Toshiba notebook maxing ram ok?

I did recently got a Toshiba C55D-A5201 notebook and my question is that is this true that if I upgrade the ram to 16GB it will stress the notebook and shorten the life spam? Some guys at Geek Squad at Best Buy said so to me. I thought it will actually help if any by adding more ram since it doesn't hurt putting the max amount of ram. But if that guy is correct then I should probley just put 8GB ram and have two 4GB rams. I just never heard that the computer in the future could get problems because if having 16GB of ram.


Also is this notebook capable of dual channel?

 

I would normally answer 'max out the RAM on any system you buy' and point to the fact that the advice given by Geek Squad is worth less than _ _ _ _ at the best of times.

However, in this case with the very low performance of the E1-1200 AMD cpu involved, I would agree that more than 8GB is 'not worth spending on' for this system/platform.

Not that the 16GB RAM (if it's possible to install/boot into/from that system) would shorten it's lifespan... but that you will never realize the benefits of more than 8GB RAM and Windows 8 64bit with such a low performing cpu.


(Note: CPU+RAM=Work performed in a given time period - this basic equation doesn't change with this cpu/platform, but given it's very low performance (vs. a modern quad core cpu)... it won't readily take advantage of the benefits the extra RAM (above 8GB) offers for the $$$ involved).


see:
https://asadfund.com/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=80


see:
PassMark - AMD E1-1200 APU - Price performance comparison



'modern' quad core cpu':
see:
PassMark - Intel Core i7-4700MQ @ 2.40GHz - Price performance comparison



Yeah, taking advice from Geek Squad is like asking for investment advice from a mugger when you're at gun point (they'll both do/say anything to get the most from you - then, leave you high and dry).



Good luck.

 

I kinda figured that they didn't know much about stuff since one guy said one thing and other said a different thing. But both did end up saying something similar about my system will brake or something if I had 16GB of ram. Also seems like they wanted me to buy a more expensive computer so I can do more stuff. But I guess eatherway it seems like I should just put 8GB of ram if I wanted to upgrade. But is 4GB ram enough though for today? Also should I upgrade to 8GB even so?


Btw so basically you guys are saying that if I did put 16GB of ram it will do no harm to the system right? Just it won't make a difference on the performance? One guy said that it will destroy my system and fry the computer since it will overclock the system if I put 16GB of ram on a low end system. I know you guys said that the Geek Squad are telling me wrong things but I just got scared after one told me that my system will get broken and they said I should get the Geek Squad protection plan to make sure if will be ok after putting 16GB.

 

Fry and Destroy? From Dumb and Dumber... ah, I mean Geek Squad? Lol...


See:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/har...-help-screenshots-appreciate.html#post8978324



The system I describe in the link above is similar to your setup - except that you should have Dual Channel memory which will give you a bigger improvement than what I saw...

4GB RAM is NOT ENOUGH for Windows 8 x64 bit going into 2014 and forward - 8GB is the minimum (has been for a long time now) and as I mentioned before: with a current platform (IB or Haswell) with a Quad Core processor (Intel), 16GB is the new entry level to have a balanced system.

I don't have time to search for more links for you - just google my name and add notebookreview.com after it along with 'ram', 'memory', or 'cpu+ram=work' etc. to get more threads where I talk about the benefits of maxing out the RAM in any new/current (higher end) system.

Even if it is only for web browsing - and especially if you're using an SSD too.


Hope this helps.

Good luck.

 

Well just in case then should I buy 16GB so it's future ready? Since if 16GB will be standard then I thought I should have it to the max. I didn't know that even doing basic stuff on a computer will need more than 4GB. Even for games I thought 4 GB was enough. I thought that having like 8GB is more for people who do photoshop or doing video editing. I do play older games and games like WoW and StarCraft 2 but I don't think they will use 8GB will they? So far it works but even if I did just use the computer for just browsing or Skype and stuff I need 8GB now? Or best would be 16GB?


Btw for Win 7 even needs 8GB now?

