Chuck_Waugh
n00b
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2007
- Messages
- 13
Definately go with 4gb.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
2GB or 4GB of ram?
- Thread starter wilson82
- Start date
As someone who's gone from 2X1GB to 4X1GB without any other changes around that time, I can say that 32 bit WinXP Home did perform better in games with 4GB than 2GB. I don't know if it was any better than it would be with 3GB, but I assume if I installed 3GB then some of the address space would still be stolen by my two 512MB video cards and I would have less than the 3.1GB memory that My Computer shows now. The games I was playing around the time were Quake 4, Battlefield 2, Far Cry, Prey, Half-Life 2 Episode One, and a few others.
By the way I am gaming at 2560x1600 so maybe I benefit more from being above 2GB than most cats.
(I know 2 512MB cards doesn't equal 1GB of video RAM but I believe the 2nd card still takes up some extra address space from your system RAM.
By the way I am gaming at 2560x1600 so maybe I benefit more from being above 2GB than most cats.
(I know 2 512MB cards doesn't equal 1GB of video RAM but I believe the 2nd card still takes up some extra address space from your system RAM.
I have a similar system to yours, just bought the FX-60 and Vista64-Ultimate bundle through TigerDirect
......I have read that 64bit helps to run a total of 4gb or anything above 2gb for that matter ?I also game at 2560x1600 and was thinking of going out to get another 2gb to match my current Corsair XMS Platinum Series, would that help gaming at my high resolution and also smooth at Vista64 even more ?>
I have a similar system to yours, just bought the FX-60 and Vista64-Ultimate bundle through TigerDirect
I also game at 2560x1600 and was thinking of going out to get another 2gb to match my current Corsair XMS Platinum Series, would that help gaming at my high resolution and also smooth at Vista64 even more ?>
Yes with 64 bit XP or Vista you get the full benefit of 4GB memory without your hardware memory footprint eating into the available address space.
If you're gaming at 4.1 megapixels with an 8800 you will probably see benefit from adding RAM. Mainly in terms of almost no disk access whatsoever in gaming. You could even try turning off your swap file after upgrading to 4GB, depending on what you use your PC for when not gaming. If I didn't use Photoshop and a bunch of other production software, I'd turn off my swap file as with 4GB it's not necessary in games and turning it off eliminates disk access altogether.
Let me know how it goes, I am interested in maybe getting another 2gb of Corsair XMS Platinum Series
First of all, let me just say that I was very skeptical of the usefulness of 4gb RAM vs 2gb in XP/Vista 32bit, BUT since I did have an extra 2gb RAM on hand I thought I'd put it in my machine just for the hell of it and see what would happen. This on DS3/e6400/7900gt rig.
Before I put in the extra RAM, I had done some tests with this app to measure my page file activity, my hope of any improvement with 4gb was that it would eliminate any unnecessary pagefile writing. With 2gb RAM, Vista would write several hundred mb to my pagefile after exiting a tough game (GRAW, NFS Carbon, COD2) or some other programs after an hour or so of moderate/heavy use. With 4gb, that was reduced by about 80-90%, still some activity, but reduced considerably. Contrast this with XP where the peak pagefile activity was no more than 3-4mb on just 2GB RAM.
Superfetch. After booting up into Vista and using several apps, AV scanner, photo/vid apps, copying/writing, gaming, etc, the task manager (which reports only 3.25GB RAM, btw) would use up all that RAM and would often report less than 10-20mb of it left free. SO the extra RAM IS being used, and I did feel things snappier than before, whether thats subjective or not I dont know, but I did notice smoother game play on recent demanding games.
So to conclude, in Vista, it will use the extra RAM, and the fact that it demonstratably reduces PF activity is IMO enough of a reason for me to see it as worthwhile. Just my 2 shekels.
