Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Should I even bother upgrading to 4gb?

Last response: in Memory
Share
September 26, 2007 3:29:41 AM

Here is my current setup:

*Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 Conroe 2.4GHz 4M shared L2 Cache LGA 775
*ARCTIC COOLING Freezer 7 Pro (cpu fan)/Artic Silver Themal Paste
*ASUS P5B Deluxe/WiFi-AP LGA 775 Intel P965 Express
*Kingston HyperX 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) -timing: 4-4-4-12 -voltage: 2.0v -cas latency: 4
*COOLMAX CW-650T EPS12V 650W Aluminum ATX v2.01
*BFG 8800GFX 756 MB OC video card
*Windows Vista x64

I'm thinking about adding Kingston HyperX 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) for 4gb total ram.
I'm just wondering if it would really be worth it? I'm running the crysis multiplayer beta and it runs pretty good i'm just wonding if it's worth throwing an extra $130? I am running Windows Vista x64.

Thanks!

More about : bother upgrading 4gb

a b } Memory
September 26, 2007 12:20:03 PM

Well.. If you want the extra RAM, you definitely have the OS for it...

I know it is possible for some of the newer games to come close to, and even pass under certain conditions, 2GB of memory. If Crysis falls into this category (and it may), then you'd receive benefit from having more RAM. Even if you're coming somewhat close, the extra memory would provide more overhead for running other tasks at the same time.

Looking at your system - Your Mobo/CPU is a generation behind the current. This is NOT a bad thing at all! I merely bring this up to point out that you might want to ask yourself what your intended upgrade path is for the system in general. From a gaming perspective (meaning 1 big app at a time), you may well see more benefit from a P35 chipset than from an extra 2GB of RAM. Or perhaps you have plans to gut your current case and build something new in the next 6 months on a DDR3/X38 base. In that case, you'd be better off saving the $130 for that.

But if you plan on keeping your computer more or less intact for a while, $130 for 2 Gig of RAM isn't bad at all. And you certainly have the setup to take full advantage.

My $0.02..
September 26, 2007 12:45:09 PM

I'm with Scotteq - your OS will use it, RAM is cheap right now and if you're going to keep your setup for a while then go for it.
Related resources
September 26, 2007 1:22:46 PM

Or, you may want to invest in 2x2GB sticks and just scrap your other 2GB. This way you have room to upgrade to 8GB in the future if you plan on keeping your system for a few more years.

What you have now if great and shouldn't need any upgrading for at least the next 6 months I would say.
September 26, 2007 2:53:30 PM

It is only worth it if you are gonna use it. It would probably be a good idea. I have 4gb with XP Pro Sp2 32bit, and even though it can only see 3.5gb's it is worth it. I use Photoshop and After Effects very often.
September 26, 2007 3:10:32 PM

Ram is cheap and your system is good for awhile longer. Most modern applications will improve in performance with more ram. Maybe just a little, but there should be some improvement. Especially if you are muti-tasking, then no question, go for more ram!
September 26, 2007 3:11:47 PM

Well after seeing the prices of ddr3 ram and the fact that I just built this computer only about 7 months ago i'm gonna hold off on the x38 chipset. Maybe next year. But for now it does sound worth the $130 to upgrade to 4gb 1gb x 4. I will still be able to use the dual feature correct? i'm going to use the exact same ram I currently have.
September 26, 2007 3:48:29 PM

"Or, you may want to invest in 2x2GB sticks and just scrap your other 2GB". Um, or you could just drop your wallet straight into the toilet. Poor advice.
And, 2 gigs ram will surely have more benefit than even considering a mobo upgrade anytime soon. Your mobo is fine. I'm with turtle1. Just one thing, why $130 when you could pay 80 or even 50 after rebate?
September 26, 2007 7:02:32 PM

I have similar system with vista 64 and I just popped in 2 extra 1 gig sticks, giving me 4 total gig. Hard to say if things are any faster or not, I think they are. I havn't really tested anything to see. I do notice that Vista now uses about half of my RAM even when I am pretty much idle. I assume this is mostly prefetch and I like the idea.
September 26, 2007 7:30:41 PM

I have Vista 64 and 4GB and will never go back to 2. My biggest problem was when I was closing my BF2142 game, it was taking like 20 sec to swap the memory from my HD.

