Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

1GB high quality or 2 GB low?

Last response: in Memory
Share
October 19, 2006 3:49:20 PM

I am gonna be using my PC for gaming, not photoshop or any major RAM intensive set ups.

my question is, would it be better for me to buy 1 GB of high quality RAM
(patriot DDR2 800Mhz 4-4-4-12)

or 2GB of lower quality RAM
(corsair DDR2 667Mhz 5-5-5-?)

More about : 1gb high quality low

October 20, 2006 3:24:24 PM

I won't be overclocking at all thanks :D .
October 21, 2006 8:20:57 AM

2 GB is the right answer (and the DDR2-667 isn't "low quality" by any means).
Related resources
October 21, 2006 10:14:52 AM

2GB All day long!!!!!
October 21, 2006 11:02:05 AM

definently the 2GB.

and i would think low quality means ddr2 533 Generic.

corsair 667 is still good ram
October 21, 2006 2:15:47 PM

u didnt in the title
October 21, 2006 6:11:40 PM

Quote:
I said lower quality.

The point is that the Corsair you listed is not "lower" or "low" quality, it's just a bit slower than the other. In fact, many would argue that the Corsair is a bit higher quality than the Patriot.
October 21, 2006 6:39:20 PM

Quote:
I said lower quality.

The point is that the Corsair you listed is not "lower" or "low" quality, it's just a bit slower than the other. In fact, many would argue that the Corsair is a bit higher quality than the Patriot.

Word.

That Corsair is by no standards BAD! It just isn't as good as XMS2 or OCZ Gold/Platinum.
October 21, 2006 7:03:04 PM

2 GB.

You don't get much speed increase off the faster ram.
October 21, 2006 7:34:40 PM

Quote:
I said lower quality.


That certainly isn't what you earlier wrote and implied. Whatever the case, in my opinion, if you can afford the faster ram (800) from either company, get it, first a 1 gig stick and later a second 1 gig stick. Again, in my opinion, the Corsair is better ram than the Patriot.

You might also want to check out OCZ and Mushkin, which are both good companies, to see if either of those have some ram that fits your desires.
October 21, 2006 7:40:29 PM

Quote:
I said lower quality.


That certainly isn't what you earlier wrote and implied. Whatever the case, in my opinion, if you can afford the faster ram (800) from either company, get it, first a 1 gig stick and later a second 1 gig stick. Again, in my opinion, the Corsair is better ram than the Patriot.

You might also want to check out OCZ and Mushkin, which are both good companies, to see if either of those have some ram that fits your desires.

Bad idea.... Without both sticks you dont have dual channel. Take some of the TGforumz experts about it (by no means am I an expert). I know that for a gamming pc back in the DDR1 days 1 gb 2-2-2-5 latency or better was like a sweetspot. In DDR2 its 2GB with tight latencies but bandwidth is important too.
October 21, 2006 8:05:20 PM

Quote:
I said lower quality.


That certainly isn't what you earlier wrote and implied. Whatever the case, in my opinion, if you can afford the faster ram (800) from either company, get it, first a 1 gig stick and later a second 1 gig stick. Again, in my opinion, the Corsair is better ram than the Patriot.

You might also want to check out OCZ and Mushkin, which are both good companies, to see if either of those have some ram that fits your desires.

Bad idea.... Without both sticks you dont have dual channel. Take some of the TGforumz experts about it (by no means am I an expert). I know that for a gamming pc back in the DDR1 days 1 gb 2-2-2-5 latency or better was like a sweetspot. In DDR2 its 2GB with tight latencies but bandwidth is important too.

I realize the lack of dual channel with only one stick. I was thinking of an upgrade path; buy one good stick now and add to it with a good stick later. I think that would be better, and cheaper in the long run, than buying two mediocre sticks now for the sake of dual channel and then having to buy two good sticks at a later date.