Before I put in the extra RAM, I had done some tests with this app to measure my page file activity, my hope of any improvement with 4gb was that it would eliminate any unnecessary pagefile writing. With 2gb RAM, Vista would write several hundred mb to my pagefile after exiting a tough game (GRAW, NFS Carbon, COD2) or some other programs after an hour or so of moderate/heavy use. With 4gb, that was reduced by about 80-90%, still some activity, but reduced considerably. Contrast this with XP where the peak pagefile activity was no more than 3-4mb on just 2GB RAM.
Superfetch. After booting up into Vista and using several apps, AV scanner, photo/vid apps, copying/writing, gaming, etc, the task manager (which reports only 3.25GB RAM, btw) would use up all that RAM and would often report less than 10-20mb of it left free. SO the extra RAM IS being used, and I did feel things snappier than before, whether thats subjective or not I dont know, but I did notice smoother game play on recent demanding games.
So to conclude, in Vista, it will use the extra RAM, and the fact that it demonstratably reduces PF activity is IMO enough of a reason for me to see it as worthwhile. Just my 2 shekels.
I'm glad you've upgraded your system and are enjoying the benefits.
The only bad news is that application is a piece of junk. It doesn't measure anything useful, and doesn't measure anything you can't measure with tools that are built-in to Windows.
The only bad news is that application is a piece of junk. It doesn't measure anything useful, and doesn't measure anything you can't measure with tools that are built-in to Windows.
Well it was based on the code writen by an MS MVP, not that means anything. I dont know if any of Vistas tools measure or write the pagefile activity to a log to study AFTER a session (perhaps you can direct me to which tool does that), but saying its 'junk' with nothing to demonstrate that is no less hogwash if I do say so myself . And saying "it doesnt measure anything useful" is BS, since it clearly shows more pagefile activity with less RAM than not.
. And saying "it doesnt measure anything useful" is BS, since it clearly shows more pagefile activity with less RAM than not.Performance Monitor can help with this.Amenx said:
The tool just monitors and reports WMI page file usage object. Practically any other WMI recording tool can do the same thing.
Problem is, those counters aren't exactly very accurate. They're also reporting only part of the problem, as your machine swaps to other locations besides the page file. While there aren't performance monitor counters that show only pagefile activity, it turns out you want to know about all paging activity when tuning your machine; not just what ends up in the page file.
I hope that helps; let me know if you have any other questions.
What other locations does the machine swap to? My best guess would be that pages that are not marked as `dirty' are re-read from their original location on the HDD.
Right.
If your program allocates memory and changes it, then that memory needs to be swapped out, it'll get swapped to the page file.
Your program might map a file into memory from disk. Pages in that mapping, dirty or not, are backed by the file and not the system pagefile.
It turns out that all executable images (executables, DLLs, device drivers, whatever) are loaded into memory by mapping them and letting them fault in. Since the code pages can't be modified, the backing store is the executable file itself, wherever it may live.
If your program allocates memory and changes it, then that memory needs to be swapped out, it'll get swapped to the page file.
Your program might map a file into memory from disk. Pages in that mapping, dirty or not, are backed by the file and not the system pagefile.
It turns out that all executable images (executables, DLLs, device drivers, whatever) are loaded into memory by mapping them and letting them fault in. Since the code pages can't be modified, the backing store is the executable file itself, wherever it may live.
Swapping read-only pages is precisely what enables ReadyBoost to shine.
Thanks for the info Mike, and sorry if I appeared rude in any way earlier. As I mentioned my seeing less paging activity in the pagefile monitor app and your view that it may not be accurate, aside from the accuracy issue do you think that 4gb would still reduce pagefile activity on a practical level or that it may not be significant enough to matter?
I would've appreciated it if you had just asked more information without the "BS" and "hogwash" comments. But it's no big deal.
It'll depend on your applications, really. But I'd expect you to need the page file less with more physical usable memory, sure.
I've got it installed and testing right now, I'll let you know in a bit. The board automatically selected DDR333 speed, but I've got it running at DDR400 and memtesting right now.
