Quick RAM question

2008-02-01 11:06:45

#1

Ganko_06: Laughter with an S; +167|6924|Camoran's Paradise

I have 3Gb of RAM right now. -2X512Mb Dual channel
-2X1Gb Dual channel

I have another Gig of RAM so I could have 3.5Gb.

So is the trade off of adding 512Mb worth losing dual channel?

2008-02-01 11:12:10

#2

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6860|SE London

3+1=4, not 3.5.

2008-02-01 11:15:27

#3

maef: Member; +67|6962|Tulln, Austria

He'd have to take one of the 512MB sticks out to make room for the 1GB stick, you know?

2008-02-01 11:16:38

#4

topal63: . . .; +533|6997

Ganko_06 wrote:
So is the trade off ... worth losing dual channel?

No.

Plus, what operating system are you using... XP, Vista, what?

Most likely you won't see anything above 3.2-3.5GB on a 32bit WinOS, anyways due to hardware memory holes in the 4GB total 32bit addressable memory space the total is always reduced by hardware installations.

Last edited by topal63 (2008-02-01 11:18:54)

2008-02-01 11:17:51

#5

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6860|SE London

maef wrote:
He'd have to take one of the 512MB sticks out to make room for the 1GB stick, you know?

Ah, of course.

Whether it's worth doing would depend very much on what the computer is used for. I would expect you'd see more benefit from running 3GB in dual channel than running 4GB single channel, certainly if not running Vista.

2008-02-01 11:19:06

#6

Gooners: Wiki Contributor; +2,700|6911

I heard that its better having all 1 gb sticks rather than two 1 GB sticks + two 512mb sticks, is this true and how will it affect the performance.

2008-02-01 11:21:06

#7

topal63: . . .; +533|6997

Bertster7 wrote:
maef wrote:
He'd have to take one of the 512MB sticks out to make room for the 1GB stick, you know?
Ah, of course.

Whether it's worth doing would depend very much on what the computer is used for. I would expect you'd see more benefit from running 3GB in dual channel than running 4GB single channel, certainly if not running Vista.

Yep...

Due to my hardware installations/configurations the max available Ram under Vista (32bit) on my machine is only 2.3GB.

2008-02-01 11:23:24

#8

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6860|SE London

topal63 wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
maef wrote:
He'd have to take one of the 512MB sticks out to make room for the 1GB stick, you know?
Ah, of course.

Whether it's worth doing would depend very much on what the computer is used for. I would expect you'd see more benefit from running 3GB in dual channel than running 4GB single channel, certainly if not running Vista.
Yep...

Due to my hardware installations/configurations the max available Ram under Vista (32bit) on my machine is only 2.3GB.

Ha Ha - You run Vista 32-bit!

Points and laughs...

2008-02-01 11:25:59

#9

max: Vela Incident; +1,652|6846|NYC / Hamburg

Bertster7 wrote:
topal63 wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:

Ah, of course.

Whether it's worth doing would depend very much on what the computer is used for. I would expect you'd see more benefit from running 3GB in dual channel than running 4GB single channel, certainly if not running Vista.
Yep...

Due to my hardware installations/configurations the max available Ram under Vista (32bit) on my machine is only 2.3GB.
Ha Ha - You run Vista 32-bit!

Points and laughs...

/joins laughing

_{once upon a midnight dreary, while i pron surfed, weak and weary, over many a strange and spurious site of ' hot xxx galore'. While i clicked my fav'rite bookmark, suddenly there came a warning, and my heart was filled with mourning, mourning for my dear amour, " 'Tis not possible!", i muttered, " give me back my free hardcore!"..... quoth the server, 404.}

2008-02-01 11:32:34

#10

topal63: . . .; +533|6997

Bertster7 wrote:
topal63 wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
Ah, of course.

Whether it's worth doing would depend very much on what the computer is used for. I would expect you'd see more benefit from running 3GB in dual channel than running 4GB single channel, certainly if not running Vista.
Yep...

Due to my hardware installations/configurations the max available Ram under Vista (32bit) on one of my machines is only 2.3GB.
Ha Ha - You run Vista 32-bit!

Points and laughs...

No problems at all with: speed, drivers, games, compatibility, stability, etc... even the memory used at start-up, by the system, is only about 150MB more than my XP machine (total varies on services: 400MB to about 550MB, eaten at startup).

My other XP machine is not as stable as Vista is. Then again I have an updated patched Vista with the Beta service Pack 1.

Last edited by topal63 (2008-02-01 11:35:03)

2008-02-01 11:33:51

#11

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6860|SE London

topal63 wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
topal63 wrote:

Yep...

Due to my hardware installations/configurations the max available Ram under Vista (32bit) on one of my machines is only 2.3GB.
Ha Ha - You run Vista 32-bit!

Points and laughs...

No problems at all with: speed, drivers, games, compatibility, stability, etc... even the memory used at start-up, by the system, is only about 150MB more than my XP machine.

My other XP machine is not as stable as Vista is.

Nor have I had any of those issues with 64-bit. I can use all my 4GB of RAM too.

2008-02-01 11:37:55

#12

topal63: . . .; +533|6997

Bertster7 wrote:
topal63 wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:

Ha Ha - You run Vista 32-bit!

Points and laughs...

No problems at all with: speed, drivers, games, compatibility, stability, etc... even the memory used at start-up, by the system, is only about 150MB more than my XP machine.

My other XP machine is not as stable as Vista is.
Nor have I had any of those issues with 64-bit. I can use all my 4GB of RAM too.

Actually I've been thinking about upgrading to 64bit/ultimate (as it's included in the upgrade), so I can use more memory.

I am assuming you've had a good experience with Vista 64bit? No driver signing problems - finding drivers?

2008-02-01 12:55:12

#13

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6860|SE London

topal63 wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
topal63 wrote:

No problems at all with: speed, drivers, games, compatibility, stability, etc... even the memory used at start-up, by the system, is only about 150MB more than my XP machine.

My other XP machine is not as stable as Vista is.
Nor have I had any of those issues with 64-bit. I can use all my 4GB of RAM too.
Actually I've been thinking about upgrading to 64bit/ultimate (as it's included in the upgrade), so I can use more memory.

I am assuming you've had a good experience with Vista 64bit? No driver signing problems - finding drivers?

It's great. A worthwhile upgrade. I was very keen to go 64-bit and switching to Vista gave me a good excuse.

I've had next to no issues. The only problem I encountered was with my Audigy 2.

2008-02-01 13:04:23

#14

topal63: . . .; +533|6997

That's what I've heard, more or less, that creative-cards are troublesome buggers under Vista.

2008-02-01 23:50:58

#15

Ganko_06: Laughter with an S; +167|6924|Camoran's Paradise

Well, I'm running XP. From what you've said I guess I'll stick with the 3Gb. It would probably equal out anyway.

2008-02-01 23:59:54

#16

Poseidon: Fudgepack DeQueef; +3,253|6817|Long Island, New York

topal63 wrote:
That's what I've heard, more or less, that creative-cards are troublesome buggers under Vista.

They are - but I had very little problems in general. I have Vista Home Premium 64-bit.

BF2S Forums Quick RAM question

Ganko_06 wrote:

maef wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

maef wrote:

topal63 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

maef wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

topal63 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

topal63 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

topal63 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

topal63 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

topal63 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

topal63 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

topal63 wrote:

topal63 wrote:

Board footer