N00B question about adding more RAM...

J

JYeager11

Gawd
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
563
I am currently using :

2 sticks of Corsair CMX1024-3200C2
http://www.corsair.com/_datasheets/CMX1024-3200C2.pdf

And I'm using them on an Asus A8N-SLI Deluxe mb
http://www.asus.com/products.aspx?l1=3&l2=15&l3=148&model=375&modelmenu=1

I'd like to upgrade to 4GB, and I'd like to order from NCIX.com. But I know very little about RAM and what type I should be getting.

Someone recommended I add these :
OCZ EL Platinum PC3200
http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=14504&promoid=1025

Someone else recommended :
http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=15556&vpn=VS1GB400C3&manufacture=CORSAIR

Can someone tell me :

1) If both will work?
2) The pros/cons of the OCZ vs the Corsair in this very specific scenario?

The OS will be both XP and XPx64 (Dual Boot).

Thanks!

PS: This is my 2nd time ordering online, so I'm a bit nervous about making the wrong choice.
 
Ideally you would get identical sticks to the ones you already have, if you can find some.

If not then just try to get ones of the closest possible spec, but yes, any will work.

If you can't decide, i use the OCZ you linked to and i would recommend it.
 
1) Yes both will work
2) No real pros and cons. With the OCZ setup, you get 2GB of RAM right away, while the Corsair RAM you chose is only 1GB. Though I'm guessing that you're planning to pick up two of those Corsair RAM?

Anyway, 2 of the Corsair RAM costs $130 CAD while the OCZ is $138. Don't be fooled by the lower timings on the OCZ RAM. You'll won't notice any real difference with RAM with lower timings. So with that said, I say go for the Corsair RAM since it is cheaper overall.
 
Danny Bui said:
1) Yes both will work
2) No real pros and cons. With the OCZ setup, you get 2GB of RAM right away, while the Corsair RAM you chose is only 1GB. Though I'm guessing that you're planning to pick up two of those Corsair RAM?

Anyway, 2 of the Corsair RAM costs $130 CAD while the OCZ is $138. Don't be fooled by the lower timings on the OCZ RAM. You'll won't notice any real difference with RAM with lower timings. So with that said, I say go for the Corsair RAM since it is cheaper overall.
Click to expand...

Alright, I'm about to pull the trigger on two of these :
http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=15556&vpn=VS1GB400C3&manufacture=CORSAIR

To fill the two remaining slots on my A8N-SLI Deluxe, which already uses two Corsair CMX1024-3200C2's (unfortunately, I can't find anymore of those anywhere in Canada).

Any last-minute objections? Speak now or forever hold your peace! ;)
 
JYeager said:
Alright, I'm about to pull the trigger on two of these :
http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=15556&vpn=VS1GB400C3&manufacture=CORSAIR

To fill the two remaining slots on my A8N-SLI Deluxe, which already uses two Corsair CMX1024-3200C2's (unfortunately, I can't find anymore of those anywhere in Canada).

Any last-minute objections? Speak now or forever hold your peace! ;)
Click to expand...
Unless you are running programs the specifically require 4 gigs (or 3 gigs), don't do it.
Reasons:
There are few prograns that need more thsn 1gig, much less 2.
XP x32 will only see 2 gigs
Vista x64 will only see 3.25-3.75gigs
Ram upgrades are the least effective upgrade.
The 939 platform is dieing, if not dead.
Oh sure, you'll be able to run more programs at the same time, but do you have problems now with multiple programs?
The memory controllers on A64 chips don't like 4 sticks. Without making changes in the BIOS, the 4 sticks will run slower than 2 sticks (DRR333 and Command Rate 2T). You may, but likely will not be able to overclock the 4 sticks back to the performance level of 2 sticks.

I would save you money for a complete system upgrade instead of throwing it in to your old system, you'll get much more bang for your buck, even though it will take some more bucks.

If you insist on buying memory, a single set of very overclockable DDR sticks will get you more performance on an everyday basis. I went from an A8N-SLI-D with 2 gigs of Twinx2048C2 (2 x 1gig) memory like yours to an A8N32-SLI with 2 x 512 gigs of Team Xtreme and there was a BIG performance increace since I was able to overclock much further.
That Corsair memory doesn't overclock well (DDR450, maybe). I run the team memory at DDR600 everyday and it will boot at DDR665.


....just some food for thought........
 
billb said:
Unless you are running programs the specifically require 4 gigs (or 3 gigs), don't do it.
Reasons:
There are few prograns that need more thsn 1gig, much less 2.
XP x32 will only see 2 gigs
Vista x64 will only see 3.25-3.75gigs
Click to expand...

