Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

2x8gb or 4x4gb

Last response: in Memory
Share
June 29, 2012 8:33:28 PM

What would be better:

16gb (2x8gb) @ 9/9/9/24 or 16gb (4x4gb) @ 8/8/8/24?

I really don't want to sink a fortune into RAM, and I do not need 32gbs of it. These both come out to be the same price give or take:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231568
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231445

More about : 2x8gb 4x4gb

Best solution

a b } Memory
June 29, 2012 8:40:48 PM

The 2x8GB kit would be my choice as it takes stress off of the IMC. With all 4 slots populated, the IMC on the CPU is stressed quite a bit more than with just 2 slots in use.

Plus, 1600 @ 9-9-9-24 is plenty fast.
Share
a c 347 } Memory
June 29, 2012 8:59:58 PM

IF it's for this rig -> http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2418444 buy a better GPU you will NOT notice any difference whatsoever IF Gaming is the PC's use.

As far as which is harder on the IMC I'd say most any 8GB/stick RAM and the reasons are simple higher VCCIO/VCCSA Voltage not to mention most XMP settings with 8GB/stick also up the PLL Voltage.

So my question is what's the purpose of your PC?!
m
0
l
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
June 29, 2012 9:12:10 PM

When you use all 4 slots your RAM will basically run twice as fast, but it takes more CPU power to do so, since your using 1600Mhz you should be able to get away with 2 sticks just fine and that's the way I would go, you can always add 2 more later on.

Since I still run older 800 Mhz DDR2 memory I use all 4 sticks.
m
0
l
a c 347 } Memory
June 29, 2012 9:17:38 PM

As far as 'speed' and assuming identical Frequency, CAS Timings and Voltage the 2x_GB is faster than 4x_GB (loaded-up Channels). You'd need a benchmark to tell the differences.
m
0
l
June 29, 2012 10:29:16 PM

Best answer selected by DarkOutlaw.
m
0
l
June 29, 2012 10:31:22 PM

jaquith said:
IF it's for this rig -> http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2418444 buy a better GPU you will NOT notice any difference whatsoever IF Gaming is the PC's use.

As far as which is harder on the IMC I'd say most any 8GB/stick RAM and the reasons are simple higher VCCIO/VCCSA Voltage not to mention most XMP settings with 8GB/stick also up the PLL Voltage.

So my question is what's the purpose of your PC?!


Whats wrong with my GPU? I use the computer for everything but photo/video editing I guess. I mostly play Blizzard games, and I can play any of them on max settings.
m
0
l
a c 347 } Memory
June 29, 2012 11:24:34 PM

Quote:
...buy a better GPU you will NOT notice any difference whatsoever IF Gaming is the PC's use.


Maybe this makes better sense -- my intention was not to offend:
Quote:
IF for Gaming then get a better GPU than more RAM, additional RAM won't make any difference.


I was referring to RAM vs GPU. The GTX 550Ti is fine for Photos.

Your set up made little sense 'to me' for stated use then or now. Most folks that do Video & Photo editing don't opt for a i5 and instead go the i7 route, fewer OC (corruption risks), no one uses Quick Sync (fine for your phone), and use a supported accelerated GPU (Premiere or Vegas Pro).

If you're serious above Video and Photo editing then 4x8GB and a supported GPU so the transitions, etc can be done real time.


When I run a small SQL runs @ home I tone down the OC or run stock.
m
0
l
June 30, 2012 12:34:50 AM

Ah gotcha. This rig was built basically for the intentions of playing Diablo iii. I have been able to play every other blizzard game on my laptop but this. It was built on somewhat of a budget. In time I see myself getting a better GPU (why I made sure to get Express 3.0 slots), but for my needs now and in the near future I would say I definately got my moneys worth out of it. I have enjoyed Overclocking to 4.6ghz (well so far so good) and wanted to get some memory that wasnt 'extreme' but that would preform well with the system, and give me some room to play around with timings to get familiar with it. My end goal is to wait until the new Intel 6 core processor becomes a bit more affordable (makes my mouth water). At that time I plan on blowing a whole lot of money. Back when I bought my laptop SSD's were to much money, hell the i5 processor my laptop has was barely affordable, and the speeds have just blown me away. So this is more so my experimental stage.
m
0
l
a c 347 } Memory
June 30, 2012 1:57:00 AM

Don't hold your breath on 6-core getting cheap anytime soon. Maybe once Intel decides to active the 2 dormant cores. The SB-E (39X0) 'is' 8-cores but Intel decided to disable 2-cores. However, IMO I doubt they will have 8-core until the IB-E (2013) -- i.e. affordable 6-cores.
m
0
l
!