Should I Get 2 More?

[str8ballistik]

Hey guys, I'm new here. I used to get all the pc help I could over at pcgamer, but unfortunately their forums were just shut down and will be for quite a while so I thought what better of a place to go to than tomshardware.

Here's my question. I have 2 xms 1gb Corsair sticks of ram in my computer. If I were to get two more would it be worth it with the build I have? and what kind of gain would I get out of getting two more?

My build:
8800gts 640mb
5600x2 AMD CPU
M2N Sli-Deluxe Mobo
2gb XMS Corsair ram
320gb WD HD
etc...

 

[blacksci]

Your not going to see a diffrence, sorry to say, but that is a older cpu, and it only uses 2 cores. Now if you had a quad, you might see some improvement, but for now, i would save up what i got for a whole system upgrade.

 

[San Pedro]

Do you have a 64bit OS? Are you using Windows XP or Vista?

 

[blacksci]

I forgot about the 64 bit part, if you want to game, or use products that are easy to find and easier to upgrade, go 32 for now, sure 64 is the future, its just not the future were in right now.

 

[str8ballistik]

I'm planning on getting vista 64bit in the near future. It would be a good idea to get it then, but right now with windows home basic I wont see any difference right?

 

[blacksci]

Not with a dual core, but i suggest it to those who have quads. But we are usually multi tasking wh*res

 

[blacksci]

Also when you get 64, i have seen many a comment here where people have seen a performance diffrence up to 8 gigs with the 64 bit systems.

 

[doomturkey]

What does having a quad core have to do with wanting more RAM? I would say get 2gb more, its cheap. Hell, I only have 2gb on vista 64 with a SINGLE core processor and I wish I had a lot more RAM.

 

[Lambduh]

I finally gave in and created an account on this forum. There is so much misinformation and it has been eating away at my soul.

When you have a 64-bit OS or a 32-bit OS that will completely take advantage of the extra two GiB of RAM, you will notice a huge difference. First off, you will be able to safely turn off the Page File, which will keep programs from buffering to your HDD. Especially with games you will notice a difference because it will be easy for Windows to switch between a full-screen application and the desktop since it won't have to be swapping between RAM and HDD. You will be able to leave your programs open and play the latest games without filling your RAM. Your Dual-Core is still fast by today's standards, and is not holding you back at all.

For example, I constantly have an IRC client, Opera with about 20 tabs, steam, IE with a few tabs, windows explorer, skype, and pidgin open amongst other programs such as everest, rivatuner, and my Anti-Virus running while I play games(such as the Age of Conan beta which is RAM central), and the highest I have seen my RAM consumption is about 86% of what you will have, and that is with very liberal RAM usage by all programs.

PM me if you have anymore questions as I probably won't remember to check this thread

Good luck and have fun!

 

[blacksci]

Its pretty easy to figure out turkey, more ram means more flexiblity for multitasking, something a quad is great for. dunno how else to explain it.

 

[cah027]

Please explain to me how quad core vs dual core has anything to do with adding more ram ???

There is a fairly in depth article here on Toms about Ram and Vista 64

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/vista-workshop,1775.html

 

[cliffro]

Is having a Quad Core like being a member of some secret club? where you get perks like 4gb of ram? your theory is ****.
My dual core Xeon 3110 must be special because it really likes having 4 gigs of ram. My friends 6750 also must be special cuz it seems to do well with 6gigs.

Reminds me of this old quote

Nobody will ever need more than 640KB RAM

was attributed to Bill Gates but he denies saying it.

 

[WR2]

Its pretty easy to figure out turkey, more ram means more flexiblity for multitasking, something a quad is great for. dunno how else to explain it.

Anything like a performance benchmark to back that up? Saves you from having to explain anything.

 

[kcrush]

Vista 64 is a memory hog. I have 4 gigs installed and once I used to think it was enough. Once vista got used to my habits it quickly fixed that assumption.

With quad core you can run a lot of cpu intensive programs without them tripping over themselves.

Now with an music playing, one MMO up, antivirus, disk defrag, and firefox running in the background after a few hours of playing Vista is at 3.3-3.4 gbs of ram it starts asking me which programs it wants to shut down.

And no I'm not turning paging back on I'd rather upgrade to 8 gig. I had 4 gigs, the ram died so I replaced it with 2 gigs and turned paging back on....I so hated that 2 months (painfully sloooooooow), I got back to 4 gigs and turned off paging and have been very very happy...so more memory=better when you run lots of program simultaneously.

If you only do FF and solitaire then stick with yer 2 gigs. If you really multitask...get more ram and more cores and turn of the stupid <censored> paging system.

c2q 6600
4 gigs corsair dominator
8800 gts 640
150 gb wd raptor X

 

[maximiza]

I installed 64 bit ultimate last night and I can't say it is slower then XP 32 bit. I only have 2 gigs too. Quad Cores are nice but Intel production is more duals not quads. I can't even find programs 64 or 32 bit that say "Quad core required" the most I have found is is "Multi core required"

 

[jitpublisher]

The first question everyone SHOULD ask is "What do you do on your PC?"
If your surf the internet, check email and play a game or 2 in XP, then no you won't see much difference.
If you run several programs at once, or using Vista (even 32 bit) then yes an additional 2 gig of memory is going to make a noticable improvement.

 

[Scotteq]

KC - Your system is doing that because you disabled the page file. I know it's the fashionable thing to do, for some reason, but I would suggest you'd be far better served by turning it down (512~1GB) rather than off.


Regarding 2 cores or 4 cores with 2 or 4 gig of RAM - There is no relationship between number of cores and amount of RAM. Therefore no reason to not load that sucker up.


For the OP - RAM is cheap, and if you like running multiple and/or memory hungry programs you may benefit. I recommend a 2 x 2GB setup rather than adding 2 more sticks - some mobo's don't like running 4 DIMMS. Having said that, I do agree with the general sentiment that your system is become a little dated. NOT badly. But In My Very Humble and Unasked For Opinion, it would be a good idea to start planning the next build.

 

[blacksci]

I love how everyone got butt hurt over my comment. The point was if you have a quad, more then likely right now you are a multitasker. Which is why i suggest going with 4 gigs of ram. Most dual core folks are gamers, and very few games out there require anything beyond 2 for now. There in plain english is what i was trying to get across, sorry yall were too tarded to figure out the reasoning behind my statement.

 

[dagger]

I love how everyone got butt hurt over my comment. The point was if you have a quad, more then likely right now you are a multitasker. Which is why i suggest going with 4 gigs of ram. Most dual core folks are gamers, and very few games out there require anything beyond 2 for now. There in plain english is what i was trying to get across, sorry yall were too tarded to figure out the reasoning behind my statement.

It depends on what you game. Vista (both 32 and 64bit) hogs 1+gb, and Crysis hogs 2+gb after a few hours of gameplay. But yes, at the moment, few games actually use more than 2 gb of ram alone. But most people also have thing like antivirus running in the background. Even if you're not multasking, you're still doing light multitasking just by running a typical computer. The ram usage adds up, and 2gb total fills up quickly.

Considering how dirt cheap ddr2 is at the moment, there's no reason not to upgrade.