I reduced my swap file to 512MB (just because Vista warned me that the minimum should be 200) and now much better. I do not think the swap file is being used.
September 27, 2007 3:06:48 AM

I have a simillar system config with Windows XP 32 bit, 1Gb*2 Memory and I was thinking to upgrade RAM.
I want to add little bit more memory

Whether to add 2*512MB or 2*1GB is a big question I have now.
September 27, 2007 3:35:07 AM

I just bought 4 GB's of Crucial Ballistix DDR2-800 PC-6400 4-4-4-12 2.2v ram for $120 after rebates from fry's. I say the more ram the better; just hunt for the best deals then buy it. I mean for only $60 more wouldn't you want 2GB more ram?
September 27, 2007 10:27:19 AM

ss_rakesh said:
I have a simillar system config with Windows XP 32 bit, 1Gb*2 Memory and I was thinking to upgrade RAM.
I want to add little bit more memory

Whether to add 2*512MB or 2*1GB is a big question I have now.


If your not planning to upgrade in the worl of 64, just 1 more GB should good enough where the 4thGB would be useless. At today's price, it a very good upgrade to make Windows faster in some case! :) 
September 27, 2007 12:19:18 PM

You have Vista x64, make sure you download the patch before you install the last 2gb of ram otherwise you may find your system unresponsive.

That said, Vista LOVES ram, it will devour it, so if you play games and do heavy multitasking you can either a) strip down your OS and hope nothing uses anything you've taken out or b) upgrade the ram and enjoy the fact that when vista learns your patterns it will pre-load your programs for you into ram because it has the space to do so.
September 27, 2007 12:25:40 PM

Thanks for the replay LoneEagle,
I donot want to install 64bit OS with my current config (atleast for 2 year) :) 

I am planning to add 2*512MB of the same manufactor's and same model RAM which I had earlier
My doubt is whether the new setup is going to degrade performance/overclocking ability?
September 27, 2007 12:28:46 PM

Personally, I'll be sticking with 2GB until I see benchmarks showing that this seriously hinders performance. Even with Vista 64 I've never topped 1.6GB, so 2GB still has some head room for gaming. (I run with the page file switched off as I find it speeds up load times and decreases lag switching between programs - I also turn off superfetch because I primarily use my PC for gaming and don't need any other apps to be preloaded).

This is up from the 1.3GB in use maximum I saw with XP Pro, but it's still short of causing me problems.
September 27, 2007 12:29:42 PM

ss_rakesh said:
Thanks for the replay LoneEagle,
I am planning to add 2*512MB of the same manufactor's and same model RAM which I had earlier
My doubt is whether the new setup is going to degrade performance/overclocking ability?


I won't charge you if you try it! :) 

If they are the same brand, model and speed, and you have that RAM in hand, go for it!!!

What I would do:
1) Check current speed with CPU-Z.
2) Install RAM.
3) Recheck speed with CPU-Z.

If the speed is still the same, enjoy it!
If not, you may have to play with the BIOS...
September 27, 2007 12:33:53 PM

andybird123 said:
Personally, I'll be sticking with 2GB until I see benchmarks showing that this seriously hinders performance. Even with Vista 64 I've never topped 1.6GB, so 2GB still has some head room for gaming. (I run with the page file switched off as I find it speeds up load times and decreases lag switching between programs - I also turn off superfetch because I primarily use my PC for gaming and don't need any other apps to be preloaded).

This is up from the 1.3GB in use maximum I saw with XP Pro, but it's still short of causing me problems.