On 64bit when I play CoH on 64bit it uses about 1.9gb of ram. On 32bit Vista it used only about 1.2-1.3
TheCur
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2007
- Messages
- 11,829
What would be the best way to get 4Gb of RAM on a new system, as I am going to build one soon and would like 4Gb. I plan on getting a BadAxe2, E6700 and hopefully getting ~3GHz out of it.
Should I go for 4x1Gb with the fastest RAM I can afford? Or should I try for the best 2x2Gb modules? I haven't read of any issues, but I'm sure I haven't read every mobo/memory thread out there.
Thanks!
Should I go for 4x1Gb with the fastest RAM I can afford? Or should I try for the best 2x2Gb modules? I haven't read of any issues, but I'm sure I haven't read every mobo/memory thread out there.
Thanks!
Xilikon
[H]ard|DCer of the Year 2008
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2004
- Messages
- 15,010
IMHO, since going to 8 Gb is useless before a few years, it's better to get 4 x 1 Gb.
Personnally, to avoid the limitations with 32-bits OS, I might order another set of 2 x 512 Mb of FireStix and fill all 4 banks to retain dual channel operations.
I would assume that it is more cost effective to get 4x1GiB and then exchange them when more RAM is needed, since the price of RAM is generally decreasing (aside the weird behavior last fall)
edit - refinement:
Depending on when you plan to move beyond 4GiB, it may be cheaper to purchase 4x1 modules now, since the money saved will accrue interest. Additionally, the price drop of 2GiB modules will be greater than for 1GiB modules, provided that we assume that the historical price tends continue.
Of course, if you are thinking of 4GiB now, while Dell is shipping systems with 1GiB, you may be one of the people that will move to 6 or more GiB soon. Therefore, getting 2x2 is a more `futureproof' choice.
Thing is, used market prices are different than new market prices. If you buy now, 2 gig parts are more expensive. If you sell when 2 gig parts are getting popular, then the market is flooded with 1 gig parts and you might not get much money back.
Rather than worrying about timing it right, I usually end up buying the bigger parts. My next rig will have two 2 gig parts, then I'll just add two more when I've fully converted it to Win64.
Rather than worrying about timing it right, I usually end up buying the bigger parts. My next rig will have two 2 gig parts, then I'll just add two more when I've fully converted it to Win64.
TheCur
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2007
- Messages
- 11,829
This course of action is where I am leaning at this time. I know OCZ is coming out with some new 2x2Gb modules, and right now, I can only find offerings by GSkill, Kingston, and GeIL, all rated at DDR2-800.
Anyone know of a current listing / where to find out what chips each company uses on it's modules?
I recommend 2 x 2 gig to get 4 gigs of ram for 2 reasons.
1) If you ever go 680i it seems to have a problem with 4 dimms. You have to lower the memory speed quite a bit to get stable operation. (Some other chipsets have this problem as well)
2) You CAN upgrade to 8gigs later if you ever want too..
1) If you ever go 680i it seems to have a problem with 4 dimms. You have to lower the memory speed quite a bit to get stable operation. (Some other chipsets have this problem as well)
2) You CAN upgrade to 8gigs later if you ever want too..
I recently posted this in the "G.Skill 2x2GB chips" thread, maybe folks reading this thread can help me:
I just got the "G.SKILL 4GB(2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 667 (PC2 5300) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory Model F2-5300CL5D-4GBMQ - Retail" from Newegg myself as part of a brand new build with an MSI P6N SLI Platinum, and when I try to power up, the diagnostic LEDs stay stuck at the "Memory Detection Test", which I can only assume means that the MSI motherboard (and/or the NVIDIA 650i chipset) can't cope with the G.Skill memory, which sucks, because I don't have any other DDR2 memory and I imagine I'll have to RMA the memory through Newegg and get something else.
Has anyone gotten 2GB sticks of DDR2 to work with a 650i motherboard yet?