But, as I finished my above opinion, the OP first needs to "have some ram that fits your desires". If he doesn't desire or need the better ram, than 2 sticks of the lessor ram will do fine. That is his choice, and not anybody else's, mine included.
October 21, 2006 8:34:07 PM

2GB even if lower quality. New games already thrive in 2GB like BF2, Vista too. Dual channel also if you talk 1GB sticks.

Peace,
Lav
October 22, 2006 12:28:33 AM

i would get the 2GB definintly.

y would he go and by 2GB better ram in the future? its not like thier is anything wrong with the Patriot.

he said he wont be overcloking. so the ram doesnt have to be that good. i mean how much benifit do u get out of DDR2-800 if you dont OC. not much.

nowadays 2GB is important expecially with Vista coming out soon (january?)
October 22, 2006 3:02:46 AM

I won't be getting Vista till it goes down in price probably end of next year.

I play BF2, UT (original) and Warcraft 3 currently, but am very interested in medievil 2:total war, warhammer:mark of chaos, and quake wars, possibly BF2142.
October 22, 2006 7:50:09 AM

if u wanna play bf2 and bf2142 then 2GB is the way 2 go
October 22, 2006 12:55:47 PM

Quote:
was thinking of an upgrade path; buy one good stick now and add to it with a good stick later. I think that would be better


The last time I tried that idea of buying 1 stick first than wait 1 year I felt like a bigtime sucker. Not only did the Ram price not drop it went up. Unlike processors's and graphic card's, etc, RAM prices dont drop drasticly. Look at DDR3200, it was like the same price for 2 years. There is no point suffering with 1 stick now then expecting to wait 2 years later to buy your second stick when the price drop. If you do that it just means for these 2 years your rig will suck.
October 22, 2006 9:21:24 PM

Quote:
was thinking of an upgrade path; buy one good stick now and add to it with a good stick later. I think that would be better


The last time I tried that idea of buying 1 stick first than wait 1 year I felt like a bigtime sucker. Not only did the Ram price not drop it went up. Unlike processors's and graphic card's, etc, RAM prices dont drop drasticly. Look at DDR3200, it was like the same price for 2 years. There is no point suffering with 1 stick now then expecting to wait 2 years later to buy your second stick when the price drop. If you do that it just means for these 2 years your rig will suck.

If the question of buying a second stick involves years of waiting, I agree, get two sticks of the lessor ram now. I was thinking of a timeframe of a few months, not years, just long enough to get the extra money together. I also never plan on prices dropping. Like you wrote, they might not drop at all, or worse, they might go up.

Here is a different way to look at it. Lets say, for example, that 2 gig of good ram costs $200.00, while two gig of lessor ram costs $150.00. So you only save $50.00 buying the lessor ram. If you buy the lessor ram, with the intention of buying good ram later, then you've spent $150.00 extra for ram that you then can't use. The best you might do is sell it for half its original cost. But you do have the advantage of having two gig from the start.

If you can't afford the extra $50.00 now, but do want good ram, than a way to do it is to buy one stick of good ram now for $100.00, and then saving another $50.00 and buy the second stick. This way, you've got a total investment of $200.00, verses a total cost of $350.00. I don't know about anyone else, but I'd rather save the $150.00.

Keep in mind that the above prices are only an example, but they do reflect the overall picture. Looking up prices on Newegg, the added cost would be about $72.00 by going with the good Patriot ram over the lower quality Corsair ram. This is really a bad comparison since the Patriot is DDR2 800 and the Corsair is DDR2 677, but that's what the OP was asking about. Personally, with such a choice presented, I'd save up the extra $72 dollars and buy the Patriot ram. But again, the end choice is for someone else, not myself.
October 23, 2006 4:14:21 AM

Quote:
2 gig of good ram costs $200.00, while two gig of lessor ram costs $150.00.


If I am not mistaken good ram (meaning extreme latencies=performance ram)cost 2 times the price of value ram. Yea but then again its whether you wanna spend more or spend less.

