Why go 4GB?

B

bassman

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 30, 2005
Messages
1,393
I've been tempted to jump from 2 to 4GB with the price of RAM lately. I can get a whole set of 4GB for the price I paid to get the 2GB I have now.

I write code, edit digital photos, edit video, render CG, and edit and mix multitrack audio. BF2, UT2004, and Oblivion are on my current game list; Crysis, HL2E2, and UT2007 are in my future.

Someone talk me out of dropping the money for 4GB. Or let me know it makes sense because prices are low.
 
I am basically in same boat, I am going for it and here is why, (you didnt tell us your MB or CPU or OS so I cant target them for pros or cons), even if my XPpro-64 didnt reconize all 4GB or most games only compiled/use at most 2GB and they are rare. I like downloading something in the background or rip something while I have the forum open and this other thing, and maybe see if my friends are playing on my favorite game.

So X38 boards have already been seen to have DDR2 slots, most likely (real guess here) they will be the last high performance chipset enthusiasts boards that do use DDR2 on the intel side other than a few oddballs. DDR3 is getting there but I (like you) paid a freaking forture for this ddr2 I now have and this current machine rocks, Lord only know what it would do with a quad in it with a fair OC. So an X38 DDR2 board just before Christmas when things are mature and stable, maybe a better cpu before then, and 2more GB now because the price is right. By Christmas I should have a machine that will be good enough for what I want to do for years. I have no idea if this makes any sense for you,.

The whole thing rests on the assumption DD2 has bottomed out in price and there will be no fire sale when DDR3 really takes off.
 
I'm running an E6400 @ 3.2GHz on a Gigabyte DS3 rev 1. OS is XP 32-bit, but Vista 64 is an option (so is living with 3GB visible under XP if Vista gives me crap).

I agree with you Bill - I'm not going through a major system re-build soon because I'm pretty happy with what I've got. I'm tempted to grab a Q6600 after prices settle from this month's drop, and I'll probably upgrade to a G92 when it's released, but those are all minor things.

I keep thinking I'll eventually want 4GB, so maybe now is a good time to buy. I don't want to be stuck in the price gouge current DDR users are in.
 
A couple reasons to go 4 gig.

1. Vista - vista uses more ram to run - taking away ram from your gaming like bf2.
2. Vista 64 bit - allows you to utilize all of the ram.
3. Games will be using more ram soon.

Since I plan on going quadcore after the price drop, I should just make the jump now to 4 gigs.

As for quadcore, many games coming out soon will take advantage of quadcores.

The real question to me should be, 4x1 gig or 2x2gig and which motherboard will have good oc ability.
 
qft @ azure.

Also, ill be going 4x1gb on a p5k deluxe w/ q6600. Hopefully that'll be stable for the most part. that's my only worry
 
Good luck with 4G. I did not read if you over clock or not but I do and ran into big trouble with 4X1gb.

2x1gb gives me 500FSB easily and rock stable. I got a 2nd pair of the exact same OCZ sticks (PC8500) and was getting errors at stock speed in memtest86.

I ran each stick alone and each pair together and rock stable. I then ran 3x1gb and still stable at 500FSB. Once I add the 4th stick though things go down-hill for me fast. I haven't upped the mem voltage to see if that helps, but to be honest I don't want it to go too high with the high rate of failure on the types of sticks I am running when adding voltage.

I don't like the idea of 3x1gb because then I am not running dual channel anymore.

What I really am waiting on is 2x2gb sticks that over clock well, takes some voltage and is reasonably priced. I have had problems with Over clocked systems and all mem slots filled for years.
 
because i read on macs the more = faster render
i use after effects so if you do that that helps
 
jzodda said:
Good luck with 4G. I did not read if you over clock or not but I do and ran into big trouble with 4X1gb.

2x1gb gives me 500FSB easily and rock stable. I got a 2nd pair of the exact same OCZ sticks (PC8500) and was getting errors at stock speed in memtest86.

I ran each stick alone and each pair together and rock stable. I then ran 3x1gb and still stable at 500FSB. Once I add the 4th stick though things go down-hill for me fast. I haven't upped the mem voltage to see if that helps, but to be honest I don't want it to go too high with the high rate of failure on the types of sticks I am running when adding voltage.