I am not sure you are right. XP and Vista will adjust (I think) of how much RAM they have. Some features will not be loaded or whatever. Swap File is also something else not really needed if you have a lot of RAM (me 512 MB).
The more they have, the more they will use it for loading more files in cache.
September 27, 2007 2:46:45 PM

So now i'm wondering and I know it's still early but would crysis use the extra memory for the game? Will it help with running the game with more eye candy, is I guess the question i'm getting at. My vid card has a ton of mem but if the extra 2gb i'll go for it. Would I be smart and maybe only buy one more 1gb stick and run my system at 3gb (1gb x3) total or would that be less efficient?
September 27, 2007 3:20:53 PM

Ok, so now heres a question. I currently have 4gb in vista 64 and I have been tossing around the idea of going up to 8gb of ram. I have heard that the sweet spot in vista is 4gb, so would it be worth it to double my ram or should I just be happy with what i have? (i am happy with what i have... i just want peoples opinion.)
September 27, 2007 4:22:03 PM

spaztic7 said:
Ok, so now heres a question. I currently have 4gb in vista 64 and I have been tossing around the idea of going up to 8gb of ram. I have heard that the sweet spot in vista is 4gb, so would it be worth it to double my ram or should I just be happy with what i have? (i am happy with what i have... i just want peoples opinion.)


If you are :)  and your computer is working great, why?

I would tell you first to reduce, if not already done, your swap file to 521Mb.
If you start seeing a lot of disk swapping or Vista crash with insufficient memory,
then may be you should start looking to increase your memory. Unless you use
specific programs that are very memory intensive, you should be fine for a while.

I am a BF2142 gamer and was taking a lot of time when I was closing the game,
around 30 sec of memory file swapping. Vista 64 helped a lot and 2 extra GB helped more.
September 27, 2007 4:46:29 PM

slyck said:
"Or, you may want to invest in 2x2GB sticks and just scrap your other 2GB". Um, or you could just drop your wallet straight into the toilet. Poor advice.
And, 2 gigs ram will surely have more benefit than even considering a mobo upgrade anytime soon. Your mobo is fine. I'm with turtle1. Just one thing, why $130 when you could pay 80 or even 50 after rebate?



Read the post before calling it poor advice. Say the poster buys 2 more 1gig sticks, then in 2 years he really wants 8gb of memory, he then has to buy 4 2gig sticks and throw away 4 1gig sticks.

Have 2x2gig leaves you with better and cheaper future proofing. All i was saying. More money now but less money and less waste later. And those 1gig sticks are still worth money now if you want to sell them.
September 27, 2007 5:56:54 PM

I agree with the 2x2gb sticks. It just makes sence. Deuce271 is right in the fact that it gives you some breathing room for the future.

Aslo to deuce271, I am a proud owner (liek you) of a q6600 @ 3.2, thermalright ultra-120 extreme and 4gb of g-skill ddr2 (allthough I have 4x1gb, oced to ddr2 1000 with 5-5-5-15 timeing).
September 27, 2007 6:49:32 PM

spaztic7 said:
Ok, so now heres a question. I currently have 4gb in vista 64 and I have been tossing around the idea of going up to 8gb of ram. I have heard that the sweet spot in vista is 4gb, so would it be worth it to double my ram or should I just be happy with what i have? (i am happy with what i have... i just want peoples opinion.)


Well, I have 2GB in Vista and it runs beautifully. I wouldn't mind an extra 2GB 'just in case', but 6GB more would definitely seem to be over the top to me, but it would be nice to see in Task Manager :) 
September 28, 2007 5:34:51 PM

ethel said:
Well, I have 2GB in Vista and it runs beautifully. I wouldn't mind an extra 2GB 'just in case', but 6GB more would definitely seem to be over the top to me, but it would be nice to see in Task Manager :) 


Yes... yes it would...

Quote:
I am a BF2142 gamer and was taking a lot of time when I was closing the game,
around 30 sec of memory file swapping. Vista 64 helped a lot and 2 extra GB helped more.


I play bf2142 and I am not quite sure what you mean that it take 30 seconds to close the game. Did i get that right. When I quit, it just quits. Also, how will lowering my swap file help me also, what is the default setting?
September 28, 2007 6:18:47 PM

spaztic7 said:
Yes... yes it would...