Anyway I think the main question is what is the increase performance of 'performance ram' to 'value ram' is significant. Does anybody know the percentage? If its like 1-5% then its not worth it, coz they money that would have been spent on the high performance Ram could be spent to get a better video card or processor (which would give a better increase in performance).

My idea was that you get 2GB Value Ram and stick with it till it becomes obselete. Not buy it now then upgrade to performance later. That is sticking with Value Ram and if you need 4GB get another set of value RAM.

So do you know the increase in peformance Sailer? I would like to know myself. I also am getting a new core duo rig in December.
October 23, 2006 6:01:22 AM

Quote:

My idea was that you get 2GB Value Ram and stick with it till it becomes obselete. Not buy it now then upgrade to performance later. That is sticking with Value Ram and if you need 4GB get another set of value RAM.

So do you know the increase in peformance Sailer? I would like to know myself. I also am getting a new core duo rig in December.


This gets into a question of what application is being done, and the breakdown of value ram verses good ram verses high performance ram. Tom's has done some tests on ram and found differences that range from 0% to 10%, depending on application. Also involved is the ability to overclock the ram itself, or the ram in combination with overclocking the cpu. Another thing to consider is multi-tasking, in which the better ram will respond faster.

In my opinion, the two most important values in the chain are the Cas latency and the timing. An example in DDR2 (not exact figures) would be one stick having timings of 4-4-4-12 with a 1T and a stick that had timings of 5-5-5-15 at 2T. The 4-4-4-12 1T ram will be noticably faster. After that is the basic speed 533/667/800. The 800 has the best potential for high speed. Not all motherboards are capable of using DDR2 800 at the moment, but I would shop for one that did allow the 800 ram. As the technology in motherboards improves, so will the ability to make the most use of the DDR2 800 ram. This is an opinion, of course. Others may disagree and I might be wrong in some aspect, but its what I've learned over the years.

I run fast, performance ram myself, and by overclocking it, the cpu, and the graphics card in combination I can get some impressive scores on 3Dmark06. Through the years I moved from value ram to good ram to high performance and I found it well worth it. Personally, I wouldn't buy value ram from any company. It will do its job, no question, but it won't respond as well in modern games and may not respond to overclocking at all. I would buy good ram to go with the best cpu and graphics card that I could afford. Keep in mind that the machine works as a system in total, and like the old comparison a chain being no stronger than its weakest link, the computer will not work any better than its weakest part.

Ok, your idea is to buy 2 gig of value ram now and then buy another 2 gig of value ram later. That will work, no doubt, but it won't give the best performance, especially as developement in motherboards continues in the future. An example would be from years ago when PC 3200 ram was introduced. At first, PC 2700 ram actually was faster, but with time and developement, the PC 3200 became a lot faster. I think something similar will happen comparing the DDR2 667 and DDR2 800 ram. The 667 may be as fast at the moment, but with some time and development, the 800 ram will be the faster ram by far.

If I were you, I'd buy the best core duo cpu that I could afford, and buy 2 gig of the best DDR2 800 ram that I could afford to go with it. Then, at a later time when you can afford it, pick up another 2 gig of the 800 ram. In the end though, its your decision, your money and finances, and what I would do may be quite different than what you would do. Boy, that's a lot of writing for me.
October 23, 2006 6:49:56 AM

Quote:
It will do its job, no question, but it won't respond as well in modern games and may not respond to overclocking at all. I would buy good ram to go with the best cpu and graphics card that I could afford.


From your writing it seems there are 3 types of ram. Value Ram, Good Ram, & Performance Ram. Whats the difference i tought there was just Value Ram & Performance Ram. Or maybe I got confused with the Corsair marketing. Because they have Value Ram and thier XMS Modules.

Quote:
Personally, I wouldn't buy value ram from any company. It will do its job, no question, but it won't respond as well in modern games


What do you mean it doesnt respond well to modern games?