I don't like the idea of 3x1gb because then I am not running dual channel anymore.
Click to expand...

I'm not too worried. I'm not (and won't be) overclocking my RAM. I've read about problems with 4 stick RAM overclocks on my board, but it seemed most had success with FSBs up to 400MHz and no RAM overclock with recent BIOS. Overclocking is never guaranteed anyway.

jzodda said:
What I really am waiting on is 2x2gb sticks that over clock well, takes some voltage and is reasonably priced. I have had problems with Over clocked systems and all mem slots filled for years.
Click to expand...

Outpost.com has had these for awhile:
http://shop3.outpost.com/product/5224337

Check this thread for info from people who bought them:
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1192822
 
vista is not as big as a memmory hog as everyone thinks, it just USES the ram that is available. when you run a game it goes down by about 200-300 megs of ram for me... and i have 4 GBs


whats the point of having 2 or 4 or whatever gigs of ram... if most of it isnt used?

vista just takes full advantage
 
bassman said:
I'm not too worried. I'm not (and won't be) overclocking my RAM. I've read about problems with 4 stick RAM overclocks on my board, but it seemed most had success with FSBs up to 400MHz and no RAM overclock with recent BIOS. Overclocking is never guaranteed anyway.



Outpost.com has had these for awhile:
http://shop3.outpost.com/product/5224337

Check this thread for info from people who bought them:
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1192822
Click to expand...

Those are nice for sure but would need a 200mhz overclock to get to my current 1000mhz 500FSB (1:1) speed. Thats probably a lot to ask at so high a FSB. What I need really is mem running at 1066 like the OCZ's and then I underclock it to 1000mhz at stock timings and 2x1 at least works great. It may be awhile before 1066 DDR2 2x2gb goes down in price but I keep looking :)
 
As others have posted here, there are hardware limitations on RAM. If the BIOS doesn't support it, then there's nothing the OS can do to make up for that.

If you want to go 4GB now, but your board supports 8GB, I would suggest going with 2x2GB AND moving to Vista 64bit. That way you will have room to bump up the RAM again as well as be able to see all of it.

I'm actually running 4GB Kingston HyperX DDR500 (DDR1) at 500 on an Abit AT8-32X under Vista Ultimate 64bit with no problems. The RAM has a Windows Experience Index rating of 5.6. It's just my pokey stock clocked Opteron 170 (rating of 4.8) that's holding my system back. That said, everything runs great. Games, Video editing, data mining tools and the lot.
 
Overall , unless you're going with a 64bit OS then all you're doing with 4GB RAM is future proofing yourself with the price of RAM these days. I doubt we'll see these prices again for at least another 8 months.
 
Wolf-R1 said:
Overall , unless you're going with a 64bit OS then all you're doing with 4GB RAM is future proofing yourself with the price of RAM these days. I doubt we'll see these prices again for at least another 8 months.
Click to expand...

Well, yes and no. I upgraded to 4GB for the hell of it (how can you not? the prices are sooo low) but my PC can actually see and use 3327MB, which surprised the hell out of me. This is with a single 640MB 8800GTS, which I thought would put me at around 2.9GB.
 
OH WHY AM I ON 184 PIN. GOD. these prices are insane! 80 bucks for 2 gigs!

meh. i figure the longer i hold out, the more WOW'd i'll be when i upgrade.
 
Russell said:
Well, yes and no. I upgraded to 4GB for the hell of it (how can you not? the prices are sooo low) but my PC can actually see and use 3327MB, which surprised the hell out of me. This is with a single 640MB 8800GTS, which I thought would put me at around 2.9GB.
Click to expand...


Right. But you're still losing nearly a gig because you're on a 32bit OS. Sure you can use the extra RAM above 2GB but wouldn't it be much nicer to have all 4GB? :D
 
Wolf-R1 said:
Overall , unless you're going with a 64bit OS then all you're doing with 4GB RAM is future proofing yourself with the price of RAM these days. I doubt we'll see these prices again for at least another 8 months.
Click to expand...

Isn't that why I said I was thinking of upgrading?

