More or Faster?

[{EB}NuTSymPToM{EB}]

Hi all. I just recently built a new rig and I'm still curious what you all think.

With my system I'm using 1gb x2 Corsair Dominator 8500 ram. Is the typical user going to want more or faster ram? For example, should I have gone with 2gb x2 6400 ram?

My thinking was that I'd use 2gb of fast ram and later add more another 2gb fast ram than completely later replace a whole set of slower ram.

Would I see better performance in typical current games with 2gb of 8500 ram or 4gb of 6400?

 

[Menelmarar]

more
I don't think you'll see much difference in real-world gaming or applications with those speed grades of memory. Only in synthetic benchmarks.

 

[skizzled]

Higher binned/speed memory often allows for higher overclocks where cheap alternatives may falter. That said, if you aren't overclocking, you will not notice a difference unless the timings are much lower or much higher than what you are currently using. Also, don't expect an amazing increase in performance with 4gb of ram over 2gb as very little things require that much at this time but if you wish to keep your computer for a longer duration, 4gb is the way to go so you don't have to worry about finding a matched pair later.

 

[Mike Clements]

Higher binned/speed memory often allows for higher overclocks where cheap alternatives may falter. That said, if you aren't overclocking, you will not notice a difference unless the timings are much lower or much higher than what you are currently using..

Good point.

The best option going these days is a 2 x 2gb kit of memory. Prices are very low and 2 modules are easier to tune than 4.

 

[{EB}NuTSymPToM{EB}]

Ok I don't feel bad stupid then.

I'm currently running 2gb Corsair Dominator 8500 without overclocking but I want the system to be upgradeable once it starts to show age. Eventually I'll add an additional 2gb and tinker with OC'ing.

Maybe if I could find a stable enough motherboard to run it all with...damn 680i is garbage...

 

[Gravestone Doji]

Higher binned/speed memory often allows for higher overclocks where cheap alternatives may falter. That said, if you aren't overclocking, you will not notice a difference unless the timings are much lower or much higher than what you are currently using. Also, don't expect an amazing increase in performance with 4gb of ram over 2gb.

Interesting and very helpful info. I don't mean to hijack this thread but my situation is somewhat similar as I was considering upgrading the memory in my system to a faster 4Gb (2 x 2Gb) kit.

I have a Dell XPS 420 that I got a screaming deal on from the outlet. It's a refurb but looks new. It's equipped with Vista Home Premium (32-bit), Q6600 G0, and 3 GB DDR2 SDRAM 667MHz (4 DIMMs). The ram configuration is 2 x 1GB sticks plus 2 x 512mb sticks. So I reckon, since I'm not overclocking anything, (I don't believe you can overclock Dell computers as the BIOS is locked) that there wouldn't be much of an increase in performance in my system to upgrade from 3Gb 667MHz to 4Gb 800 MHz, correct? i.e., a waste of money?

 

[Menelmarar]

Interesting and very helpful info. I don't mean to hijack this thread but my situation is somewhat similar as I was considering upgrading the memory in my system to a faster 4Gb (2 x 2Gb) kit.

I have a Dell XPS 420 that I got a screaming deal on from the outlet. It's a refurb but looks new. It's equipped with Vista Home Premium (32-bit), Q6600 G0, and 3 GB DDR2 SDRAM 667MHz (4 DIMMs). The ram configuration is 2 x 1GB sticks plus 2 x 512mb sticks. So I reckon, since I'm not overclocking anything, (I don't believe you can overclock Dell computers as the BIOS is locked) there wouldn't be much of an increase in performance in my system to upgrade from 3Gb 667MHz to 4Gb 800 MHz ?

No, the difference would be insignificant in my opinion.

You probably can't address much more than the 3GB you have now with a 32bit OS. The OS would probably only be able to see 3.3-3.5 GB of the 4.