XP should see up to 3.X gigs, depending on how much memory the video card has.
Vista x64 will see all of the memory.


The memory controllers on A64 chips don't like 4 sticks. Without making changes in the BIOS, the 4 sticks will run slower than 2 sticks (DRR333 and Command Rate 2T). You may, but likely will not be able to overclock the 4 sticks back to the performance level of 2 sticks.
Click to expand...

This depends on the processor. IIRC, they improved the memory controller on the Venice core chips, although it probably won't overclock well.

Overall I agree with billb though, you really don't need 4 GB of RAM. Wait until next time you buy a new CPU/Mobo. You're going to have to buy new RAM then anyway.
 
billb said:
Unless you are running programs the specifically require 4 gigs (or 3 gigs), don't do it.
Reasons:

XP x32 will only see 2 gigs
Click to expand...

That is nothing short of an URBAN LEGEND.

Rather than take blanket statements like this at face value, I did some digging, and went straight to the horse's mouth (microsoft forums) for some answers.

Brett says :
"Windows XP can see up to 4 gig. However, some of that 4 gig is used by cards and other things in the system so you get 3.x gig where x is some number like 2, 3, or 4 depending on what you have in your system. I would suggest checking the manual for your motherboard as most of them tell you what to expect. If the manual doesn't say check with the motherboard manufacturer."

JS says :
"Your system/Windows will not display the amount of ram correctly but it all
there. Just add the /3GB switch to your boot.ini to get the most out of the
4GB of ram. This option effectively gives 1GB for the OS and 3GB for
applications."


Not to mention my good friend Jay who happens to be running 4GB on his WinXP (x86) and all of it is being recognized by his OS.

Is there any *proof* that Windows XP cannot see more than 2GB of ram, or is this one of those things people spread that they heard somewhere on the net but no one has actually seen since the days of the Pentium 3?

I think it's safe to say that today, WinXP (x86) can recognize all 4 GB -- minus whatever the OS happens to be using.
 
DeathFromBelow said:
Overall I agree with billb though, you really don't need 4 GB of RAM. Wait until next time you buy a new CPU/Mobo. You're going to have to buy new RAM then anyway.
Click to expand...

Sonar 7 and Photoshop CS3 are 90% of the usage of this computer, and both can use as much RAM as can be made available to them. The DAW plays up to 50 24-bit wavs at the same time while running X real-time audio effects... and Photoshop's filter rendering would be helped in no small way by more ram.

It's NOT for surfing the net or reading emails. :-S
 
JYeager said:
Sonar 7 and Photoshop CS3 are 90% of the usage of this computer, and both can use as much RAM as can be made available to them. The DAW plays up to 50 24-bit wavs at the same time while running X real-time audio effects... and Photoshop's filter rendering would be helped in no small way by more ram.

It's NOT for surfing the net or reading emails. :-S
Click to expand...

In that case it makes more sense. You would see much more benefit from a faster processor, but if thats out of the question in the near future then the RAM upgrade may be worthwhile.
 
JYeager said:
That is nothing short of an URBAN LEGEND.

Rather than take blanket statements like this at face value, I did some digging, and went straight to the horse's mouth (microsoft forums) for some answers.



Not to mention my good friend Jay who happens to be running 4GB on his WinXP (x86) and all of it is being recognized by his OS.

Is there any *proof* that Windows XP cannot see more than 2GB of ram, or is this one of those things people spread that they heard somewhere on the net but no one has actually seen since the days of the Pentium 3?

I think it's safe to say that today, WinXP (x86) can recognize all 4 GB -- minus whatever the OS happens to be using.
Click to expand...
That's WinXP (x86) 64 bit.

XP 32 bit can see 4 gigs, but can only use 3 gigs, and then only if the software running is written to use all 3 gigs and the /3GB switch is added to boot.ini. .
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/PAEmem.mspx

Tell your friend to run SuperPi with 4 sticks and then 2 sticks (either with BIOS default timings for both or both overclocked as far as they will go...2 will OC much higher than 4.
 
billb said:
Tell your friend to run SuperPi with 4 sticks and then 2 sticks (either with BIOS default timings for both or both overclocked as far as they will go...2 will OC much higher than 4.
Click to expand...

Its not about overclocking.
Its more if your working with big images then the more ram the better.

I'm running with 8 Gigs on my main box at the moment.
All of it is seen by WinXP64.
Under WinXP32 I only see ~2.5 Gigs but thats due to have twin vid cards, scsi card, etc, etc so a lot get reserved by the bios for the cards.

Luck .......... :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top