Quote:
I am a BF2142 gamer and was taking a lot of time when I was closing the game,
around 30 sec of memory file swapping. Vista 64 helped a lot and 2 extra GB helped more.


I play bf2142 and I am not quite sure what you mean that it take 30 seconds to close the game. Did i get that right. When I quit, it just quits. Also, how will lowering my swap file help me also, what is the default setting?


When I was quiting the game and returned to the desktop, Vista was working like hell (HD) to swap back the memory that the game was taking. It was taking some time before the HD light stopped and Vista was not responsive to my mouse or keyboard (may be Raptor drive would have helped a little bit more).

The default setting for the sap file is normally the same size of your RAM. But the more you have, it should the less needed for swapping. With plenty of RAM, you do not need that (me 512MB) and you do not want swapping too.

I am so much happy now with Vista 64 and 4GB! :)  Just waiting for SP1... :( 
September 28, 2007 6:54:39 PM

A lot of people are saying that they're happy with Vista 64.

I play games a lot and that is the sole reason I haven't switched over to Vista 64 bit. Have you been running into problems with games/drivers at all?

(sorry to hijack the thread)
September 28, 2007 7:17:03 PM

So far for my system running vista 64- FEAR, Half Life 2, 2142, Everquest2, Bio Shock and Itues have all ran with out problems. The problems I've had have been Command & Conquer and Yahoo Jukebox. I'm sure there are other programs with out Vista support but, I'm going to guess here, that the problems are going to come mainly from older software.
September 29, 2007 2:40:36 PM

Now I have upgrated my system ram to 4GB 1GB * 4
Bios shows only displays 3GB in bootscreen :( 
But the CPU-Z displays info for all the 4 Ram cards.

Even if windows XP 32b does not use more than 3GB is my current config will still work under dual channer mode?
September 29, 2007 4:48:25 PM

I would think it would still work in dual channel mode.

I am having problems with doom3, and x-3 revolution. x-3 will crash my system and I have to reinstall windows and doom3 just fails at loading the game.

I do not experience the lag you do loneegale when quiting bf2142. That may be becasue I am running raid 0 (in stripe mode) as well.
September 29, 2007 10:09:09 PM

even if windows doesn't see all the ram, the workload is still spread across the two channels, so you will not lose the dual channel functionality
September 30, 2007 3:29:02 AM

ok gr8, But y bios donot show 4Gb is it also 32 bit?
a b } Memory
September 30, 2007 4:52:07 AM

You need to make this thread a poll. :) 

One more vote for upgrading to 4GB. It may not help right away, but prices are low these days and programs will get bigger.

Crysis will most likely use less than 2 GB. That is, a version capable of using more would have to be compiled specially for 64-bit systems. However, if you have 4 GB then Vista can use a ton of RAM itself and still let Crysis have 2 GB all for itself.
September 30, 2007 12:41:11 PM

I can see that 2 X 2 GB is btter for 4 x 1 GB for future upgrade.

However, there are much more selections in 1 x 4 GB (at least in my local stores) and I see that the 2 GB RAMs are more expensive.

I read that some boards cannot work with 4 sticks of RAMs? Is this a common problem? Should all 4 stick the same make and model?
September 30, 2007 1:17:49 PM

The difference you will see is incremental at best. Vista 64 will address the 4 GB to be sure, but usage will be spotty.

Personally, I 'd spend my money on the weakest part of the system and not on something where small returns are seen. Maybe faster disk storage or additional storage.
September 30, 2007 2:04:43 PM

ss_rakesh said:
Now I have upgrated my system ram to 4GB 1GB * 4
Bios shows only displays 3GB in bootscreen :( 
But the CPU-Z displays info for all the 4 Ram cards.

Even if windows XP 32b does not use more than 3GB is my current config will still work under dual channer mode?


You have to go in BIOS and change a setting for the memory to remap or something else...
!