Anyway I dont overclock, I was thinking of getting DDR2 800 Corsair Value Rams, or Mushkin Value Rams. The price is not that much more than its 667 counterpart. Isnt this good ram? or is value ram and good ram different? Well for the value rams they dont tell the latencies.

Corsair also has 2 types of XMS performance rams. One is with latency 4-4-4-12 (price like 2 times more) and the other 5-5-5-12 (price like 1.5 times more).

I was thinking of using the savings from purchasing the value RAM to get a X1900XT.

I guess you have to write alot again :)  Ill give you my potential new rig also:

Core Duo 6400
Socket 965P Gigabyte DSQ-3
2GB DDR2 Corsair/Mushkin 800 Value Ram
X1900XT
October 23, 2006 7:10:18 AM

Quote:
Corsair also has 2 types of XMS performance rams. One is with latency 4-4-4-12 (price like 2 times more) and the other 5-5-5-12 (price like 1.5 times more).

Yea you get the cheaper stuff and tighten the timings to the same as the more expensive stuff (assuming your RAM can handle the tighter timings). More performance for less $$ :D 
October 23, 2006 7:48:58 AM

then DDR400 must be ancient for you guys.
October 23, 2006 6:53:09 PM

Quote:
It will do its job, no question, but it won't respond as well in modern games and may not respond to overclocking at all. I would buy good ram to go with the best cpu and graphics card that I could afford.


From your writing it seems there are 3 types of ram. Value Ram, Good Ram, & Performance Ram. Whats the difference i tought there was just Value Ram & Performance Ram. Or maybe I got confused with the Corsair marketing. Because they have Value Ram and thier XMS Modules.

Quote:
Personally, I wouldn't buy value ram from any company. It will do its job, no question, but it won't respond as well in modern games


What do you mean it doesnt respond well to modern games?

Anyway I dont overclock, I was thinking of getting DDR2 800 Corsair Value Rams, or Mushkin Value Rams. The price is not that much more than its 667 counterpart. Isnt this good ram? or is value ram and good ram different? Well for the value rams they dont tell the latencies.

Corsair also has 2 types of XMS performance rams. One is with latency 4-4-4-12 (price like 2 times more) and the other 5-5-5-12 (price like 1.5 times more).

I was thinking of using the savings from purchasing the value RAM to get a X1900XT.

I guess you have to write alot again :)  Ill give you my potential new rig also:

Core Duo 6400
Socket 965P Gigabyte DSQ-3
2GB DDR2 Corsair/Mushkin 800 Value Ram
X1900XT

With Corsair, there is the value ram, the XMS series, and the XMS Pro series, three different performance types. You may notice in my sig that I run XMS Pro. Value ram is good ram in its construction, but has slower timings and may or may not respond to overclocking. If you want good performance and don't overclock, than the XMS series will do better, as well as similar ram from other companies.

As to responding well with modern games, Oblivion and such, requires the best there is of everything for high framerates. Future games will most likely be even more demanding. Yes, those games demand the best out of graphics cards, but the need for a balanced rig is important.

When thinking of value ram, I was more thinking of the DDR2 667 in comparison to the DDR2 800. Looking at the Corsair XMS series in DDR2 800, first of all, I would call nothing in that series value ram, its all good, the difference being good and even better. So far, I haven't seen a Pro series developed in the XMS, but that will probably comes with time. There is a XMS2 Dominator series which may be a replacement for the Pro series. Oh yes, for detailed listing of ram timings, that is usually available on the ram company's home site, as opposed to what NewEgg, etc lists.

As to your proposed rig. I think it looks good, well balanced. That is, no part is in the extreme performance area while other parts are in a medium performance area or a minimum performance area. All the chain links are about equal. The only thing I might exchange is the video card, if you are intending to install Vista and have DX10 in the near future. In that case, I'd either get the Nvidia G80 or get a lessor card and wait for ATI's R600 in spring so as to know how they compare in benchmarks. If you're not intending to upgrade to Vista in the near future, then the X1900 XT is good.

