- AMD's New 780G Chipset Has Powerful GPU
- X48 Motherboard Comparison
- Intel: Skulltrail Supports Crossfire & SLI
- Most AM2 Motherboards Not Phenom Ready
- Tom's New Reference System
- X38 Comparison Part 2: DDR3 Motherboards
- X38 Comparison Part 1: DDR2 Motherboards
- Game on with Asus, DFI and Foxconn Mobos
- Intel X38 Chipset: A Porsche with the Handbrake On
- Can MicroATX Boards Do the Job?
RAM Choices
Source: Tom's Hardware US – Keywords: ram, speed, tests
Syndication:
RAM Choices
The memory market is in the process of transitioning from DDR2 memory to the more efficient and higher density DDR3 technology; this process will be underway until the end of the year. DDR2 is available at 800 and 1066 speeds, while DDR3 reaches from 800 to 1333. Faster products are still enthusiast-class premium products, as no platform offers official support for 1600+ speeds yet.
Both technologies are based on the double data rate principle, which means that they transfer data twice per clock cycle: during the rising and falling edge of the clock signal. Each new DDR memory generation is based on smaller transistors, decreased voltage levels and higher memory density. While the internal clock speeds don’t change, the clock speed at the interface (I/O buffer) has been increasing due to an increasing level of what is called prefetch. DDR3-1600 memory works on a physical memory clock of 200 MHz, but at a prefetch of eight. The interface runs at 800 MHz, but thanks to double data rate mode, this equals a 1600 MHz frequency. DDR2-800 also runs at a 200 MHz base clock, but with a prefetch of four.
As already mentioned, performance shouldn’t be the primary reason to switch from one memory generation to the next. Memory densities, however, are more interesting. While 1 GB DIMMs (1 Gbit ICs) can be considered mainstream in the DDR2 market, DDR3 memory will be the dominant technology once 2 GB DDR3 DIMMs become affordable, and once AMD has switched to it as well, later this year.
Which Memory Should You Buy?
However, the best deals on memory can clearly be found in the DDR2 mainstream. If budget is an issue, any 2x 1 GB DDR2 brand memory kit at DDR2-800 speed will do the job perfectly well. As you will see in the benchmark section, only significantly faster (and significantly more expensive) memory can deliver a tiny performance advantage. We don’t even recommend going for DDR3 motherboards, unless you’re purchasing something in the high-end. When you’re looking at several hundred dollars for a motherboard, and similar price points for a Core 2 Quad processor and decent system components, it is acceptable to spend some more on the memory. For anyone with a limited budget, though, it’s not.
2 GB memory kits offering two DDR2-800 modules start at approximately $75, which can be considered a bargain given that 2 GB of main memory is enough to run all sorts of mainstream applications and games. More memory, meaning 4 GB, requires a 64-bit operating system, because Windows XP and Windows Vista will only be able to handle 3 GB RAM when the 32-bit versions are used. Although the 64-bit versions are equally reliable, almost equally fast, and driver support has improved a lot, be sure you double check if your devices and applications will work in a 64-bit environment.
- Previous page Is Fast Memory Really Worth It?
- Next page DDR2 Speeds
1) Is it true that 32bit XP can only access 3GB? I thought it was 3.5GB...
2) If I build a system and load it with 4GB of memory, will 32bit XP work well enough (only accessing it's 3GB or 3.5GB maximum) or will it have difficulty running properly? Meaning, is it preferable or necessary to build a 32bit XP box with only 3GB exactly?
Great article, thanks.
B.
1) Is it true that 32bit XP can only access 3GB? I thought it was 3.5GB...
2) If I build a system and load it with 4GB of memory, will 32bit XP work well enough (only accessing it's 3GB or 3.5GB maximum) or will it have difficulty running properly? Meaning, is it preferable or necessary to build a 32bit XP box with only 3GB exactly?
Great article, thanks.
B.
Except it doesn't. 32bit Linux can use in excess of 4GB of memory, though not on all chipsets. I was looking at this issue only yesterday. I was unable to see 4GB with a motherboard using an Intel 945 chipset but on with an Intel 965 chipset I was able to see all 4GB just fine using the bigsmp kernel.
How does XP64 do these days? Is there better driver support?
I find that XP64 does quite well. I've had it on one of my computers for a year now and have had no driver troubles. That's one thing I think Vista 64 has been for, getting the hardware companies to finally make 64 bit drivers. Also, in comparing my machine with XP64 and the one with Vista 64, the XP64 is much easier to use. Of course, the XP64 does not support gaming with DX10. I'll be building a new office machine during the next month and after using Vista 64 the past few weeks on my gaming machine, I'll install XP64 on the office machine.
As to the article on the ram, I didn't see it answer anything new, only confirm what was already thought. One poorly written part was page 4, "How ram sensitive are different CPUs?" The following paragraph didn't seem to address the opening line at all. Even in the conclusion of the article, there was not much said to answer the question, just an allusion that memory type was was of small relevance to either of the CPUs.
Linux can address more than 3.3GB and beyond with the 32-bit kernel using the same means the Windows Server variants can, by using Extended Memory Addressing, and it's support is dependent on the memory controller and BIOS, as well as the OS.
Here is the article:
http://technet2.microsoft.com/Wind [...] x?mfr=true
Scroll down to the "General Improvements and Enhancements" section. It is the second bullet point. Just thought I would point this out seeing as there is a RAM limit with 32-bit XP.
this means that windows will report the 4GB, but you still wont be able to make use of it all.
How does XP64 do these days? Is there better driver support?
I was an early adopter of XP64. I figured, AMD 64 4000+ is a 64 bit processor and I should have an OS that ran 64 bit. There are issue still to this day, specially with running dos stuff - but nothing that DOSBox can't get around.
As for drivers, it's a lot better than 2 years ago. I couldn't print, I couldn't use my creative webcam (on of the more expensive ones back in the day) and a couple other devices. Most of drivers I needed are now available, minus any of the scanners I had (Dropped off Goodwill).
Well according to Microsoft's website, Vista 32-bit can now fully use 4gb of RAM without subtracting off the total memory in your computer. Here is the article:http://technet2.microsoft.com/Wind [...] x?mfr=trueScroll down to the "General Improvements and Enhancements" section. It is the second bullet point. Just thought I would point this out seeing as there is a RAM limit with 32-bit XP.
According to that document, 32bit Vista will "report" all 4GB. That's not the same thing as being able to fully use 4GB. It was changed to avoid confusion. The available memory limitation still exists.
Is it worth getting 4 1g sticks of DDR2 800MHZ RAM 3-3-3-10
ram can be seen here http://www.ocworkbench.com/2007/ki [...] 800/g1.htm
or worth me getting 4 2g sticks of ram like this
http://www.i-tech.com.au/products/ [...] z_PC2.aspx
I was going towards the 4 low latency 1g sticks, but i can get 4 2g sticks of normal latency ddr2800 ram for about the same price which one would i be better off getting?
Despite that, I'd never go back to 32-bit OS's. I have 4 GB of RAM in my system and it screams. I can throw anything at it ( www.PeterSouza.com/computer - specs). I used to have 8 GB, and will again, after having just upgraded from 800 MHz to 1066 MHz DDR.