Upgrade... add RAM, new CPU, overclock... Which?

S

safehaven

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
224
Hi, this is my first post! This is a great forum. I have been reading it off and on for a couple of years now, but really haven't had a need to ask a question. Until now that is.

I want to upgrade my current setup, and I am not sure which direction to go. Here is what I currently have:

Gigabyte P35-DS3R Mobo, FSB 1333, DDR2 800/1066 (OC)
Intel Core 2 Dou E6320 1.86Ghz
2GB RAM, (2) Super Talent 1 GB DDR2-800 PCS6400
GeForce 8600 GTS 256MB
(3) Western Digital HDs, 250GB, WD2500JS
RAID 5 array, 500GB net hard drive space
Antec EA-500 power supply
WinXP
Nothing is overclocked

My original though was to just max out the RAM and stick 2 more 1GB sticks of RAM in there. I am not sure how much of the RAM WinXP will use though. I have read 3 GB is the usable limit. I have also heard that just over 3 GB is the usable limit. To use over 3GB, I would think that I would need to put a full 4GB in. Is there a definitive answer to this?

Then my next thought was that instead of the RAM, I think my MoBo will support a Q6600 and I could drop one of those in instead.

Finally, I remembered reading about overclocking in the overclocking forum here. So, then I got to thinking maybe I do not need to spend any money and overclock the system I already have.

So in a nutshell, I am not sure as to which direction to go.

The RAM is cheap. Will adding 2GB more make much of a perfomance difference on the current setup I have now? Do I need 2GB, or will WinXP really only be able to handle 1GB more? Which brand of RAM should I be looking at?

I am guessing the the Q6600 would undoubtedly be a significant upgrade, but also the most expensive to do. I would consider this option if it were going to make a huge difference.

I have absolutely no experience with overclocking, and really have no clue as to how to do it, what the gains in general are, or what the gains to my system specifically would be. I am willing to learn if this is the best course of action.

I am open to doing one, some, all, or none of the above. Right now, I am doing a lot of Photoshop work and basic computing. I want to primarily focus on speeding up this aspect of my usage. I know my GPU is weak point, but I do not do much computer gaming these days. That is not to say I never will play computer games, that is just not my focus at the moment. Any suggestions and answers to my questions will be greatly appreciated. I am open to just about any suggestion. If there is something else I should be considering, please let me know. I just want to make sure that whatever I do, I will easily notice the performance gain. There is nothing worse than spending money and saying "well, I guess, maybe, it might be faster".

Thanks, and thanks again for this great forum!
 
I would say get a Q6600 and overclock it :D Biggest boost in speed right there. 2 gigs of memory is OK for now, but you would probably want to upgrade it later, depending on your usage.
 
I would go for an extra 2 gigs of memory, a copy of Windows Vista Home premium 64bit, and a little overclocking knowhow.

Windows XP 32bit or 64bit? A 32bit X86 OS will recognize a maximum of exactly 4GB, but that has to include your processors L1 and L2 caches, the video cards cache, and some other misc memory meaning that a 32bit OS will only recognize ~3.5GB of system memory. The mathmatical reason is that the memory address bus is 32bits wide, 2^32 = 4,294,967,296 bytes = exactly 4.0GB. Think of it like a phone number. That number has 7 place values, meaning the total number of phone numbers that would fit in that 7 digits is 10^7 = 10,000,000. So if you stick with your current copy of XP and plug in 2 more sticks, all that will show up is ~3.5GB of memory.

XP couldn't really address 4GB of ram with any of its various services and apps, but certainly modern games can. After having some recent trouble with the Maximus Formula motherboard and its cooperation with 4 gigs, I had to downgrade to 2 gigs for a while. The only thing that I really noticed between the two was that minimizing something to the desktop was way faster, and Itunes was much smoother on 4 gigs. Also, of course, Vista's regular usage was a little slower, but this OS is designed for four gigs, so it will take full advantage of the extra memory.

I love the E6320. Its a fully un-crippled conroe and it came out at what, like $150? Brilliant. clock it up to 3.0GHz and you have yourself a processor thats faster than the X6800. With a little bit of tweaking, I can all but gaurentee you that E6320 reach those speeds. The conroe's really are the best overclockers I've ever seen, so if your going to get into overclocking, theres never been a more compelling system to try it on then the one you've got.

Overclocking can be free performance with no long term damage, or lots of free performance with some long term damage, or tonnes of free performance with lots of short term damage. I wouldn't expect a processor running at 1.8 Volts on Liquid Nitrogen cooling to last more then a few days (if you can keep the nitrogen supply going for that long). However, with a good cooler a 1.5V conroe will last longer then most components in your PC.

There are lots of guides out there, and I'll let someone else writwe up an overclocking guide for you. Overclocking is somewhat motherboard spicifc.

edit: oh and yeah, as the sixth spartan said, if you want a better overclock, going with a 2X2 GB kit is always better then 4X1GB (as I have learned).
 
safehaven said:
Hi, this is my first post! This is a great forum. I have been reading it off and on for a couple of years now, but really haven't had a need to ask a question. Until now that is.

