Windows 8 and 8.1 Forums


Effect of RAM Upgrade?

  1. #11


    And then remember to enable the PF again.

      My System SpecsSystem Spec

  2. #12


    Quote Originally Posted by Itaregid View Post
    And then remember to enable the PF again.
    Yes of course but depending on amount of memory it may be lowered to GB or two.
      My System SpecsSystem Spec

  3. #13


    Posts : 55
    Windows 8.1


    Do I need to upgrade RAM and I want to know if my PC runs Dual Channel or Tripple Channel RAM (Model -- HP Envy M6 1102tx)
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails RAM-used.jpg  
      My System SpecsSystem Spec

  4. #14


    That shows in the upper right you have 6Gb of DDR3 installed. That is plenty.

    But it also shows you only have 272Mb available. That is bad. It is also showing your CPU is nearly maxed out. That is bad.

    And it is showing your disk utilization is 100% - also bad when it sticks up there.

    Clearly, some program is running amok and consuming all your resources and you need to determine what it is.

    Scan for malware with your regular scanner and verify with Malwarebytes's Anti-Malware (MBAM).

    Note JHough's comment above. Look under the Processes and Details tabs and see if you can tell what is using up your resources.

    Yes of course but depending on amount of memory it may be lowered to GB or two.
    There is no reason to manually mess with your PF settings with a modern version of Windows like W7 or W8. They are not XP and should not be treated as such. In fact, what was common with XP is probably not good with W7 or W8 and that includes the PF. Windows knows how to manage it quite well and will adjust the size as needed. The only reason to set a small PF size is when you are critically low on disk space - but the fact is, reducing the PF size is the wrong answer. What should happen is unused programs need to be uninstalled to free up space, and/or more disk space needs to be purchased.

    The thought used to be if you reduce the PF size, Windows will be forced to use faster RAM instead of the slow HD. Again, that might have been with XP but W7 and W8 are smarter than that and will use the faster RAM for the highest priority data.

    The problem with manually setting the PF, even if you do it right by properly analyzing how you use your resources, is you must re-analyze regularly to ensure it is still set right. Just let Windows do it unless you truly are smarter than the PhDs and engineers at Microsoft using MS supercomputers to analyze decades of experience and empirical data - AND you are disciplined enough to regularly adjust them as needed.
      My System SpecsSystem Spec

  5. #15


    There's difference with PF size on disk and size used. With 8GB RAM windows suggested and took/reserved 16 GB of the disk and that one being 120GB SSD really did not have to be there. I used to turn PF completely but finally settled at 1 BG "just in case". That's how it was with W7, 8, 8.1 and W10TP.
      My System SpecsSystem Spec

  6. #16


    If you have 8Gb of RAM and only 1Gb PF, the PF will not even hold a full dump file. If not low on disk space, it makes no difference if the PF is bigger than what you think you need.

    But I don't want to drive this OT. I am just going to say again that W7, W8 and W10 are not XP and should not be treated as XP was. And unless you are true Windows expert, best to leave resource management settings alone.
      My System SpecsSystem Spec

  7. #17


    Quote Originally Posted by Itaregid View Post
    If you have 8Gb of RAM and only 1Gb PF, the PF will not even hold a full dump file. If not low on disk space, it makes no difference if the PF is bigger than what you think you need.

    But I don't want to drive this OT. I am just going to say again that W7, W8 and W10 are not XP and should not be treated as XP was. And unless you are true Windows expert, best to leave resource management settings alone.
    I may not be windows "expert" but settings like this serve me well ever since W7. During XP time I never had more than 4GB and that being XP was better left to manage it by itself. My only reason is to save some space on SSD without moving PF to other disk which was helpful in XP. Never had a problem or BSOD that could be attributed to it.
      My System SpecsSystem Spec

  8. #18


    but settings like this serve me well
    I can't tell you how many times I have heard that and, frankly, it amazes me. Especially when the settings are changed almost automatically when they get a new system without even giving the defaults a chance. Since it is highly likely the hardware itself is much more capable than their previous systems, no doubt performance was still good.

