Nehalem - Tri-Channel Memory What will you be getting - 3x 1GB or 2GB

I will need to wait until I see what speeds I would need.

Example - There is DDR3 1333 for very little.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

The next step up, is quite a bit more money.

Myself, I will likely not be building again until memory prices drop.
I will be doing at least 3x4gb(12gb) on my next system.
The price of RAM will likely determine if I do it in the spring or need to hold out.

I'm thinking I am going to buy 3, 1GB Sticks on launch, then eventually upgrade up with 3 more 2Gb sticks for a total of 9Gb in the future, not really typical but photoshop is a memory whore.

By the way Zenmaster, DDR3 1333 is not supported out of the box, I believe they will make it possible to flash the BIOS later to support, not at launch though.

EDIT: Source
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/253696-28-core-bloomf...

I'm not planning on a new build right away, since my current one is still quite up to the task. Now that that's out of the way: I use Vista 64 now, and see no reason to not go at least 3x2GB.

That article says nothing about "Flashing" a BIOS.
Folks have been using DDR2-800 and better for a LONG time now.
But the fastest bus standard is still DDR2-667 for a 1333FSB.
Everything else is an OC.

Just like DDR2-800 and better are supported, so will be the higher DDR3 Modules.
And likely right out of the "Box", since the Box is the Mobo box and not the CPU box.

We will need to see various test scenarios to see if what speed rams are required based on different
OCing options.

I'm going for 3x2GB initially, and possibly adding 3 more 2GB sticks later for 12 gigs (likely 1066, maybe 1333 depending on price). Matlab sucks memory to an incredible extent, and I want to avoid any more memory errors.

Well I would say 3x2GB. The future is any way for the 64bit systems...

The other thing is that will the 3 channel memory be very usefull at home use? More propable it is needed in server machines when there are 3x16GB, 6x16GB memory or more...
It will be interesting to see!

Nehalem will only support DDR3 not DDR2 just so no body gets confused.

Well, I know it has control for triple-channel, but doesn't it have dual channel, too? If so, I'd probably hit 2x2Gb to start, and add a 3rd 2Gb stick when prices drop further.

i will do the same. 2 sticks of 2 Gb, then add one more when needed.
a loss of 1 channel will not be much of a difference in games.

The 3-way and more RAM is to make the boards more 64-bit friendly. No specific article on this, but I keep reading this theme over and over between the lines.
So another lame guess is the Sandy-Bridge generation will be even more 64bit friendly.

Anyway,
So it's my money, I will get 2 x 2 gig or 1 x 4 gig. Then I'll have some slots left over when I'll really need the extra memory.
I'll do this even if there is no Dual Channel mode.

4gb x3 + 64bit (when i get a new rig at least). Its about time we all start to migrate, its has to happen - this just gives us a reason to do it now.

I can give you a fews reason not to get huge sticks of RAM especially just two.

1. We really don't know yet how much triple channel affects performance.
2. I heard using anything larger then 1gig sticks could be bad for oc.
3. This is a totally new platform that's starting off at low speeds and it's going to scale. Now, when it does scale, it's probably going to want higher speeds. Now your stuck with your expensive 2x2gig stick of RAM or the 4 gig if you got that. <---- The 4 would make me laugh. Yep, that's your money right there, you got that right.
4. ddr3 is damn expensive to get the larger sizes.

Like he said, 3x1 seems to be the sweet spot. If my setup had triple channel, I'd take advantage of the 1 gig sticks. With dual you can't.

Also, I should mention. If your playing one of those games that like more then 3 gigs of RAM in that rare case, then fine, by all means, spend more money for that rare instance. Heh.

Future proof? Yeah, be future proof, but don't get all crazy on it. You'll end up losing money. I would get the 3x1gig because of these reasons. And maybe 3x2gig for the 64 bit, but seriously, can you actually say to yourself the performance gain is worth the extra cost?

Another interesting thought. I think maybe core 2 duo is going to become their budget market for the next upcoming months. With the new platform being so expensive to get, and no way around this for the time being. And we might see price drops for core 2 duo. I'm sure everybody is hoping to see that.

And the last and final thought. If your planning to get this new platform, your probably not too worried about how much you spend. But remember, this a new platform and personally I wouldn't get it. Core 2 duo is more then good enough and priced well to push through and watch the flaws get fixed. Or to wait until it scales properly and we all see the gains that makes it worth spending the cash for.

Cripes no way would I recommend anyone build a sweet new rig and stick 3 X 1Gb sticks of ram in it.

Why?

Well think around the corner with Windows 7.

3 X 1 leaves you going nowhere without replacing sticks.

3 X 2 gives you a nice marging for next year and beyond.

Yeah it means half your ram is sitting idling now if your on XP ... but who would dish out so much cash just to cope with today's OS / Applications?

Does that sound reasonable?

Here's what Im saying. If the platform scales fast, your stuck with that expensive ddr3 2x2 gig stick if you want the next best thing with better memory. A lot of people do this. Also, how many things do you need over 3 gigs? No, I should say over two gigs worth of memory. If your doing it for intensive professional reasons, your already in the workstation range, and that's a different scenario with dual processors. Trust me, I had a workstation with prescott xeons and let me tell you, even my overclocked e5200 can't match the overall feel of the dual proccesor setup. And I only had 1 gig of RAM in it at the time. They did the review on RAM on having more. Sometimes it was faster but only in a few games with few scenarios. Sometimes it benefited with less, both RAM size and total size used.