Wolf-R1 said:
Right. But you're still losing nearly a gig because you're on a 32bit OS. Sure you can use the extra RAM above 2GB but wouldn't it be much nicer to have all 4GB? :D
Click to expand...

Sure, it would be nice - assuming I didn't have to pay $200+ for a new OS. I found an awesome deal on Ultimate, so that's not a problem anymore. Now it comes down to if I like Vista, if game performance is good enough, and if all my software works on it.
 
If you want to overclock don't buy the patriot 2GB modules. I had them and they could only do 880mhz.

I ended up returning them and getting Corsair Dominator 4x1GB PC8500. I currently have them at 1100mhz at default voltage. Also if you go 4x1GB heat becomes an issue. The chipset has more work to do and the ram can overheat and get errors. I bought crucial tracer PC8500 4x1GB and it ran super hot and needed a lot of cooling to pass memtest. The Dominators also need cooling to pass memtest but not as much.
 
JohnleMVP said:
If you want to overclock don't buy the patriot 2GB modules. I had them and they could only do 880mhz.
Click to expand...

That's good to know. I was thinking about the Patriots. Even though I'm not OCing my RAM now, I might at some point.
 
bassman said:
Isn't that why I said I was thinking of upgrading?
Click to expand...

Not really...you mentioned games that are in your future but not for general future proofing. I suppose this is nitpicking.

bassman said:
Sure, it would be nice - assuming I didn't have to pay $200+ for a new OS. I found an awesome deal on Ultimate, so that's not a problem anymore. Now it comes down to if I like Vista, if game performance is good enough, and if all my software works on it.
Click to expand...


Where was this deal you got on Vista Ultimate?
 
Wolf-R1 said:
Overall , unless you're going with a 64bit OS then all you're doing with 4GB RAM is future proofing yourself with the price of RAM these days. I doubt we'll see these prices again for at least another 8 months.
Click to expand...
bassman said:
Isn't that why I said I was thinking of upgrading?
Click to expand...
Wolf-R1 said:
Not really...you mentioned games that are in your future but not for general future proofing. I suppose this is nitpicking.
Click to expand...

From my first post:
bassman said:
I've been tempted to jump from 2 to 4GB with the price of RAM lately.
Click to expand...

From my second post:
bassman said:
I keep thinking I'll eventually want 4GB, so maybe now is a good time to buy. I don't want to be stuck in the price gouge current DDR users are in.
Click to expand...

Wolf-R1 said:
Where was this deal you got on Vista Ultimate?
Click to expand...

In a local paper's online classified ads. Unopened retail upgrade package for $150.
 
I went to 4GB because with 2GB Photoshop was a fucking slug under Windows Vista x64. I do quite a bit of work with Photoshop, so that was unacceptable.
 
Gaiden133 said:
qft @ azure.

Also, ill be going 4x1gb on a p5k deluxe w/ q6600. Hopefully that'll be stable for the most part. that's my only worry
Click to expand...

It can be done. I was able to do it using Corsair Dominator PC10000 modules. I am not sure what other modules will work for this on the P5K Deluxe, but I do know it's possible.
 
If you edit digital Photos and do CG and stuff with programs like Photoshop, 4GB is much better than 2, larger images are just easier to work with. I need more RAM but need a decent PC first.
 
In a nutshell:

those using PS, image editing, 4gb is ideal.


those only gaming (crysis, alan quake), 2gb should suffice.


right?
 
Dan_D said:
I went to 4GB because with 2GB Photoshop was a fucking slug under Windows Vista x64. I do quite a bit of work with Photoshop, so that was unacceptable.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the input - it's good to know. I use Photoshop quite a bit.

I got my 4GB today and put it in. No problems so far, but again, I'm overclocking my CPU and FSB - not the RAM. Vista is taking some getting used to.

BF2 is being a bitch and I'm annoyed Belkin isn't putting out a signed N52 64 bit Vista driver. :(
 
bassman said:
Thanks for the input - it's good to know. I use Photoshop quite a bit.

I got my 4GB today and put it in. No problems so far, but again, I'm overclocking my CPU and FSB - not the RAM. Vista is taking some getting used to.

