4 gigs of ram vs 2?

[maverick7]

well since i will soon be building my new system i was wondering if i would see a performance gain if i were to go with 4 gigs of ram, rather than the standard 2?

pros and cons please

*and is the dominator ram from corsair worth it?

 

[RichPLS]

Running XP? No...
Running Vista? Probably so.

 

[vic20]

I was playing around a few months ago and believe or not, my machine booted much quicker with 3gigs of ram vs. 1.5.

Couldn't believe it until I swapped back and forth a few times, and sure enough my XP box was much quicker with more.

Then I tried the same thing with another machine, same results.

I didn't even have any software running in the background other than the ATi cat driver and AntiVIR.

RAM is a lot more expensive now though. Would have made more sense to buy a load of it 2 months ago when it was much cheaper.

 

[RyanMicah]

It really depends what games you want to play and what OS you're using. I doubt you'll need more than 2 gigs for any Win XP system, I only have 512 in my 478 board and it purrs like a kitten. Presumably Vista will use more RAM than XP.

RAM is expensive. General rule of thumb for those of us on a budget, if you don't need it, don't buy it. Not that the world even "needs" technology.

As far as the dominator ram, if you can get 800mhz DDR2 there's a chance you're already faster than everyone who's using DDR. With that RAM you're paying for quality yes, but you're also paying for the Corsair name and the tech's "newness." Not to mention that big fancy heatsink.

You buy the best today and tomorrow it's crap. But hey, it's your money...and I need people to buy top of the line stuff so they keep making it. Eventually it'll fall into my price range.

 

[RyanMicah]

I was playing around a few months ago and believe or not, my machine booted much quicker with 3gigs of ram vs. 1.5.

Couldn't believe it until I swapped back and forth a few times, and sure enough my XP box was much quicker with more.

Then I tried the same thing with another machine, same results.

I didn't even have any software running in the background other than the ATi cat driver and AntiVIR.

RAM is a lot more expensive now though. Would have made more sense to buy a load of it 2 months ago when it was much cheaper.

This could have more to do with ram speed and number of modules than simply allocation.

 

[sailer]

As Rich wrote, under XP, you loose, but under Vista, it will probably be necessary. We might even come to the day when we need 8 gig of Ram, though I hope not.

Dominator ram is good stuff, but mainly if you're heavy into overclocking and such. Tom's did an article on it not long ago and found between 0% and 5% advantage over normal XMS, depending upon application,, as I remember. If you have the money, lots of money, fine, but the money probably would be better spent on graphics cards and a faster cpu.

 

[vic20]

RAM speed?

Moved from 2 x 512MB + 2 x 256MB PC3200 dual channel on i865 chipset
to 2 x 512MB + 2 x 1GB modules

Same # of modules, same speed, same timings.

Just borrow some ram from a friend and try it.

Trust me, XP LOVES ram.

Won't get any extra fps in games, but it does make a difference when you are almost never paging to the hard drive

 

[RyanMicah]

Actually, I tried turning my page file off on my Athlon 3000+ mATX system. Ran fine with 1 gig of 3500LL pro. Wouldn't boot with only 256. On my SLI system I have a G15 keyboard, the LCD screen shows me RAM usage. When I first popped Oblivion in with 2 gigs of ram I never even used more than 60%.

 

[maverick7]

ic, thanks for the reply. Well i was thinking about running vista and needing 4 gigs but since the final retail version isnt available quite yet we will have to wait to see if it makes a difference.

As for the dominator ram, i do not, have the money for it but was just wondering how good it was etc.

 

[RyanMicah]

I'm sure it's some of the best, if not THE best on the market. I think you will see Vista using more than 2 gigs of ram frequently if you have it.

 

[Truekeeper]

I hope i can take full advantage of my 4 gigs ram with vista ultimate.

 

[zarooch]

this is the CPU SECTION of HARDWARE forum, please make sure next time you post it in the right section. And as for your question yes do get 4 GB of RAM its always better to be a little future proof.

 

[arima]

i have another ram related question
How about the difference between DDR 667 and 800? is the a really discernable difference? i know that matching the frequency of the memory bus to 1:1 gives it good performance.. but by how much? and will corsair XMS2 PC6400cl3 do the job considering the processor to be E6600/E6700?

 

[mcain591]

if you can, by all means, get it, and install a 64 bit version of Ultimate on your machine (to clarify for the future, x64 version be in the disc case along with the 32 bit version).
treat yourself to some sweetness. If you can.
if not, get 3 gigs.

 

[m25]

I was playing around a few months ago and believe or not, my machine booted much quicker with 3gigs of ram vs. 1.5.

Couldn't believe it until I swapped back and forth a few times, and sure enough my XP box was much quicker with more.

Then I tried the same thing with another machine, same results.

I didn't even have any software running in the background other than the ATi cat driver and AntiVIR.

RAM is a lot more expensive now though. Would have made more sense to buy a load of it 2 months ago when it was much cheaper.

YEs, especially running XP x64 you NEED 4G of RAM to squeeze 100% of your apps and as soon as more 64bit apps start to flood (all the new versions of the major software companies are supposed do have a 64bit version), 4-8G of RAM will not be that uncommon. So if I were Maverick7, I'd get 2x2G sticks with the open option for another 2x2 later.

 

[cowcrusher]

well in vista you can use flash drives like ram so do you really need more ram to run vista then xp? like ill have 4gigs of ram from my psp connected by usb and then 2 from my mobo.

