Anymore than 2 gigs = a waste?

[docnasty]

I just bought 2x1 gig sticks and have 1 gig sitting in my system. I'm using Windows XP Pro with SP2. I don't plan on upgrading my OS anytime soon. The OS recognizes 3 gigs of ram, but I hear that anymore than 2 gigs is a waste. Is the right? Should I just ebay my extra stick of ram and stick with 2 gigs?

 

[runswindows95]

Performance wise, better off just using the 2X1GB for dual-channel mode.

 

[jevon]

Yep in your situation I'd probably ebay the other stick so you can stay in dual channel mode. If your extra gb was from 2 512mb sticks I'd say use them because you would have a total of 4 sticks so you could keep dual channel.

Generally though, more memory the better, especially for demanding games (SupCom, Crysis) and apps (Photoshop). Anandtech had a good article on issues with SupCom and 2gb memory barriers.

 

[docnasty]

Yeah, its a 512x2 so I can run 3 gigs. I mainly use my system to game, so if the extra stick won't make a difference then I'm just gonna ebay it.

 

[CNeufeld]

Just use Task Manager, and watch how much memory is being used by your system when you do whatever you do. If it doesn't get > 2GB, then the extra memory isn't doing you any good.

Clint

 

[happy_fanboy]

Keep the RAM, if you play games ecspesially. You most likely can stay in dual chanel mode on many motherboards. RAM is king, when it was really expensive everyone wanted more, now that its cheap people are scared of it.

 

[xnamerxx]

you really do need a 64bit os to take advatage of more memory. Im currently running 4gb on my home computer and its alot faster then when it had 2gb.

 

[thuan]

Yeah likely you won't use over 2GB if you're on XP. But how much will you get from selling them, is that worth it? Beside you can't be sure if you don't need that extra one GB in the near future, like some game out that needs the extra RAM. You're on the borderline of maximum RAM on 32bit OS now, so when that is not enough a new computer with new RAM and 64bit OS is more suitable IMO. If it were me, I would keep them.

BTW, after some serious gaming you can check the peak RAM usage by going Task Manager Performance tab and check Commit Charge Peak

 

[happy_fanboy]

Maximum ram on xp pro or home is 3.25 GB, 3 gig will be fully used in any 32 bit OS just fine.

 

[geofelt]

Since you have the memory already, install it and see how you do. If you see an improvement, keep it.
If you don't, keep it anyway.
It can't hurt, you might want it in the future, and you won't get much for it anyway.

 

[delluser1]

Maximum ram on xp pro or home is 3.25 GB, 3 gig will be fully used in any 32 bit OS just fine.

So is it some sort of anomally that I show 3.5 ?

 

[nhobo]

XP Pro, 4GB installed, control panel shows 3.5GB. Photoshop multiple large files in RAM without swapping to disk. Multitask more programs quickly, again without swapping to disk. Set up your 1GB sticks in slots 1+3, the 512MB sticks in slots 2+4.

 

[happy_fanboy]

Maybe it was the setup i tried it on, I installed 4GB on an MSI P965 board and it showed 3.25GB. There must be some factor that determines this, I think it has something to do with the video memory but im not sure.

 

[aevm]

I'd keep the full 3 GB.

Guys, if you have a 8800 GTX you'll see 4 GB minus 768MB, i.e. 3.25GB. (for the mathematically challenged, 768MB is 0.75 GB). If you have a different card, say 8800 GT 512MB, subtract 0.5 GB, end up with 3.5 GB. There are exceptions to this rule, but it does work in general.

 

[Shadow703793]

Depending on motherboard (usually P31 and higher will support it) it will support Intel Flex Memory which enable the RAM to stay in dual channel mode even if the RAM are some what incompatible.

 

[imrul]

I'd keep the full 3 GB.