Yes, I had thought about windows 7 too, but excluded to mention that for three reasons.

You don't know how well windows 7 performs. How do you know it won't be improved? Microsoft knows the memory handling is inefficient. And after Vista, you think people are going to be eager to jump on windows 7? Give me a break, that's another half a year or year until those people trust it. And a sp will be out for further gains by then. I must say, they totally messed up with Vista.

Second, You don't know when it'll be launched, and it ain't now. In fact, I looked it up just cause I got curious, that ain't until around 2010. And that ain't for sure. I'm also absolutely sure though that RAM prices will drop by then anyway. Why do people always think they need the most amount of RAM they can get? When in fact, using 1 gig sticks might actually be faster? It's better for oc and has better timings usually.

Yes, what your saying does sound reasonable to anyone that doesn't know what they are doing. The more is better concept. Ddr3 is already expensive, with the rest of i7. No need to waste money for less performance just cause it seemed better.

To me, triple channel should be appealing not only from the obvious performance gains, but because it expands the ability to take advantage of capacity gains while not using the other slots, which usually equals to more performance. You want to maximize performance here, and it happens to cost less.

Does that 3x2 gig setup look appealing now?

Yep it sure does because every time I listened to your kind of logic in the past I found just around the corner I needed more ram.

Plus I imagine many users would not in fact be XP32 ... they would be using Vista, and that dog needs tons of ram just to boot up.

Not saying I like it ... but many do ... and suffer in silence.

I agree smaller sticks are usually faster.

I have a couple of DDR550 here from my old rig ... useless now. Nice black shiny heat spreaders ... easily run 220 @ 22225. Two sticks of 256 TwinX are only good for show really now. Cost a heap back then too.

It's allway up to what do you use your computer for. I have allways been in situation where more ram is more usefull than faster CPU...
For gamer the 2GB may be enough, but now I have 4Gb memory and it's not enough for some big picture editing stuff I have been doing lately.

There is not a right ansvers here, or relatively there are multible right ansvers. For me 3*2Gb looks really appealing... 6*2Gb even more, but it's not something that everyone other needs. Most of stuff that average people do, can be done with 512Mb of system memory and single core CPU... Most people in here forum are better with fast double core and 2GB of memory and the fastest GPU you can buy. And then there are those who need a lot of CPU power, and some like me who needs a lot of memory. You have to take you pick from there. The most usefull thing is to tell what combinations are usefull in specifick situations.

Text prosessing: you need to have a good monitor and keyboard
Gaming: two core CPU, the fastest GPU possible and 2Gb of memory
Picture editing: A lot of system memory
database: a lot of CPU power?

in future... who knows...

@ Reynod : There's a point where you need more ram. 512 megs is the basic minimum to run windows XP smoothly for just email and simple things such as basic web browsing. You run anything that's the least bit intensive you already need more. So right here already shows you don't know what your talking about. Why the hell would you buy 256 megs of performance RAM? Did you really need to open internet explorer that quickly? LOL!

The sweet spot used to be around 1 gig and maybe 2 if you gamed with the very best games. For home users 512 megs could only be use for internet browsing, a little music maybe, and checking email. This was all you could do, and a lot of people could live with this. Now it's two, with three maybe for gaming. And four maybe for the most intensive games later on on those rare occasions, but your talking about using all high end hardware at this point.

Hannibal, sure that's another reason to get more. You using photoshop? If you are, that's definitely a professional program.

Given 3 gigs is going to be the standard anyways, and that's what were talking about, thanks to triple channel. What do you need more then that for? I already stated the professional stuff.

Another note, Microsoft knows they screwed up on Vista. I read that the new windows is probably going to get a new file system and the memory hog thing is going to be fixed. Besides, it scales to how much you had anyways.

Nope, I'd definitely start with 2x2Gb sticks instead of 3x1Gb sticks. Gives you more memory, cost difference is $15 more for an extra GB, but you lose your super-bandwidth of tri-channel (Darn!). And when you find you need some more RAM, 2 more GB is nothing, just fill in the third slot for tri-channel.

Well, given the article saying that it supports dual channel on Nehalem I'd have to agree, but we weren't too sure if it was. It's new and who knows how fast it's going to scale.

But yes, using 2x2gigs for sure given the reveiew.

Another note. Although the platform is just going to arrive and early raw benchmarks show no significant gains in triple channel yet. I'm pretty sure this is going to change in the future. Also, they didn't really compare real life situations in the benchmarks either. Personally, I'd wait for later revisions and releases.

Kinda Ironic I just found this thread after posting in this one:
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=29&t...

I'm actually one of the few who is anxious for 8GB and 16GB DIMMs. Samsung and Micron (crucial) have both those sizes going out as previews/samples, but from all the x58 MB news I'm reading, they are saying 2GB DIMMs supported now, 4GB soon, and no word on 8GB and 16GB.

I really hope to eventually have 6*8GB or more. But I'd be happy with 4*6GB if that's all I could get today.

I'm really glad that FB-DIMMs went away. When 2-4 socket i7 server line comes out, I'm kind of anxious to build a monster system with 128GB of ram.

Before you ask, I run lots of VMware, WS2008, video editing, etc stuff - yes I do use massive resources. I just use them across many different computers today, I'd like to do more on a single VMware controlled monster.