    But the question is, do settings like that serve them "better"? The answer is typically, no.

    Same with Indexing. People disable it because it dragged XP down instead of giving it a chance to get caught up. They mess with defragging instead of letting it work with Windows fetch routines to optimize performance. But because their CPUs and graphics and gobs of RAM are much faster, they still see performance gains over their old systems, but could see better if they just let Windows manage it. Windows 7/8/10 are excellent operating systems. And managing hardware resources is what operating systems are all about.
      My System SpecsSystem Spec

  9. #19


    Typically (whatever it may mean in this context) maybe but I tune my windows up and check consequences all the time. As I said 1GB PF works just fine for me, saving 15 GB is more important. Indexing and superfetch I do not change, they are useful, my main computer (this one) runs 24/7 with not much to do during the night so indexing has a lot of time to do it's job and even with SSD it helps somewhat. Defraging is always exempted from autoranning. In XP I used third party programs to occasionally defrag but only when it hits 15 - 20%, below that it didn't help any. Ever since W7 I never had to defrag any drives even with large traffic thru them. Out of 3HDDs only one is somewhere about 2% fragmented so even automatic defrag has no meaning.
    As I said before, this exact computer have seen all the windows and it's iterations since Vista, I overclock and measure performance all the time (saving all results) so I can tell if something is running at top performance or not. Every time I change drivers for instance I check performance. Program "Meminfo" is running all the time and can give me memory loads, Free RAM as well as PF and each process at a glance. With a lot of programs running at this time for instance, used RAM is sitting at only 2.4 GB anyway so emploing PF too seems unnecessary and doesn't help at all.
      My System SpecsSystem Spec

  10. #20


    but I tune my windows up and check consequences all the time
    As I said 1GB PF works just fine for me
    And that's fine. But by far, you are the exception as most people would know how to check, nor would they understand what they saw if they did check. So those who don't tweak and check consequences all the time, regardless the amount of RAM they have, they should just let Windows manage it. Because for sure, that will work just fine for them too. And if it doesn't then that is just a signal to them to free up, or buy more disk space.
      My System SpecsSystem Spec

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Effect of RAM Upgrade?
Related Threads
Since upgrading to W8.1, GE now looks like 3-d without using glasses...a double image of red/blue. I don't have anything 3-d related on my PC. I searched Google Earth 3-d and nothing came up. Any ideas?
i want to completely remove an application from my system i was recommended Revo uninstaller i googled about it and it says it make or delete some changes in computer registry i just wanted to know is there any bad effect of this software (revo) computer on registry if i use it in completely...
Solved Tardis effect in Chillout Room
Can someone explain how and why an 800MB avi file emerges from a dvd conversion process a whopping 2.5GB ? The conversion was completely without any formatting ie, titles text, and chapters etc. Trivial I realise, just very curious. Thank you.
Placebo effect? in General Support
I'm not sure if it's a placebo effect or not, but I just finished installing that huge update to Windows 8.1 (~950MB) and now, for some reason, CPU intensive tasks seems a lot quicker. I've also noticed that gaming is smoother since the update. Has anyone else noticed this, or am I just...
Fast boot no effect in Performance & Maintenance
I have Asus Maximus V formula z77 with latest EUFI firmware, and EVGA GTX 680 classified with EUFI firmware. Bios is set to fast boot etc, and it is enabled in windows, but I'm seeing no difference from before. I was using boot racer and seeing 11-14 second windows load times with another 10-15...
This is my favorite application. Enjoy.. iTouch
This recent thread (Way of Performing Clean Install of Windows 8 OEM) (which also spawned this one--Marketplace Vote Win8 OEM Machine) identifies a number problems arising because of the way OEM’s (particularly Dell) are installing Win8. The first thread, at its most fundamental level, deals with...
Eight Forums Android App Eight Forums IOS App Follow us on Facebook