I want to upgrade my current setup, and I am not sure which direction to go. Here is what I currently have:

Gigabyte P35-DS3R Mobo, FSB 1333, DDR2 800/1066 (OC)
Intel Core 2 Dou E6320 1.86Ghz
2GB RAM, (2) Super Talent 1 GB DDR2-800 PCS6400
GeForce 8600 GTS 256MB
(3) Western Digital HDs, 250GB, WD2500JS
RAID 5 array, 500GB net hard drive space
Antec EA-500 power supply
WinXP
Nothing is overclocked

My original though was to just max out the RAM and stick 2 more 1GB sticks of RAM in there. I am not sure how much of the RAM WinXP will use though. I have read 3 GB is the usable limit. I have also heard that just over 3 GB is the usable limit. To use over 3GB, I would think that I would need to put a full 4GB in. Is there a definitive answer to this?
Click to expand...

OC that E6320! Poor thing. :D

I know my WinXP 32-bit recognizes 3.5GB of my 4GB which is still 1.5GB more than I had a couple weeks ago. So I'm happy. I saw some bickering on these forums about how much memory XP/Vista 32-bit will actually utilize, but didn't commit any of it to memory. I'll leave that for someone else to tear apart.

The RAM is cheap. Will adding 2GB more make much of a perfomance difference on the current setup I have now? Do I need 2GB, or will WinXP really only be able to handle 1GB more? Which brand of RAM should I be looking at?
Click to expand...

Don't think you'll want to just throw in another 1GB or 2GB. IIRC, you'll be better off selling off your 2GB (I'm guessing 2 x 1GB modules) and buying a 4GB (2 x 2GB) dual channel kit. Double the bandwidth, better performance. By throwing in a 3rd or 4th stick, you'd be trading speed for capacity. Unless dual channel is possible with 4 modules, which I'm not aware of.

I am guessing the the Q6600 would undoubtedly be a significant upgrade, but also the most expensive to do. I would consider this option if it were going to make a huge difference.
Click to expand...

Stock for stock, probably. Not much in games (except SupCommander maybe). OC your E6320 to 3GHz and I doubt you'd notice a difference between that and a Q6600 in your every day routine.

Photoshop would definitely benefit from more RAM. I know I quickly eat up my 2GB by monitoring the RAM usage with my G15 LCD. Once it's used up, it just crawls when loading image after image. Not sure what a Q6600 would do for PS though, maybe cut a couple seconds when using filters. I haven't noticed anything different when switching from a X2 5600+ to Q6600, but I'm not a filter junky.

Welcome to [H]! Be weary, there are some moody people here. Hope your skin is thicker than most. :)

<edit>Sixth Spartan? :D That's new, usually people get the VI mixed with IV. :p
 
Thanks for all of the responses, and so quickly!

I guess I should have clarified. I have WinXP 32-bit. I thought the mention of having a 4 GB limit would have indicated that. Sorry. I guess I also should have mentioned that there is absolutely zero chance of me switching to any version of Vista. My wifes laptop had it preloaded on it and I cringe every time in need to use it of fix it. For the moment, I would just like to do what I can with the 32-bit WinXP that I have.

It would be absolutely fantastic if I could get Q6600 speeds out of my current CPU! I guess it is off to the overclocking forum for me:)

Spartan, thanks for the heads up on "adding" RAM. That is exactly what I was thinking about doing... adding two more 1GB sticks to my current two 1GB sticks to make 4 total. I do not understand why adding will slow it down, but I will take your word for it;)

Mr.Wizard, I am sure that this is a completly n00b question, but what is a "conroe"? It has been awhile since I have been totally current on the computer world, and this one I cannot even begin to know what it means.
 
conroe is the code name for intels 65nm 4MB of L2 cache dual core processor, Every modern chip has a name like that. Allendale is the 65nm 2MB dual core, Kentsfield is the 65nm 8MB quad core. The new family "Penryn", consists of Wolfdale, a 45nm 6MB dual core, and Yorkfield, the 45nm 12MB quad core. These code names are useful because the differance between the Conroe chip in an E6600 and the Conroe in an E6320 is only superficial clock speeds, imposed by the motherboard.

The reason for two 2GB sticks out performing four 1GB sticks is simply that its easier on the memory controller to have less chips to manage. Why is a question you'll have to ask an engineer.
 
Thanks on the codename info. I never would have guessed that!

As to the RAM, 2 sticks are better than 4 because of the reason you stated. Back in the day, 2 stick were better than 1. Is this still the case? (2) 2GB matched pair is better than (1) 4GB stick? I am guessing that this is the case because the system is using resources on the memory controller, whether there is memory in it or not. So, since it is using the resources anyway on both controllers, empty or not, it is better to split the load of memory between the two banks.

Am I on the right track, or am I completely off base?
 
Its late and I don't want to re-read that, cuz it was a bit confusing. Basically, 2 is better than 1 because these motherboards make use of dual channel memory. Dual channel only boosts performance by around 15%, though, IIRC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top