Hope this helps answer your questions. Also, please keep in mind that I do make mistakes from time to time and when that happens, I try to learn from them. That's my disclaimer in case someone disagrees with something that I wrote.
October 23, 2006 7:54:06 PM

Quote:
...
From your writing it seems there are 3 types of ram. Value Ram, Good Ram, & Performance Ram. ...

Exactly. Some "value" RAM (such as Kingston's ValueRAM) is decent, similar to "good" RAM in that it will work properly (no RMAs) without problems at the given speed and timings, using standard voltage. Other "value" RAM (such as Corsair's ValueSelect) is no better than generic RAM, as they just contract it out to the cheapest bidder. RMAs due to defects/marginal incompatibilities are not unusual.
"Good" RAM is typically sold w/o heat spreaders and isn't expected to be O/C'd.
"Performance" RAM is usually what is discussed here. This RAM is expected to be OC'd, and is normally sold by OC specs (higher than standard voltage), rather than its standard specs.
October 23, 2006 8:51:24 PM

Damn me for reading this board too much lately.

2 gigs is still better than 1, right? For example, 2x1GB kit Corsair value @667 vs. 2x512 kit of say Corsair XMS @ 667. Unless you really wanna do some hard core OC, I'd still think the 2gigs is better.
October 23, 2006 9:08:11 PM

Quote:
Damn me for reading this board too much lately.

2 gigs is still better than 1, right? For example, 2x1GB kit Corsair value @667 vs. 2x512 kit of say Corsair XMS @ 667. Unless you really wanna do some hard core OC, I'd still think the 2gigs is better.


I think the answer is a qualified "Maybe". As pointed out in an above post, Corsair's cheapest ram may be no better than generic, with slow timings, higher RMA possibilities, etc. In light of that, one gig of XMS can be much better than two gig of value ram. On the other hand, two gig of value ram might work out for you, maybe. Also, a better ram speed, if your motherboard supports it, will be DDR2 800, especially in the future as further developement occurs.

I realize that you, and others, may have budget constraints that you have to live with. In that, do the best you can with what you have and don't worry about ir further.
October 23, 2006 9:25:57 PM

Bullshit. There is no "maybe". You guys don't care about real life computer usage. Only things like SuperPI runtime or 2 additional frames per second. If you want to run unrelevant benchmarks then go for 2 x 512KB super duper ram, but if you want to use the computer in real life scenarios and not have lots of disk swapping, then 2 GB of value RAM is the way to go. No "maybe" here. "Maybe" is for irrelevant benchmarks like SuperPI that runs mostly in L2 cache. Remember, there are no real benchmarks for running Windows with lots of things going on at the same time, like outlook, IE, mp3 playing, photoshop, all kinds of crap the people run on their machines. If you start using all these things at the same time, you'll have lots of swapping going on with only 1 GB. What's the point of having 1GB of fast RAM if you are going to spoil it with extremely slow disk access. Furthermore, if you buy 1 stick of 1GB, then you loose the dual channel capability which is very very bad. You gain better framerates and responsivenvess in BF2 from 2GB than from 1GB of super duper ram. And so will be all the future games. I'm not going to talk Vista, because it seems the guy that started the thread doesn't want it for now, but if anybody else plans to install it, 1GB is a criminal choice. So stop the "maybe" bullshit, throwing doubt like the nasty political adds. Who taught you these things, Karl Rove?

No peace today,
Lav
October 23, 2006 9:36:32 PM

I'm currently running 2x512 of Corsair VS. Don't remember which speed. Athlon 2200+ with Asus A7V8X mobo, 9500 Pro AGP card. No problems with the memory since I've had it. OC'd from 1800 to 1947.

Would you suggest this memory...
Crucial
... CL3 over...
Corsair VS
no latency given.

