help that, when using it, I almost always have AutoCad running as well, and that uses a fair bit of memory (although rarely as much as 1Gb).

 

 

[Onoff]

Old dog / new tricks but for my purposes AutoCAD 2000 would do all I need including 3D stuff. I was trained on that anyway. I remember the upgrade to 2000i when they ditched revcloud...WTF? Had a clever mate who grafted revcloud into 2000i from 2000.

 

I really need to get into Solid Edge (Works?) so I can create 3D PDFs that can be rotated and explored.

 

I have AutoCAD 2010 at the mo which tbh I find a bit of a struggle but then I don't use it every day like I used to.

[Guest Alphonsox]

41 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

The real problem is Firefox, I know, as it's the one application that consistently uses loads of memory.  It doesn't help that, when using it, I almost always have AutoCad running as well, and that uses a fair bit of memory (although rarely as much as 1Gb).

 

 

 

There seems to be a real problem with the latest (Quantum) versions of firefox. The web is full of complaints and requests for help. I'm currently using 1.2GB of memory across six separate firefox process, which given that I only have four open tabs is absolutely insane.