I just got the "G.SKILL 4GB(2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 667 (PC2 5300) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory Model F2-5300CL5D-4GBMQ - Retail" from Newegg myself as part of a brand new build with an MSI P6N SLI Platinum, and when I try to power up, the diagnostic LEDs stay stuck at the "Memory Detection Test", which I can only assume means that the MSI motherboard (and/or the NVIDIA 650i chipset) can't cope with the G.Skill memory, which sucks, because I don't have any other DDR2 memory and I imagine I'll have to RMA the memory through Newegg and get something else.
Has anyone gotten 2GB sticks of DDR2 to work with a 650i motherboard yet?
Following up to myself, I got the G.Skill 2GB sticks to work, first by booting with one stick in Channel A DIMM3 position (DIMM1 position didn't work), then going into the BIOS and setting the memory voltage to 1.9V, shutting down, and rebooting with both sticks in the Channel A DIMM1 and Channel B DIMM2 positions.
Haven't run Memtest yet, hopefully everything will just work now...
I'm confused. Why can't you upgrade by just removing the 4x1G parts and replacing them by 4x2G parts?
If 1 is true, then 2 is false, isn't it?
He really phrased that badly.
I kind of see his point though... I think his reasoning is something like this, if I'm inferring what he means correctly:
Since there is a memory speed limitation of 667Mhz with four sticks of DDR2 memory (even if the sticks are rated for 800Mhz, similar to the 333Mhz limitation when running with four sticks of DDR1 memory even when they are rated for 400Mhz), you might as well get two 2GB 667 sticks now, since if you had bought two 1GB 800 sticks now you'd have to drop down to 667 later *and* you'd be capped at 4GB if you used 1GB sticks, whereas at least you get to go to 8GB of memory if you started with 2GB sticks to begin with.
I can't actually find any hard info on whether it is a chipset limitation of the 650i/680i. Looking in my manual for the MSI P6N SLI Platinum, which doesn't even have any 2GB modules in it's QVL, they actually tell you what approved DDR2 800 modules can go in which slots, which is actually something entirely new to me.
For instance, Apacer 78.01G9I.AUC 1GB sticks can only be installed in slot 1 alone, or in slot 1 and 3 (i.e. you can't fill all four slots with 1GB sticks of that memory!)
Kingbox EPR264082200-3 1GB sticks can go in slot 1, or slots 1 and 3, or slots 1, 2, and 3 (you just can't fill it up through slot 4!)
Kingston Hyper KHX6400D2LLK2/2G can go in slot 1, or slots 1 and 3, or slots 1, 2, 3, and 4.
There's no real explanation either, so while it looks like the 650i supports 800Mhz memory at 800Mhz in all four slots with some 1GB modules, you may have to pay very close attention to what memory you are using.
Gilthanis007
n00b
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2007
- Messages
- 7
Is it even worth to go with 64bit vista? Just like XP 64 bit not many application was supporting.
But have they change that?
But have they change that?
This question has been addressesed many times in the OPerating Systems section of the fourm.
I'm running both 32 and 64bit versions on two different computers. There were a couple things that 64bit didn't work with, my scanner and tuner card. Everything else appears to be working just fine, in addition I get to use ALL my 4GB of ram
I do think 64bit support will be much better with Vista than it has been in the past, mainly due to how it utilizes RAM and the <4GB limitation with 32bit.
Any confirmation of whether 4*1 gig sticks work at listed speeds on 680i chipsets. I'm close to a new build, and would like to run Vista 64 with 4 gigs of ram. In the past I know 2 sticks usually ran better than 4. I'd also like to overclock. Thanks.
if u have 2x1gb right now .. just get another 2x1gb kit .. and getting a 2x2gb kit now just to upgrade to 8gb down the road is kinda silly ..
with ddr3 coming .. by the time 8gb is usefull .. ddr2 wont even be used ..
so i would either just get 2 more 1gb sticks or just wait to make the jump to ddr3
with ddr3 coming .. by the time 8gb is usefull .. ddr2 wont even be used ..
so i would either just get 2 more 1gb sticks or just wait to make the jump to ddr3