1.5GB sticks

[Mister E]

I can't find a couple 1.5GB sticks for a total of 3GB's anywhere. My system wouldn't fully use 4GB's so what gives? Did they stop making those sticks a while back or am I hallucinating their existence in the first place?

 

[ALL4AMD]

I can't find a couple 1.5GB sticks for a total of 3GB's anywhere. My system wouldn't fully use 4GB's so what gives? Did they stop making those sticks a while back or am I hallucinating their existence in the first place?

ur hallucinating because they never made them. if ur refering to dells and hp its because they put a 2gb and a 1gb stick in and u loose dual channel.

 

[jchen012]

No such thing. RAM is so cheap that you should just go with the 4GB and lose the 1GB. Also 3GB wouldn't make any sense. RAM sizes have always been multiples of 8.

 

[Mister E]

Ah I see. Thanks fellas.

One last question. When running 4GB's of ram in XP (2GBx2) and I would loose the 1GB due to restrictions, does it still run full speed in dual channel? In other words, any performance loss?

 

[Zepher]

Mine is running in dual channel. 3.25Gigs show up in Windows.

 

[JRS]

2x2gb will run dual channel in a 32 bit OS. On almost all 4 slot motherboards, 2x1gb with 2x512mb will also run dual channel.

Dual channel was the most over-talked/overrated "performance" feature.. until triple channel came along. At best, it gives 5% improvement in memory intensive tasks... which makes is a smaller difference than 1066 over 800, and the common consensus there is to only go with high speed/more expensive ram to help your CPU overclock.

Mister E - since ram is so cheap, run 2x2gb and don't sweat your system not recognizing 1gb of it. Yea, it will still run dual channel. If you are on a tight budget and can score a single 1gb stick to run with add to an existing 2gb setup, I'd say don't worry about losing dual channel.

More RAM is almost always better than faster RAM if it is an "either-or" choice.