Note: This memory is not going in the above rig. Ordering new...
C2D E6300
Asus P5N-SLI
eVGA 7950 GT
October 23, 2006 10:17:18 PM

Quote:
I am gonna be using my PC for gaming, not photoshop or any major RAM intensive set ups.

my question is, would it be better for me to buy 1 GB of high quality RAM
(patriot DDR2 800Mhz 4-4-4-12)

or 2GB of lower quality RAM
(corsair DDR2 667Mhz 5-5-5-?)


Well if you're not overclocking then the 2x1Gb of even DDR2 533 is better then the high-performance 1Gb ram. This happens to me and before I have in my current gaming rig I have 2x512Mb Corsair DDR2 533 MXS2 Pro rams. Very good in overclocking, it was doing well until BF2 comes in and when I run the settings and quality at high, I got stuttering. I was freaking out why my high-performance pc was doing this. So I read some reviews about it and found out that the BF2 runs more than 1Gb at high settings. So I took out my older pc rams which is the 2x1Gb Corsair Value Select DDR2 533 and replace my high-performance rams. Just as I expected the game was running perfectly. So I bought another 2x512Mb to have a total of 4x512Mb of high-performance ram to overclock and play the ram hog games.

So for you who wants to run at stock setting then DDR2 533 is good enough. Them high-performance ram are for overclocking.
October 23, 2006 10:46:55 PM

Quote:
Bullshit. There is no "maybe". You guys don't care about real life computer usage. Only things like SuperPI runtime or 2 additional frames per second. If you want to run unrelevant benchmarks then go for 2 x 512KB super duper ram, but if you want to use the computer in real life scenarios and not have lots of disk swapping, then 2 GB of value RAM is the way to go. No "maybe" here. "Maybe" is for irrelevant benchmarks like SuperPI that runs mostly in L2 cache. Remember, there are no real benchmarks for running Windows with lots of things going on at the same time, like outlook, IE, mp3 playing, photoshop, all kinds of crap the people run on their machines. If you start using all these things at the same time, you'll have lots of swapping going on with only 1 GB. What's the point of having 1GB of fast RAM if you are going to spoil it with extremely slow disk access. Furthermore, if you buy 1 stick of 1GB, then you loose the dual channel capability which is very very bad. You gain better framerates and responsivenvess in BF2 from 2GB than from 1GB of super duper ram. And so will be all the future games. I'm not going to talk Vista, because it seems the guy that started the thread doesn't want it for now, but if anybody else plans to install it, 1GB is a criminal choice. So stop the "maybe" bullshit, throwing doubt like the nasty political adds. Who taught you these things, Karl Rove?

No peace today,
Lav


Excuse me, what part of "Maybe" do you not understand? A faster, higher performance ram might work better, it might not. As I posted earlier, Tom's has run various tests and found differences between 0% and 10%, depending upon application. BFG is one of the games that needs 2 gig to run well on without having to run to the hard disc, so 2 gig of value ram will do better than 1 gig of performance ram. At the same time, 2 gig of performance ram will do better yet.

Like I wrote in my last lines of a previous post, I understand that some people have budget constraints, in which case they should do the best they can what they have and not worry about it. Is ther a problem with that?

And I don't see where that's political or why the comparrison with Karl Rove. I'm not championing any particular company making ram, any particular company making cpus, graphics cards or anything else.
October 23, 2006 11:10:22 PM

Benchmarks again..."tom's tests depending upon application". Useless, totally non-real life scenarios. There is no "maybe" for the budget constrained guy. You don't get the philosophy of it. "Maybe" is the pedantic, arrogant answer. The answer for 2GB cheap vs. 1GB expensive question, under constrained budget situations is 2GB cheap, if you want real life performance. 1GB is for doing sensless benchmarks. And under budget constraints, sensless benchmarks are a luxury. Period. You just threw in some disinformation with you pedantic/arrogant "maybe" answer. This is just useless rethoric, like politician's.

