Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

2gb PC1066 or 4gb PC800?

Last response: in Memory
Share
December 28, 2007 6:02:42 AM

I just ordered my new gaming machine...except for the ram. I was wondering what would give me the best performance between doing 2gb of pc1066 (Corsair Dominator) or 4bg of pc800 (Corsair XMS2) since they are both in my price range? I have an MSI P35 Platinum with an Intel Core 2 Duo 3.0 and a BFG 8800 GTXOC. Thanks for the help!

More about : 2gb pc1066 4gb pc800

a b } Memory
December 28, 2007 7:29:49 AM

Definitely 4GB DDR2 800 , because DDR2 800 doesnt have alot of difference with DDR2 1066 and also DDR2 800 OCs very good too and the most important thing is that 4GB>2GB
December 29, 2007 5:00:11 PM

Cool thanks for the advice. I talked to my friend and he said the same thing so I went with the 4gigs.
Related resources
December 29, 2007 5:35:31 PM

I hope you have a 64 bit OS. If not you wasted money.
December 31, 2007 4:09:41 PM

I would also like to hope you have screen shots of whatever you're doing on your PC that is taking an excess of 2gigs...

I would go with 2gb's of 800 ram, reason is because good overclockable RAM at 800 is close to or better than 1066 simply because the price difference is not worth it!
December 31, 2007 4:47:38 PM

4GB all the way. I run 4gb with Vista Ultimate 64. Runs great. There was a noticeable difference between 2gb and 4gb of ram in Vista 64 in my eyes.
December 31, 2007 6:05:15 PM

When i play eq2 in anything above average settings, my hd is getting hit non-stop...I have 2gb. And will be upgrading to 4gb asap.

Originally EQ2 would run alright with 2gb, but after the latest game pack, it makes use of a lot more.
December 31, 2007 7:11:34 PM

roadrunner197069 said:
I hope you have a 64 bit OS. If not you wasted money.
Bulls#!t. XP 32-bit runs great with 4GB.
January 1, 2008 6:30:49 AM

nhobo said:
Bulls#!t. XP 32-bit runs great with 4GB.


I'm sure xp still runs great with 4gb of ram, however can't use (or see) the whole 4 gb right?

My main question is what is the main benefit of getting ram faster than 800mhz (400mhz double pumped), when not even the latest processors have an fsb of 400mhz (400mhz quad pumped = 1600mhs fsb)? in other words, having 1066 (533mhz double pumped) would have to be UNDERclocked to have syncronous fsb/ram ratio.

Even if you are thinking of overclclocking, getting a processor to have an fsb even approaching 2132mhz (533mhz quad pumped) is basically unheard of.

Please enlighten me..

(first post by the way, please go easy...)
January 1, 2008 7:37:53 AM

XP 4GB
The step from 2GB to 4GB, even if XP can only access 3-3.2GB (or similar), is a valid one. Yes, there is a that difference which remains unused, and so it may appear to be not cost effective when buying more than 3GB, but it is usual to get to 4GB by various common (and logical) combinations of memory modules.

Most do not install 3 x 1GB or 1 x 1GB + 1 x 2GB modules to get 3GB when using XP, they'll tend to buy 1-2 x 1GB or 1-2 x 2GB to start with and add modules with the same SPDs at a later time.

Quite likely that dual channel may be a factor as well, rather than install 1 x 2GB or 1 x 4GB into DIMM0 on a 4 DIMM board, it is more likely to have 4 x 1GB or 2 x 2GB.

To put another way, even if 3GB is a more cost effective maximum for XP, most configurations will be 1GB, 2GB or 4GB.

If a system consistantly needs more than 2GB (yes, I can hear the hard drive grinding to dust), then it needs it, so XP with 3GB or 4GB, that sounds ok, either way.

800 vs 1066
Yep, if 1066 is run at a syncronous ratio on a 1333FSB board, it will be under clocked, but not many will purposely select a 1:1 ratio for this. More likely the ratio will be 3:2, 4:3, 5:4 (whatever) to eek a bit more performance from the module, tighten up timings as well, if possible.

It is not unusual to read reviews of over clocking the bus speed to the 450-475MHz range (1800-1900MHz FSB, I didn't find a 533MHz), however, the increase in bus speed is one way to over clock CPU, but the other is the multiplier, much like the ratio for RAM.

At 450MHz bus speed, the DDR2 1066 will still run at a syncronous ratio as under clocked (effectively DDR2 900MHz), but it is a faster 1:1 by virtue of the quicker bus speed. If it were DDR2 800MHz, it would need to be at 9:8 ratio to run at bus speed, which is over clocked for this module. Keeping it to 800MHz will need a 8:9 ratio.

There's plenty of 800MHz RAM that can be over clocked, but if you want to run a bus speed greater than 400MHz and not over clock DDR2-800 modules, the DDR2-1066 will have plenty of head room (as you've indicated) while you fiddle with the FSB and multiplier on your CPU.
January 1, 2008 6:47:21 PM

sammyt86 said:
I'm sure xp still runs great with 4gb of ram, however can't use (or see) the whole 4 gb right?
I use all of it, and the control panel shows 3.5GB available. That's because Windoze loads ROM, PCI devices, the graphics card, etc. into RAM, reducing the amount available to the OS and applications.

It does this no matter how much you have (up to 4GB in a 32-bit OS). If there is 500MB of hardware loaded into RAM on a 1GB system, you haven't got much to work with. 2GB is the baseline for a responsive system. More is better if you multitask or handle large files.
January 1, 2008 8:23:15 PM

Vista64 OS user here.

For Vista64 more RAM is better than faster RAM... up to a point.

There is a HUGE performance difference between 1 and 2 gb of RAM for OS and application functions.

Noticeable performance difference between 2gb and 4gb of RAM for OS and application functions.

After 4GB the improvement is strictly is task related.

From a clean start Vista64 RAM consumption is about 1.4GB. Add a web browser and MS word and the consumption jumps up to around 1.7GB. Hence the huge improvement when going from 1GB to 2GB of RAM.

The improvement that occurs when going from 2GB to 4GB is when adding a game or adding photoediting and webdeveloping applications. For me, in an heavy multitasking office environment my RAM consumption will quickly climb to 2.5GB. Hence my noticeable improvment when going from 2GB to 4GB. It is not a huge improvement... it is noticeable.

I say go with 4GB. IF you game or multitask you will enjoy the extra RAM above 2GB.

January 4, 2008 7:11:25 AM

The reason WinXP 32-bit (or any other 32-bit OS) can't see the full 4GB is not due to the "hardware being loaded into RAM" - but due to the hardware (PCI devices USB etc) using up some of the address space. With no hardware a 32-bit OS can address the full 4GB, but this is never possible. So if you see 3.2GB of RAM in the computer properties then that is all windows can use. The other 0.5GB is sitting doing nothing, cause windows can't talk to it.
January 6, 2008 12:23:11 AM

I believe it's called mapping, but the end result is the same.
January 6, 2008 2:36:51 AM

To say that ANY 32-bit system cannot use 4 GB (or more) is faulty. It is just a matter of going into PAE mode. But Microsoft has put a limit on 32-bit XP and Vista, so the address space above 4G is off limit.

On most modern computers the rest of the hardware is also able to address above 4G. Memory remapping is a technique to remap the lost ram up and above the 4G address line
January 6, 2008 4:34:02 PM

Terrifying to hear that you need 4 gigs just to run an OS.
January 7, 2008 12:36:50 AM

NaDa said:
Terrifying to hear that you need 4 gigs just to run an OS.
Another Vista "feature".
!