BF2S Forums RAM question

CrazeD wrote:

I bought 4GB for Vista but at the moment I'm running XP, and I've definitely seen a huge improvement. For one, my BF2 loads in literally 20 seconds...which is pretty awesome, tbh. Multi-tasking is so much nicer, and just overall everything is snappy.

I'd recommend you just get 2x2GB.

well i have 2x1 gb and I know that xp can only recognize 3.5 gb? so ill only get 1 other stick

I need to get another 2GB for my laptop that runs Vista. Thanks for reminding me, honey bunch.

Winston_Churchill wrote:

Mutantsteak wrote:

CrazeD wrote:

I bought 4GB for Vista but at the moment I'm running XP, and I've definitely seen a huge improvement. For one, my BF2 loads in literally 20 seconds...which is pretty awesome, tbh. Multi-tasking is so much nicer, and just overall everything is snappy.

I'd recommend you just get 2x2GB.

well i have 2x1 gb and I know that xp can only recognize 3.5 gb? so ill only get 1 other stick

*waits for flamefest*

RAWRARARARARARAR 32BIT OSES CAN INDEED SUPPORT 4GB. EXACTLY 4GB, NO MORE, NO LESS.

CrazeD wrote:

Mutantsteak wrote:

CrazeD wrote:

I bought 4GB for Vista but at the moment I'm running XP, and I've definitely seen a huge improvement. For one, my BF2 loads in literally 20 seconds...which is pretty awesome, tbh. Multi-tasking is so much nicer, and just overall everything is snappy.

I'd recommend you just get 2x2GB.

well i have 2x1 gb and I know that xp can only recognize 3.5 gb? so ill only get 1 other stick

But then you lose dual channel.

Dual channel has almost no performance impact at all on DDR800 unless you're running a 45nm quad on FSB1600.

And I don't get why people think 2GB is not enough for Vista. I run both my gaming rig and laptop on some virtually un-stripped Vista32 and 2GB. The laptop, which has a fucktonne of crap running all the time (including fah SMP eating 200MB and FF eating 150) doesn't feel slow at all. Vista does a quite good job at paging unimportant services over things like Firefox and games. Even rendering in Apophysis, which uses over 1.5GB (!) RAM doesn't slow the system down significantly.

Ontopic, if you have issues swapping (Games get sudden lock-ups of a half a second to three seconds when getting close to new objects, constant HD activity when using stuff like Photoshop, etc), get another GB or two. Loading times for most games and your boot speed is more affected by your HD speed when you have more than 1.5GB RAM.

CrazeD wrote:

Mutantsteak wrote:

CrazeD wrote:

I bought 4GB for Vista but at the moment I'm running XP, and I've definitely seen a huge improvement. For one, my BF2 loads in literally 20 seconds...which is pretty awesome, tbh. Multi-tasking is so much nicer, and just overall everything is snappy.

I'd recommend you just get 2x2GB.

well i have 2x1 gb and I know that xp can only recognize 3.5 gb? so ill only get 1 other stick

But then you lose dual channel.

Not with 2x1GB and 2x512MB

I'm on XP for the past 4 years and never seen the need to have more than 2GBs of ram.

Mutantsteak wrote:

.Sup wrote:

I'm on XP for the past 4 years and never seen the need to have more than 2GBs of ram.

I don't need it, im fine right now but i was wondering because RAM is cheap nowadays if there was a significant boost to speed then id think about it

I know its cheap but I still think its kinda waste of money.

i was looking at RAM on newegg the other day (2x1gb for like $14)
ill send u the link when i get home if u want

@'STEAK: JUST DO IT!

Freezer7Pro wrote:

Winston_Churchill wrote:

Mutantsteak wrote:

well i have 2x1 gb and I know that xp can only recognize 3.5 gb? so ill only get 1 other stick

*waits for flamefest*

RAWRARARARARARAR 32BIT OSES CAN INDEED SUPPORT 4GB. EXACTLY 4GB, NO MORE, NO LESS.

GO ON! SICK IT TO HIM MY BOY!



Seriously 'Steak - for all the valid reasons mentioned in above posts, you WILL notice a difference going over that magic 2GB barrier.

Post your mobo model, and we'll check what you need to get...