Looking for 4GB (2 x 2GB) DDR2 800

[ubu]

I'm planning on building a new system with a QX6700 (probably), and many of my main apps (Photoshop, Oracle, J2EE app servers) tend to be awfully RAM hungry, so I'd like to start it off with either 6 or 8 GB or RAM, or at the very least put in 4 GB but only use 2 slots so I can expand later.

Much to my surprise, none of the names I'm accustomed to seem to be making 2GB modules - Corsair (preferred), Crucial, Kingston, all seem to only have 1GB DDR2 800 modules (I checked Pricegrabber, Newegg, mfg's homepages). Since all of the 975X motherboards only have 4 slots (as far as I can see), doesn't that kind of practically limit them to 4GB rather than 8GB, at least for now? I did find one brand - G.Skill - with 2GB modules, but as I've never heard of them I'm reluctant. Crucial also lists DDR2 667 in 2GB modules, but I don't find it on Pricegrabber, Newegg, etc.

Can anyone point me in the right direction here? I searched through this forum but didn't find mention of this topic, but I'm hoping someone will have some good info. Maybe the 2GB DDR2 800 modules just aren't widely available yet? I'd rather wait a bit and get 2GB modules than buy 1GB modules now and have to toss them when I want to upgrade beyond 4GB.

Thanks in advance for any advice,
ubu

 

[SciFiMan]

G.Skill is a brand out there I've seen on newegg, etc. Is your new build for running Vista? Because XP won't likely see more than 3GB. It sounds like you won't need to overclock, so if your motherboard can run 667 or 533 you'll save some money on modules.

 

[3lfk1ng]

G.SKILL 4GB(2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400)

or save some money

G.SKILL 4GB(2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 667 (PC2 5300)


Best of luck

 

[ubu]

G.Skill is a brand out there I've seen on newegg, etc. Is your new build for running Vista? Because XP won't likely see more than 3GB. It sounds like you won't need to overclock, so if your motherboard can run 667 or 533 you'll save some money on modules.

Hmm, that brings up an interesting question. I plan to use Windows XP Pro x64, but Intel's wording on the Core 2 Duo line is a bit cagey - it will run XP Pro x64, right?

I'm not concerned that individual processes have access to more than 4 GB memory (the DB stuff I'll do is only development, not production or I'd use Linux or Win2003), I'd just like to be able to assign 1-2 GB each to a couple of VMs (not CPU intensive) and still have a usable host OS.

Am I right that with XP Pro x64 I have access to more than 4 GB RAM overall for the system?

Thanks for the info

 

[RSavage]

Yes, Windows XP Pro x64 version runs just fine on Core 2 Duo.

I'm writing this message now on a machine just like that!

My experience has been that XP Pro x64 is faster, more secure, and more stable than XP Pro. You will run into a compatibility issue now and again, but there haven't been issues bad enough to make me go back to XP Pro.

One big item to consider, as I mentioned, is the security. 32-bit XP Pro security is scary-bad. East European programmers have generally been exceptionally skilled with PCs. Some have turned that skill to theft for profit in the form of all the spyware you hear about. It truly is remarkable how the entire malware scene has evolved and matured in just the past few years.

It is no joke that nowadays you can visit a Web site, never click on a thing, and have a rootkit installed on your PC that hides in your video card memory to avoid detection and so it'll remain when the PC is off. If you think I'm delusional, visit any one of the sites teaching rootkit techniques and you'll be able to download examples of malware as I've described.

I'm not suggesting anyone do such a thing. Not only is it impolite and bad taste at parties, it is illegal. If I catch you you're going to wish you were in prison to be safe from me. I would have no mercy for such an antisocial act deliberately crafted over hours of code writing with the INTENT of harming others. They throw people in jail for accidents under "negligence." If you actually intend to do something, spend hours planning your cowardice, and then do it, I say "thin the herd" and start with the malware writers.

XP Pro x64, while not even close to "secure" is many times more secure than XP Pro. XP Pro just begs to be hacked. I'm not a thief, don't wish to do anybody harm, or damage systems or files or steal passwords or credit card numbers, but even I'm tempted to write some malware for 32-bit XP. Its security is so bad that its practically begging to be subverted. Conversely, XP Pro x64 has some of the same kernel protection as Vista. While not perfect, it is head-and-shoulders ahead of 32-bit XP.