Lav
October 24, 2006 12:31:25 AM

Quote:
Benchmarks again..."tom's tests depending upon application". Useless, totally non-real life scenarios. There is no "maybe" for the budget constrained guy. You don't get the philosophy of it. "Maybe" is the pedantic, arrogant answer. The answer for 2GB cheap vs. 1GB expensive question, under constrained budget situations is 2GB cheap, if you want real life performance. 1GB is for doing sensless benchmarks. And under budget constraints, sensless benchmarks are a luxury. Period. You just threw in some disinformation with you pedantic/arrogant "maybe" answer. This is just useless rethoric, like politician's.

Lav


Whatever. If you insist that I'm pedantic and arrogant, look above and read my one of my answers to cobykills. He asked what I thought of his proposed purchase, which included value ram. I told him that his proposed purchase looked good, well balanced. As for you, if you want to buy value ram or whatever, go ahead, I don't care one way or another. After all, its your budget and your computer, not mine or anyone else's.

I was asked what I thought were some technical questions. I tried to answer in technical ways, noting that such answers don't always apply to individual people or the uses they put to their individual computers.
October 24, 2006 1:00:05 AM

Well...I can see your technical knowledge is your strong point :)  Like that advice that you gave at the begining of the thread to buy 1 GB stick now and another one later. Have you tried running your favorite benchmarks on non dual channel configurations? That's why you don't get it. Because you don't know. There is no real alternative to 2x1GB value RAM sticks under budget constraints. And I don't get it why you spread doubt. Even you said that Corsair value ram was a better alternative than the first guy's 800MHz Patriot RAM.

Lav
October 24, 2006 2:43:38 AM

Quote:
Well...I can see your technical knowledge is your strong point :)  Like that advice that you gave at the begining of the thread to buy 1 GB stick now and another one later. Have you tried running your favorite benchmarks on non dual channel configurations? That's why you don't get it. Because you don't know. There is no real alternative to 2x1GB value RAM sticks under budget constraints. And I don't get it why you spread doubt. Even you said that Corsair value ram was a better alternative than the first guy's 800MHz Patriot RAM.

Lav


For the question about about buying one stick of good ram now and buying one stick later, yes I have done it. I suffered lessor performance for a couple months and then got a second stick. That was my choice, the direction I desired. Other people make other choices depending upon their desires, their goals. There is nothing right or wrong in either direction, just a choice to be made.

As to not having an alternative to 2x1 gig of value ram, as I said many times, do the best you can with what you can afford and don't worry about it.

As to the Patriot verses the Corsair ram, in my opinion, the Corsair value ram would be better than the Patriot ram. I may be wrong in that opinion, but its one that I have. As I wrote before, I make mistakes from time to time and when I realize this, I try to learn from that mistake and not repeat it.
October 24, 2006 3:53:59 AM

Quote:
... There is no "maybe" for the budget constrained guy. You don't get the philosophy of it. "Maybe" is the pedantic, arrogant answer. The answer for 2GB cheap vs. 1GB expensive question, under constrained budget situations is 2GB cheap...

It's hard to convince people if you make pedantic, arrogant, absolutist answers. :wink:
The reason that "maybe" is the correct answer is simply this: all too often, Corsair ValueSelect won't work, or worse, will lead to intermittent crashes that are hard to track down. That's worse than having 1GB of memory that works fine. My last 3 ValueSelect purchases break down as follows:
1) Pair of DDR DIMMs didn't work reliably on one computer, worked on another.
2) Pair of DDR DIMMs had one DOA. RMAd pair (you can't just RMA one of a pair, so you're without anything for 10 days or so). New pair didn't work reliably on one computer, worked on another.
3) SODIMM causes random crashes on one notebook, works on another.

There are other "value" brands with better quality, but at some point you need to decide if you have enough in your budget to get the larger amount of RAM at an acceptable quality level or not.
October 24, 2006 4:44:10 AM

Patriot ram sucks. I've had nothing but trouble with their stuff. My current mobo won't even boot with patriot ram installed and Ive tried several different sets.

