If you want to compare memory performance do it as slow RAM vs fast RAM, not as more RAM vs less RAM. That just does not make sense.
Memory is used as storage of data and the more storage you have the better. For example I have 250 GB hard drive and I'm only using 20% so far, but it doesn't mean that I should use 50 GB drive instead. You never know when you might need more storage, especially with RAM.
More memory is likely to improve overall performance because of less trips to the pagefile, and better kernel caching. Also such apps as GoogleEarth and high end games benefit from more RAM. And if you are "the enthusiast" you might use RAM drives and virtual computer emulations on you machine, so the more memory you have the better.

I fully agree with the contents of this article...

Battlefield 2 is one app that definately benifits from more than a gig of ram. With everything on high it needs 1.2 gigs.

I've noticed a remarkable improvement in playing World of Warcraft when I moved from 1G to 2G of RAM. Warcraft itself easily expands to 500M of RAM during play. Since I run dual-monitor and have other apps running in the second screen, 1G just doesn't cut it.

AnandTech showed that best timings are much faster than bigger mem...
U guys could add some tests with 2x512 modules off faster mem modules...
But this article it's very nice...

Thx

I would have been nice to see some games run at higher resolutions where the 2GB's of ram will really make a difference. Although this may have required a better video card.

Interesting article, but it would have been even better if the author had tried to find some programs that really wanted more than 1GB og memory. Photoshop was included, but the results would have been more relevant if a larger image had been used, or an action including multiple layers.
For completeness a test with 4GB would have been valueable.

One obvious omission-you should have also checked the effect ofdiff. mem amounts on single channell chipsets-believe it or not, we do not all use dual channel motherboards!

-Also note- a used, slightly off the bleeding edge system is the one where someone is more likely considering adding memory as a performance improver-you should check how going 512 to 1 gb or 2 gb of mem affects a socket 754 system or a socket A system that is not dual channel, or even a pentium system.

Interesting article....however, I would have liked to have seen AUDIO applications being included in your tests e.g. Cubase SX, Tracktion, Reason etc

Using a PC as a Digital Audio Workstation most certainly makes use of more RAM

Hmmz...

Great article!

I currently have 1Gb of DDR400. Looking forward to May when I'll get some nice Corsair TWINX2048-3500LLPRO :)

You did forget the only two games which use definitely more than 1GB RAM: WoW and Battlefield 2. So your test is nice, but not very usefull...

I've found that with battlefield 2 the load times between maps has greatly decreased with my switch from 1GB to 2GB. The added memory allows for more information to be held and accessed. There should have been some load time tests done. Most people probably don't need 2GB, because most people just surf the net and chat. enthusiats who want to play modern games should really look into 2GB.

is this really necessary? lets be honest- any average user will not need anything more than 800 mhz and 512 mb RAM- how many word processing documents/emails can you write with a system like that compared to a cray? Honestly

You claim we do I claim your benchmarks are bogus because you crippled 1024MB by not allowing it to run at 2-2-2 1T which no 2048 can run at.

why on earth did you play FEAR on medium settings? you had a FX60 processor and 7800GT.

Go back and run the tests again on high and maybe you will see a large increase in FPS at 2gb ram. I certainly did...

Interesting Article, xbit!

I guess the only thing missing would be a test of the different timing combinations with some benchies, like 2T vs 1T, 2-2-2-5 vs 3-3-3-8 and the sort...

I really would like to see the multi-tasking tests done with a dual core!

I often work with Sony Vegas 6.0 and will probably be working with HD video in the next few months (huge files). Vegas is multi-CPU capable AND does realtime effects rendering. Admittedly, I don't know what Adobe Premiere is capable of these days so no flames please.

How can 1GB do that? (Beat the 2GB)
Shoul I add more memory to make my pc running better?