 

Do you need 8 GB? Nope, would you benefit from 8 GB, yeah, you tend to hit the page file less and edge cases where you need more RAM, rare as they may be, will be less frequent. I wouldn't bother with 16 GB on the system you have, given the CPU you have I wouldn't dare do anything on it that would require more than 8 GB of RAM.

As a side note: assuming you have a good CPU, 4 GB for games is low, the game itself might not be using 4 GB, but with the OS, voip, browser, etc. and the game running you're very likely to hit over 4 GB. In quite a few games, I sit at over 4 GB of total RAM used on a relatively lean Windows install.

 

dustin_broke,

You're misreading what I wrote. 16GB RAM is not for your system - you do not have a quad core, IB or Haswell platform and you are certainly not future-proofing the setup you do have if you put 16GB RAM inside. Not that it will break the system... but that it would be like putting jet fuel in a Chevy Chevette... just an utter waste of resources.

On the other hand, 4GB RAM has been outdated for many, many years now (since Vista 64 bit was in Beta ~2005).

Even your entry level computing platform with Windows 8 x64 will benefit from more than 4GB RAM. As tijo mentioned - any single game or program (outside of audio/video/image editing) is not usually enough to require more than 4GB RAM - but more often than not, the O/S, our workflows and even some programs we run are usually running concurrent threads whether we know about it or not. This is why >4GB is recommended (and 8GB is the sweet spot for your system).

Take care.

 

So not even 1% will gain compared to having 16GB vs 8GB on my system? If so why did they make my notebook capable of having 16GB if there is no use? There's got to be something that the computer will use or perform better on 16GB since it's capable of doing it.


Another thing is that why does my computer come with 4GB pre loaded if it's too low ram? I just got this notebook brand new from Best Buy so I thought it would have enough ram it needs for today and even next year.


Also does Win 7 needs 8GB of ram also? My mom has a Sony notebook that can go upto 8GB and right now it has only 4GB. The computer was made in 2010 so it's 3 years old. It has the first gen of Intel i3 370M and is a 2.4gHz. But I don't know if Win 7 needs 8GB also. It can't go higher than 8GB on that system.

 

Wut. Maxing out the memory is completely fine and harms the computer in no way... Your first mistake was listening to anyone at Best Buy.

 

Not really, AMD could simply have used the same or similar memory controller designs for a bunch of CPUs to cut down on development costs. At the end of the performance spectrum this low, there's even no point in gimping the memory controller on purpose to get people to get a slightly faster and more expensive CPU. If you need 16 GB of RAM, you're likely running VMs, doing scientific computation and other CPU demanding workloads and no one doing those would even consider that CPU for that kind of workload. I mean that CPU can't even keep up with a Penryn Core 2 Duo which is quite old by now, 5 CPU generations behind what is current.

Also, you seem to be confused between needs a certain amount of RAM and benefits from it. You can run Windows 8 without it being a slow dog on 2 GB of RAM, same goes for Windows 7. You can't really do much with 2 GB of RAM and multitasking is kind of a no go. The moment you start trying to do a couple of things at once, the system will slow down, hang for a while, etc.

4 GB affords you what I personally consider a decent experience, tiller would disagree, it will allow you to get multiple things done without giving you an utterly terrible user experience.

8 GB will give you a more responsive system and you won't run into times where you'll hit the page file and you'll have to wait a few seconds if you're starting to multitask a lot. An example of this would be streaming music, having a couple of tabs open for academic research, a few scientific articles in pdf format open, an Excel document with your own data in it and the report/article/thesis you're currently writing open in Word. If you switch often between those, 8 GB will definitely make the experience more enjoyable. Add to that the urgent request from your research advisor sent by e-mail or a colleague wanting your opinion on something which means you need to run something else and that 8 GB will again come in handy. Can you do it on 4 GB? Yeah. Will the experience be as pleasant? Definitely not! This is an example of running programs that the average Joe Schmoe uses, but in a way that is still RAM hungry.

