1G x 2 + 512 x 2 = ?

[ho72]

This has probably been answered countless times, so forgive me or shoot me, but here goes:

I have 2G of RAM in my computer (1G x 2) with 2 empty slots. Can I stick another 1G in the remaining 2 slots (in the form of 512 x 2) without incurring some sort of tremendous performance penalty?

 

[Baker_God]

well are you overclocking? It will work but your gonna be stuck at 200mhz @ 2t.

 

[ScHpAnKy]

well are you overclocking? It will work but your gonna be stuck at 200mhz @ 2t.

which means that you will be stuck with a huge performance loss
not worth it

 

[mjz_5]

which means that you will be stuck with a huge performance loss
not worth it

the performance different is not that huge (1t vs 2t).. its like 59FPS versus 57FPS

 

[ScHpAnKy]

the performance different is not that huge (1t vs 2t).. its like 59FPS versus 57FPS

Latency goes through the roof, and the FPS difference in games is quite a bit more than that. Also, the minimum FPS is still lowered.

 

[vmerc]

Am I missing something here? why does the size of the RAM dictate that it will run slower?

 

[ho72]

No, I'm not overclocking.

Am I missing something here? why does the size of the RAM dictate that it will run slower?

My question too. Am I better off going with an additional 2G (1G x 2) instead?

 

[(cf)Eclipse]

the difference between 1T and 2T isn't really all that big.. however, with 2x512mb and 1gb stick in an a64 rig... don't think that'll be dual channel anymore

 

[JRT]

Am I missing something here? why does the size of the RAM dictate that it will run slower?

It is not the size of ram that matters but the number of sticks used.
With the A64’s memory controller on the newer cores you can run 4 sticks of ram and still run DDR400 but you must run at a command rate of 2T instead of 1T. (The older cores you could run 4 sticks but you had to run at DDR333.)
There is a performance hit when running 2T but the difference between the two is no where near as great and some would make you believe.

You should be able to run 2x1GB and 2x512MB sticks fine at 400 with 2T on that CPU.

 

[(cf)Eclipse]

it's actually the number of banks, but close enough

most 512mb sticks are double sided, but some single sided sticks exist somewhere

 

[vmerc]

Ok, so the next question is what on Earth do you need more than 2GB of RAM for anyway? This box isn't a server is it?

 

[ho72]

Ok, so the next question is what on Earth do you need more than 2GB of RAM for anyway? This box isn't a server is it?

No, it's a Photoshop machine. There is no such thing as too much RAM. I nearly built a dual Opteron system so I could have 8G+ under a 64bit OS.

 

[(cf)Eclipse]

well, if you need the space, 3gb will probably outweigh the performance hit from the slightly slackened timings and potentially lower mhz that 2gb will give..

 

[vmerc]

well, if you need the space, 3gb will probably outweigh the performance hit from the slightly slackened timings and potentially lower mhz that 2gb will give..

Yeah i would say that in this case, the best option is to use total RAM size entirely as the factor used to decide. The speed may vary slightly depending on the setup, but the difference between 1T-2T or even 333 vs. 400 is NOTHING compared to touching the virtual/scrap disk.

 

[E4g1e]

Upgrading to more than 2GB on most modern rigs is a moot point; that's because 32-bit versions of Windows XP have minor addressing issues with more than that much physical RAM.

 

[(cf)Eclipse]

from his previous post, it appears he is using xp-64 to get around that

 

[ho72]

from his previous post, it appears he is using xp-64 to get around that

Not yet. I would have eventually loaded XP64 with a dual Opteron machine (which I already lament not building). For the time being, I won't touch XP64 until there are drivers available for all my stuff (printers, scanners)... or until I have all new stuff, however it works out.

 

[(cf)Eclipse]

then you're gonna have to find some way to use all the ram you plan on getting