Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Confused With Ram

Last response: in Memory
Share
May 3, 2012 7:33:34 AM

Hi, I am in little bit confused with upgrade my memory module.

My PC configuration is,

Mobo : Gigabyte P55 USB-3 with latest bios.
Processor : Core i5 760
RAM : 2 GB transcend 1333
GPU : ATI 5770 HD
PSU : Thermaltech 750W

Now, i have some money and want to change the memory. I want to use only non overclocking 4 GB module which has 1600 MHz. But I am not sure with that.

Is there any module has only 1600Mhz with non overclocking. I don't want to overclock my memory or any xms ram. Just need a simple 4GB 1600MHz memory module.

Does my mobo is support 1600MHz memory module ?

I am in fully confused with that. Didn't find any proper solutions yet. Please help me...

More about : confused ram

a b } Memory
May 3, 2012 8:42:52 AM

For your processor, anything above 1333 is technically overclocking. More importantly, the realworld difference between 1333 and 1600 is negligible. I wouldn't throw away the memory you already have. I would just spend your money on another 1333 kit of 2 (either 2x 2GB = 4GBkit or 2x4GB = 8GB kit) to go along with your existing memory. I would just buy the same Trascend part number for best intercompatibility.

I'm assuming you already have 2x 1GB to = 2GB? I'm asking because your board is dual channel, therefore it's optimal to install memory in pairs. You'll only see 10-15% performance boost by enabling dual channel, but if you're buying memory and wanting more performance, that's what I'd do.
m
0
l
May 3, 2012 8:53:58 AM

psaus said:
For your processor, anything above 1333 is technically overclocking. More importantly, the realworld difference between 1333 and 1600 is negligible. I wouldn't throw away the memory you already have. I would just spend your money on another 1333 kit of 2 (either 2x 2GB = 4GBkit or 2x4GB = 8GB kit) to go along with your existing memory. I would just buy the same Trascend part number for best intercompatibility.

I'm assuming you already have 2x 1GB to = 2GB? I'm asking because your board is dual channel, therefore it's optimal to install memory in pairs. You'll only see 10-15% performance boost by enabling dual channel, but if you're buying memory and wanting more performance, that's what I'd do.


I an using 2GB 1333MHz in 1 slot. But it supported 4 GB in one slot. Now I don't want to waste my slot. I want to use 4 GB in every slot. That means after buying 4 module , i have 16 GB Memory. But i am in confused with the FSB. Does it vary between 1333 and 1600 MHz. Can I use 16 GB.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b } Memory
May 3, 2012 9:00:42 AM

For the most part, capacity and speed are 2 separate things. Meaning, you could definitely get to 16GB @ 1333.
If you want to overclock, you could easily get to 1600. But you need to understand the complications and implications overclocking (e.g., voiding your CPU's warranty for starters)

I'm not sure why you'd need to make the jump from 2 - 16GB, but maybe your PC requirements have changed. But most people max out somewhere between 4 and 8GB. Therefore you could get away with just 1 kit of 2x4GB.
But if I'm wrong or you insist on having 16GB, then 4x4GB @ 1333 will work. I would refer to Gigabyte's QVL for RAM to help guide you as to what modules to buy.

If you're going to stop using the 2GB Transcend, my manufacturers suggestions are: Crucial, Kingston, Corsair (in no particular order). They might be a tad more expensive than others, but they all have lifetime warranties, as well as great tech support/returns departments should something go wrong.
m
0
l
May 3, 2012 9:07:58 AM

psaus said:
For the most part, capacity and speed are 2 separate things. Meaning, you could definitely get to 16GB @ 1333.
If you want to overclock, you could easily get to 1600. But you need to understand the complications and implications overclocking (e.g., voiding your CPU's warranty for starters)

I'm not sure why you'd need to make the jump from 2 - 16GB, but maybe your PC requirements have changed. But most people max out somewhere between 4 and 8GB. Therefore you could get away with just 1 kit of 2x4GB.
But if I'm wrong or you insist on having 16GB, then 4x4GB @ 1333 will work. I would refer to Gigabyte's QVL for RAM to help guide you as to what modules to buy.

If you're going to stop using the 2GB Transcend, my manufacturers suggestions are: Crucial, Kingston, Corsair (in no particular order). They might be a tad more expensive than others, but they all have lifetime warranties, as well as great tech support/returns departments should something go wrong.


I think you prefer 1333Mhz for non overclock.

I am a hardcore gamer, doing video editing work and also a freelancer .

With 2 GB, i don't face any problem yet. But I have some money and want to buy memory.

So, what is your suggestion for that ?

Just don't want create problem with doing any overclocking.
m
0
l
a b } Memory
May 3, 2012 9:12:49 AM

If you don't want to overclock, and that's a definite feeling of yours, then stick with 1333.

As for 8 vs 16GB, RAM is cheap enough. If you want 16GB, then get 16GB. :) 

Just want to double check, you do have a 64bit OS installed, right? 32bit will stop at 4GB. But I'm sure you knew that. :) 
m
0
l
May 3, 2012 9:16:54 AM

Yes, I know that.