16 GB is going to come in handy if you're doing more intensive stuff, I mean I ran out of RAM with 32 GB thanks to FEM calculations, but at that point, I wouldn't bother running said calculations on any CPU that has less that 4 cores, it would just take too damn long. 16 GB also gives more snap to a system, but the rest of it needs to be able to keep up in terms of user experience snappiness, That means at least a CPU that is faster than what you have, that can handle RAM at higher clocks that what yours can do anyways and ideally a SSD. To be honest, if you want a system that responds faster, you're better off getting a SSD before even thinking about 16 GB of RAM.

You could add 16 GB of RAM, but given how weak your CPU is (not that it can't get the basic stuff done, but compared to a 3rd of 4th gen core i it is quite weak), what you do with your notebook and the extra cost of RAM, it is simply not worth it. If you find that your system is too sluggish for your tastes, I'd start saving for something worth more oomph and a SSD to go with it.

 

Well all I know is that exactly 3 years agao around November in 2010 you guys said that 4GB is enough ram and some of course said 8GB is needed but ended up that 4GB would be enough and the people who said that needed 8GB is for people who used like Photoshop or video editing etc. But most of you guys said you don't really need 8GB unless you doing those things. I use to use a Sony notebook that was capable of going upto 8GB but now I gave that one to my mom since she didn't have a notebook.


But seems like even today 4GB is enough and if you use Photoshop or so then you need 8GB or more. But then maybe I' am wrong and actually now people need 8GB of ram for today. Also I remember that you guys said games won't even use more than 2GB so having 4GB of system ram would be more than enough. But maybe that has changed today?

 

3 years ago... ???

When dinosaurs ruled the tech jungle?

lol...


Yeah, things have changed since then.

 

Well so is 4GB still enough for games and normal things you do on a computer? If you use 8GB or more is it for Photoshop and more intensive stuff? If not what has changed basically? I just wanted to know what has really changed since 3 years agao and if what I say is still true today.

I just get confused since one said 4GB is no where enough and I know even back 3 years agao some said that. But seems like one said 4GB can do a lot of stuff and more than that is for intensive programs. Basically back then most said that 4GB should be enough but today seems like it's the same but I kinda wonder if it really is good enough even after 3 years. But maybe in couple of years you will need 8GB or so.

 

If you mean me, what I said was:

Going to cut it for MS Office and a few browser tabs: 4 GB
Going to provide a better experience and for gaming: 8 GB
For more intensive stuff (photoshop, sci. computation, etc.) and/or higher end systems with SSD for more snap: 16 GB or more

As for what changed, programs did. Some like MS Office aren't really more memory hungry, browsers use a little bit more memory than they did in 2010 and with multiple tabs, add-ons, it adds up. The same goes for newer versions of most programs. Nowadays, it is also a lot more common to see games hitting 2 GB or more of RAM alone. That doesn't leave a whole lot of room for the OS. I have seen game crashes resulting from low memory on systems with 3 to 4 GB of RAM because the game was running out of RAM with the OS and one or two other programs running. A Windows install on my notebooks usually sits at 1 to 1.5 GB depending on whether I have extra drivers, devices, security software, etc. That would leave only 3 to 2.5 GB for the rest and for games that is by today's standards a measly amount of available RAM. I usually got a browser running as well as some voip program. With 4 GB, I would hit the page file which would slow things down to a crawl.

We're no longer at the point where you needed double the performance of your previous system to run the latest version of a program, but things haven't stagnated either. The increase in requirements for most commonly used programs has been small, but add many of those running simultaneously and you can see a significant increase in the total amount of resources you need. Some people are also more sensitive to user experience as well. Tiller is among those, what I can tolerate, tiller can't. I don't find a 4 GB RAM user experience excruciatingly slow, but it's not great either. Passable is the term I would use, 8 GB definitely provides a better overall user experience and I'll go with the system with more RAM if I can. Tiller on the other hand would likely find the experience with 4 GB sluggish and far from enjoyable.