Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe
Athlon X2 4800 (OC to 2.7)
2 GB Corsair 3500LL
2 7800GT SLI (OC)
150 GB Raptor (OS and Apps)
200 WD Storage Drive
I have no complaints with this system. It rocks any game any setting. My question is, will it be overkill to upgrade to 4GB of the same corsair ram. I keep hearing of the memory hole settings and am not sure what that is or where I could change that if i add 2 more gigs.
I burn DVD's and mostly games. It's my "does all" PC.
Let me know what you think about maxing out @ 4 gigs please.
Wow, 62 views and no answer..... Well, the answer to your question is, maybe. I assume you are running XP, so it is hit or miss if your install will recognize more than 3GB. I haven't read about any pattern or way to tell without trying it. Some XP installs will see 4GB and some won't.
So my real answer is, if you plan to upgrade to Vista then move up to 4GB as soon as you come across a sale. Otherwise wait since you system is performing well now.
Hey there.I would only upgrade to more ram if like buddy says,you are moving up to windows vista as soon as it comes out.Otherwise I would sit back and wait for the sales to start.Most likely prices will come down in the new year.Computer parts are always more expensive at this time of year,what with x-mas coming.So ya I would wait,(which is exactly what I'm doing),until the new year.I see no problems with your current system as it stands.So enjoy.Goodluck.
AMD X2firstname.lastname@example.org S-939
EVGA NF4 SLI MB
2X7800GT IN SLI
2X1GIG DDR IN DC MODE
EXTREME 19IN.MONITOR 1280X1024
ACE 520WATT PSU
I vote no for now. Like he said above, maybe if you get Vista do it, even still 2gb is fine for Vista of course. But Vista + a large video editing program, 2gb would be fine but not as good as it COULD be. I say if its a heavy audio/video editing machine, 4 gb would be good. But if its not, then don't bother until at least (if ever) you get Vista. Unless of course there's some crazy deal on your RAM at some point, then do it.
Last I knew Vista is supposed to be 64 bit. I am not sure if the lower "Home" type versions would be limited to 32 or limited on memory.
As for the extra 2G, I would only get it if you "need" it. I have heard in general you will see a small performance hit by going to 4G, unless you have apps that are memory hungry such as CAD, or multitask a few programs that like more memory.
I am not sure what to say about sales and prices. I have been thinking about doing the same thing, and memory as gone up as more Fabs are switching to DDR2. I am keeping an eye on it, and might do it, but I run some CAD. That is the main reason.
Assuming your OS recognizes it, the only use I can see for that much memory today is if you either (a) run large simulations, or (b) use fast use switching and have like 7+ users logged in simultaneously.
Of course, Vista will be a whole new ballgame.
p.s. Not a good time to buy RAM now anyway, I'd wait for prices to go down.
First off, all Windows 32 bit based system can only allocate 2 GB of memory to any given task.
32 bit system by nature can only do 4 GB. But Windows splits that 4 GB in to two halves. First half is for applications and the other half is for the OS kernel.
You can install the MS /3GB switch to allow you to allocate 3 GB to applications and 1 GB to the OS.
However, most Windows applications currently are written to really only address 2GB.
And unless you have multiple memory hungry applications - I doubt you will be needing more than 2 GB for now.
Even with Photoshop, DVD encoder and a game running, you will likely be eating somewhere between 1.2-1.7GB of RAM.
First you need to understand that 64 bit is slower than 32 bit just as 32 bit is slower than 16 bit. AMD takes about a 16% hit in going to double precision from single precison. EM64T is about 42% until Intel adds more complex instruction decoders. Core 2 has only 1 complex decoder per core vs 3 for AMD. For most every one I don't see the need for 64 bit software because only very large video editing or engineering software uses files large enough(over 2 gb where 32 bit has to resort to harddrive swap files) to justify 64 bit. For smaller file s you are going to slow down. XP can't see more than 3.5 gb and with the perverse MS code 2 gb is the maximum efficient amount of memory in 32 bit dual channel unless you are running Red Hat Linux 4.0 or Suse 10 in 32 bit. I would add the additional 2gb only if I were using something that absolutely needed the memory. I currently run XP64 with 4x512 winbond BH-5 memory and that is more than enough for Solid works 64 bit.
That depends on what you are running on that pc. If you want gaming and common applications then 2Gb of ramage is good for XP. However if you run bigger applications, files, musics and etc, then 4Gb would be good. But I keep hearing that Vista would require a minimum of 1Gb ram for the system to run. So it truly depends on your applications.
Again, thanks for the imput. My normal fully loaded system @ 1 time is:
Playing music (Media player or AOL Radio)
Copying & Burning DVD
& playing large game (HL2, FEAR, BF2....etc)
once in a while I will copy files over.
That is not the everyday norm though. But when I load it up, it's usually that way. I just though I might need more ram because sometimes under that type of load, my system will hickup from time to time. I just assumed that it was ram.
I only said there were both 32 bit and 64 bit versions of Vista to respond to a post that implied that the 32 bit version had been relegated to the low-end. I'm not qualified to comment on the difference between the two since I only have experience with 32 bit. Thanks for the information though.