 

[Whizzard9992]

well since i will soon be building my new system i was wondering if i would see a performance gain if i were to go with 4 gigs of ram, rather than the standard 2?

pros and cons please

*and is the dominator ram from corsair worth it?

Use the task manager to monitor usage.

Until Vista comes (as someone already said), it's highly unlikely you'll ever use more than 2GB RAM on a gaming machine. The money is better invested in a stroger video card, RAID 0, or RAM with better timings.

Even with Vista, you can disable Aero to reclaim a lot of RAM. Object Desktop (www.stardock.com) offers equally impressive gfx for a fraction of the resources.

Go 1x1 until you need it. I'm running a comp with 1GB of RAM and loading times are fine (BF2, F.E.A.R., etc). You won't notice the $200 investment for the extra 2GB RAM, guaranteed. You'll notice much more of a difference if you get better RAM and OC your processor.

Anything above DDR533 for a C2D is only necessary if you're overclocking, otherwise you want to focus on RAM timings.

 

[frankienyc123]

I am using 2gigs right now and I wanted to see how it would run with 3 so I borrowed some memory from a friend and it seems to make a difference in speed and responsiveness i mean not a major jump in performance but definitely noticeable What i dont understand is that even with 2gigs even when I have a bunch of programs open I still always seem to have a gig or more of available memory and the page file usage history is a flat line it never seems to be used. Yet with 3 gigs it still feels faster. I thought more ram made things faster because your computer is less likely to run out of ram and have to write to the hard drive. But on my system it seems that even with 2gigs I never run out of memory and rarely if ever have to write to disk according to task manager. So why then does it feel more responsive and faster with the 3gigs?

 

[Whizzard9992]

I am using 2gigs right now and I wanted to see how it would run with 3 so I borrowed some memory from a friend and it seems to make a difference in speed and responsiveness i mean not a major jump in performance but definitely noticeable What i dont understand is that even with 2gigs even when I have a bunch of programs open I still always seem to have a gig or more of available memory and the page file usage history is a flat line it never seems to be used. Yet with 3 gigs it still feels faster. I thought more ram made things faster because your computer is less likely to run out of ram and have to write to the hard drive. But on my system it seems that even with 2gigs I never run out of memory and rarely if ever have to write to disk according to task manager. So why then does it feel more responsive and faster with the 3gigs?

You're right about the paging.

If it feels more responsive, is it possible that you had your RAM misconfigured and you weren't using dual-channel? It's easy for a computer to feel more snappy after an upgrade, because it's mental. Try running a benchark program such as sisoft sandra to really see what's going on. It's possible your chipset works better with full mem banks.

If the new RAM is different, it's very possible it could be putting a strain on the old RAM (forcing better timings), and your old RAM is just taking it like a champ.

Check the specs on the RAM, and run a benchmark before and after.

Getting more RAM is like buying a bigger house. Just because you have more room doesn't mean you have enough junk to fill it, though chances are you will over time.

 

[RyanMicah]

I am using 2gigs right now and I wanted to see how it would run with 3 so I borrowed some memory from a friend and it seems to make a difference in speed and responsiveness i mean not a major jump in performance but definitely noticeable What i dont understand is that even with 2gigs even when I have a bunch of programs open I still always seem to have a gig or more of available memory and the page file usage history is a flat line it never seems to be used. Yet with 3 gigs it still feels faster. I thought more ram made things faster because your computer is less likely to run out of ram and have to write to the hard drive. But on my system it seems that even with 2gigs I never run out of memory and rarely if ever have to write to disk according to task manager. So why then does it feel more responsive and faster with the 3gigs?

I'm telling you guys...more modules can = faster CPU throughput. =P

I should mention that on some boards, you have to make sure to put your memory in the right slots or they won't be activated. I don't know how much you know, I never assume. Adding another module of ram may have in fact enabled the 2nd slot, causing you to go from 1 gig to 3. My point was as far as turning off page file, is that if you have 2 gigs, you're likely barely using the page file as it is. 2 gigs with a small page file is plenty for most of today's apps.

 

[Johanthegnarler]

4 gig of ram is noticeably better in Battlefield 2. No pagefile for that game is amazing. I wish i even had 2 gigs... but to get another gig of pc 3500 mushkin lvl 2 bh-5 would be such a waste. I'll settle with my 1 gig...

By the time i build a new computer it will probably be quad core with RDram. ^^

 

[RyanMicah]

I don't play Battlefield. Haven't ever even seen it on-screen either. I'm still playing StarCraft. Been hooked for almost a decade now. LOL Stupid games!!! I bought Oblivion the day it came out, and haven't gotten very far in it yet. I just get bored too easily I guess. Rainbow Six 3, Neverwinter Nights, etc...buy them one day, trade them in the next. I'm just hard to please. It's why I quit shaggin' your sister and your wife.

 

[Eurasianman]

I was wondering about this earlier. XP comes in two flavors, 32-bit and 64-bit. Now, why is it that XP 32-bit is limited to 3 gigs? Isn't it 2^31 power? 2^31 power is 2147483648. I'm so confused. Can someone please explain?

 

[The_Abyss]

4bg over 2gb in BF2 does not show any noticeable differance in BF2 unless you are gaming at uber high resolutions with everything turned on. If you're at 16 x 12 with all on high, there will be no visible improvement.

 

[quantumsheep]

this is the CPU SECTION of HARDWARE forum, please make sure next time you post it in the right section.

Just about to say that myself. Although the CPU section gets more views than most others, please don't post an irrelevant topic there, if you post it in the RAM section it will still be answered, even though it could take longer.

Next time, please check which forum you're posting in.