For some reason it seems stores like frys and compusa love it though.

Corsair has always just worked, for me anyway. Its what Im using now.
October 24, 2006 5:01:40 AM

Dude, "maybe" is a non-answer. The guy that started the thread already knew somehow the tradeoffs that you repeat and resurect all over again. You guys just threw in more fuel to the confusion fire. No matter how absolutistic it might sound, under a low budget, if you were to choose between 2GB cheap and 1GB expensive, you are far better off with the first choice under real life modern computer usage. I don't understand why you guys don't see this. Maybe because you have plenty of money and always buy expensive RAM, or whatever. But actually, you guys hide behind your "maybe", the advice to him to buy 1GB of expensive RAM. . Just say it, don't say "maybe"...

The cheap memory can be memchecked for 12 hours or so and RMAd if is not good. It's that easy. And the expensive RAM can end up in beeing bad too, although the probability is lower. I wasn't suggesting Corsair Value Select. It just happend the first guy had it as a choice. As a matter of fact I have 3 computers at home including my laptop. Only on my laptop I have Corsair ValueSelect SODIMMs. On the other two I have OCZ Value VX and Corsair XMS Pro, all of them DDR 400. My point was 2GB cheap versus 1GB expensive.

Lav
October 24, 2006 5:04:27 AM

Sorry Niz, I started a reply to the wrong person. Its meant for Lav.

It seems that there is no end to this, so I suggest that we both back off and get to other things in life.
October 24, 2006 8:40:22 AM

Fair enough....
October 24, 2006 9:18:48 AM

2!
October 24, 2006 1:39:59 PM

well, at least it was interesting reading through the thread :D .
October 24, 2006 2:13:11 PM

Back in the day I was using performance Corsair memory (XMS) and it totaled to 512MB. I wasn't getting the performance I wanted out of it coupled with my "Barton" 2500+ @ 3200+ and my 9600 Pro. So I switched to 1GB of Kingston ValueRAM and I noticed a difference in performance.

(I was noticing differences in games like Counterstrike, EQ, EQ 2, stuff like that)

Honestly... with budget constraints, I would say 2GB's of value ram is the way to go.

I'd basically think of it like this
512 single stick < 512 dual < 1GB single (value) < 1GB single (performance) < 1GB dual (value) < 1GB dual (performance) < 2GB dual (value) < 2GB dual (performance). but getting up in those price ranges of 2GB of performance memory is quite expensive.

Stick with the 2GB value for a while
October 24, 2006 3:15:27 PM

A good video card is a million times more important than faster ram. Anyone, I'll just chime in with everyone else and tell you that obviously you go for 2GB of RAM. 1 GB simply isn't enough.
October 24, 2006 5:38:42 PM

That leads me to the next question. Crucial had some 10th anniversary 2X1gb sticks on sale for not much more than the Corsair value ram. Think I listed the link above. CL3 on the Crucial, with no latency listed for the Corsair. (If I remember correctly, I think the Corsair is CL5) Other than for OC'ing, the Crucial would still be the better way to go, yes? I'm thinking the lower latency wouldn't really be noticeable enough to buy the cheaper ram.

I would say that if you plan to OC, spend a little extra for the better ram. While my current Corsair VS ram runs fine, it seems it was about the time I put that ram in my current rig, that my OC became unstable. I clocked it back down, and it runs great.
October 24, 2006 6:45:37 PM

i havent read all of the posts, only the first few... but IMO, nomatter which speed of memory you choose... the performance gains of an additional memory amount, far outweighs the perfrormance gains of additional memory speed... ...its like, choosing the lesser of two evils you could say, the more beneficial route in the long run, is to purchase more memory... youll see *much* more benefit from that where it really matters, than from a slight speed increase, which is mainly only useful for benchmarking TBH.
!