Thanks for that, I am running 64bit now. :) 

Some people suggest me for xms memory, They said it gives more speed.
m
0
l
a b } Memory
May 3, 2012 9:25:10 AM

XMS is Corsair's overclock brand. Did you mean that or did you mean XMP?

XMP can make things ever so slightly faster... one way to look at it, it is Intel's sanctioned overclocking mechanism. So if you wanted the fastest of the fast without technically overclocking, you should buy 1333 Low Latency RAM that supports XMP profiles. You then enable XMP in the BIOS and the system dynamically/auto tunes timings.
You will spend more for this, and the performance difference between plain 1333 and low latency 1333 won't be a lot. But if you're a hardcore gamer, it can mean a few extra FPS. So to you, it might be worth the couple extra $/£/€. :) 
m
0
l
May 3, 2012 9:30:28 AM

hmm, i understand. So, what should i do with my given configuration system.

What is the better to go with ?
m
0
l
a b } Memory
May 3, 2012 9:52:56 AM

If you want to squeeze every little bit, go with the "gaming/overclocking" XMP compatible 1333 modules from the mfg of your choice (use Gigabyte's QVL to guide you).

If you want to stay as cheap as possible, and you just want it to always work (stability), then go with standard grade modules.

I can't make the decision for you, each user's requirements are different. In my opinion, if I could find HyperX or XMS 1333 XMP-compatible modules for only £5-10 extra per kit, I'd go that way. But if not, then I'd go with the regular memory. (My main home system only supports 1600 via overclocking, I use plain 1333. :)  )
m
0
l
May 3, 2012 6:23:06 PM

psaus said:
If you want to squeeze every little bit, go with the "gaming/overclocking" XMP compatible 1333 modules from the mfg of your choice (use Gigabyte's QVL to guide you).

If you want to stay as cheap as possible, and you just want it to always work (stability), then go with standard grade modules.

I can't make the decision for you, each user's requirements are different. In my opinion, if I could find HyperX or XMS 1333 XMP-compatible modules for only £5-10 extra per kit, I'd go that way. But if not, then I'd go with the regular memory. (My main home system only supports 1600 via overclocking, I use plain 1333. :)  )


I have recently buy two transcend regular 4 GB 1333 FSB memory (2x4=8GB). It is on m 1st two slot. In 3rd slot i have 2 GB mmemory. Total 10 GB. My Bios Shows me all the memory is ok. But only 8GB working. Other 2 GB is installed but not working. My windows tell me total memory 10 GB. But available only 7.99 GB usable. can i use 10 GB or i have to use 8 GB ?



m
0
l
a b } Memory
May 3, 2012 6:28:24 PM

What version of Windows do you have? (Windows 7 home basic only supports 8GB max)
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop...(v=vs.85).aspx#physical_memory_limits_windows_7

Alternatively, the 2GB module may not be playing well with the new memory (timings). Reply with the full part numbers of the old and new memory and we can help assess this.

For what it's worth, with that configuration, 8GB in dual channel vs 10GB in single channel will almost certainly be faster. Only a little faster, but the performance increase is more than we were discussing earlier between regular vs low-latency.
Dual channel vs single give 10-15% gains.
Plain vs Low-Latency is more like 5-10%.

Personally I'd just remove the 2GB. :) 
m
0
l
May 3, 2012 6:52:41 PM

I am using win-7 Ulimate x64 bit. I don't know the part no, i will definitl remove the 2GB.

How will go it with my graphics. I have recently found that my gpu shows 700MB with 10GB, But with 2 GB it shows 1700MB previous. What is the problem ?
I have the latest driver.
m
0
l
a b } Memory
May 4, 2012 1:13:07 AM

You can use CPUz to ID the RAM part numbers (free download)

I'm not sure where you're reading the graphics numbers from. Can you please elaborate on where you see that information?
m
0
l
May 4, 2012 9:49:58 AM

psaus said:
You can use CPUz to ID the RAM part numbers (free download)

I'm not sure where you're reading the graphics numbers from. Can you please elaborate on where you see that information?


when i used 2GB memory the GPU memory showed 1700 MB. I see this by DXDIAG.exe from run. But today i installed (2x4GB = 8GB) in my 1st two slots. I removed 2 GB memory module from the slot.

Now the problem is, after installed the memory GPU shows 750 MB by DXDIAG.exe.

What is the main problem for that ?

or, this is not a problem ?
m
0
l
May 4, 2012 2:43:35 PM

psaus said:
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=2026022

Known issue with DXDiag in Win7. Therefore you don't actually have a problem. :) 

You can use GPUz to confirm, but I suspect all is ok.


I used GPUz and CPUz. All are shows parfect. Problem is directx. How can i solve this ?

Need to installed directx again ?
m
0
l
a b } Memory
May 5, 2012 9:24:34 AM

Nope, as per MSFT's link there, they said it's something they will look to fix in future versions of DX. I wouldn't worry about it, because the error is in the "reporting" of GPU RAM, not the use of.
Therefore, everything will function fine, you just see a problem when you open DXDiag. Use CPU/GPUz until the next version of DX comes out (or you move to Win8 or 9. :) 
m
0
l
!