Guys, if you have a 8800 GTX you'll see 4 GB minus 768MB, i.e. 3.25GB. (for the mathematically challenged, 768MB is 0.75 GB). If you have a different card, say 8800 GT 512MB, subtract 0.5 GB, end up with 3.5 GB. There are exceptions to this rule, but it does work in general.

dont u only lose ram if you're using integrated graphics? doesnt a graphics card hav its own memory...

 

[aevm]

It's a different thing. The last 0.5 or 0.75 GB of DDR2 (normal RAM) just lies there unused (it's not shared, like with integrated video). The address where the CPU would find that memory is given to the video card, i.e. assigned to the memory (GDDR3 or whatever) on the video card.

 

[purplerat]

dont u only lose ram if you're using integrated graphics? doesnt a graphics card hav its own memory...

It's not because the graphics card is using the the system memory. A 32bit OS can only address 4GB worth of memory, which includes graphics memory along with other devices. So after addressing your video card there's only so much left for addressing system RAM.

 

[geofelt]

@supremelaw: I love the ramdisk idea, will the product work with vista-64 bit? The website does not seem to say that it does. Also, Is 512mb the proper size for the IE cache? Did you experiment with more or less? Have you found any other good candidates for ramdisk?

 

[Pro_AJ]

buy another 1GB same one as you have on your system and put it with it

 

[happy_fanboy]

I'd keep the full 3 GB.

Guys, if you have a 8800 GTX you'll see 4 GB minus 768MB, i.e. 3.25GB. (for the mathematically challenged, 768MB is 0.75 GB). If you have a different card, say 8800 GT 512MB, subtract 0.5 GB, end up with 3.5 GB. There are exceptions to this rule, but it does work in general.

I appreciate your feedback, however I'd like to learn more about your "exeptions to the rule". The setup i was using had 4 GB RAM 4x1GB, MSI P965 Neo, and an All in Wonder x1900. That card has 256MB memory. I also registered 3.25GB memory in device manager. Whatcha think? anybody have anything else to add on the subject? Id say it has to do with the AGP aperture size if this werent a PCI express card.

 

[aevm]

Well, I've seen a poster in this forum who had a really ancient PCI card (PCI, not PCI-E), with 4 MB of RAM, along with a PCI-E 8800GT (if I remember right.) I forgot what he was seeing, but it was very low, 2.75GB or 3.25GB, something like that.

 

[allhands]

In a 32 bit OS the memory controller can only access a maximum of 4 GB of memory no matter where it is. Graphics cards are typically going to take the 2nd largest amount of memory after your system RAM. You have to remember that cache memory, bios, etc is all included in this 4 GB. So if you install 4GB of system RAM you will never see that.

 

[techgeek]

A 32bit OS only has 4294967296 unique addressable memory locations. Almost all devices require the use of some of these. Graphics cards require the most, the BIOS uses some, etc, etc. The reason some people see more than others is that their hardware configurations are different. For instance a graphics card with 256MB or RAM will utilize less memory addresses than one with 512MB. So when all these addresses are allocated for use with these devices the rest is left for whatever RAM you have. In some extreme cases people report less than 3GB when they have in excess of 3GB. This usually happens when a graphics card has a very large amount of RAM (8800GTX) or SLI.

So if you are running 4GB of RAM on a 32 bit OS, this would be the formula:

4294967296 - hardware allocated memory locations = what windows reports

AGP was slightly different. Most people had the misconception that the AGP apeture size allocated the space in RAM and the OS couldn't touch it unless it had to do with graphics. This is not true. The apeture size only dictates the maximum allowable space that could be used by GART driver, GART didn't have exclusive access. AGP essentially became useless for this feature once graphics cards memory bandwidth exceeded the AGP bus transfer bandwidth. If VRAM was exceeded and texture swapping had to occur in system RAM, performance went into the toilet. AGP really only made sense in the days of slow/small VRAM.

 

[Scotteq]

Paul - That graph makes my secret places all tingly!! Holy Crap!!