BF2 is being a bitch and I'm annoyed Belkin isn't putting out a signed N52 64 bit Vista driver. :(
Click to expand...

BF2 always acts like a piece of shit. That's just the way it is. (I've had tons of problems with BF2 and Vista) Why would you need a driver at all for it? It can work as just a keyboard. Personally I hate the software it comes with and I don't load it.
 
Dan_D said:
BF2 always acts like a piece of shit. That's just the way it is. (I've had tons of problems with BF2 and Vista)
Click to expand...

I expected problems, but nothing like this. As soon as I install BF2, network connectivity goes bonkers. I can ping, but that's it. No UDP or TCP makes it in or out of my system. Uninstalling didn't fix it, either.

Thank god for system restore. I'd never used it before yesterday.

Dan_D said:
Why would you need a driver at all for it? It can work as just a keyboard. Personally I hate the software it comes with and I don't load it.
Click to expand...

So I can load up the profile I already created and instead of spending forever remapping keys. But since I can't get BF2 working anyway, it's not a problem.

For now I'll dual boot. Soon I'll compare PS performance between XP with 3.25GB ;) and Vista with 4GB.
 
bassman said:
I expected problems, but nothing like this. As soon as I install BF2, network connectivity goes bonkers. I can ping, but that's it. No UDP or TCP makes it in or out of my system. Uninstalling didn't fix it, either.

Thank god for system restore. I'd never used it before yesterday.



So I can load up the profile I already created and instead of spending forever remapping keys. But since I can't get BF2 working anyway, it's not a problem.

For now I'll dual boot. Soon I'll compare PS performance between XP with 3.25GB ;) and Vista with 4GB.
Click to expand...

I never use the profiles or any of that crap. The default WSAD configuration of the N52 works just fine for me. Every now and again a couple of more buttons would be nice, but usually between the mouse and the N52 I'm covered for all games.
 
Dan, I just got 4x1gb Crucial Ballistix pc8000 for the coming Q6600 build (1 more week damn it). I can definitely use all 4gb but I'm hesitant to go 64bit. Are you seeing any major performance decreases in games? 90% of my gaming is in the Source engine atm (CS:S, INS, TF2 coming), I remember reading an article about how it runs a lot slower in 64bit. Also, does the dpad on the n52 work w/o the drivers? I have never used it w/o the software.
 
I've been running x64 w/ 4gb for a month now. While it is certainly is not slower than x86, it's debatable whether it's any faster. But I don't think I'm running many true x64 programs.
 
shiznit said:
Dan, I just got 4x1gb Crucial Ballistix pc8000 for the coming Q6600 build (1 more week damn it). I can definitely use all 4gb but I'm hesitant to go 64bit. Are you seeing any major performance decreases in games? 90% of my gaming is in the Source engine atm (CS:S, INS, TF2 coming), I remember reading an article about how it runs a lot slower in 64bit. Also, does the dpad on the n52 work w/o the drivers? I have never used it w/o the software.
Click to expand...

Well I am not sure you can definitely go with a 4x1GB configuration. I don't know what motherboard you have. Some boards just don't behave well with a 4x1GB setup at all. The nForce 600 series for example doesn't usually do too well with it. It's not that it can't be done, but some combinations of board and memory just don't work right while others do. As far as 64bit Windows is concerned, I haven't had any problems with performance or stability with it. In fact I'm having fewer problems with the 64bit version than I did with the 32bit version. I had tons of issues with S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Shadow of Chernobyl in 32bit Vista but none in 64bit Vista. Otherwise things are about the same except I can use 4GB of ram now without losing any of it. The D-Pad does work on the N52 without drivers. (Not that I would use it for anything.)

dekruyter said:
I've been running x64 w/ 4gb for a month now. While it is certainly is not slower than x86, it's debatable whether it's any faster. But I don't think I'm running many true x64 programs.
Click to expand...

It's potentially faster and potentially slower. Basically it's a wash for the most part. I think most of Windows x64 Edtions (XP & Vista) added potential comes from being able to use more ram and thus have more resources available for applications. Intel processors have always executed 64bit code at the exact same level of performance as they do 32bit code so there is no other advantage to using 64bit Vista other than some minor security enhancements and of course more memory addressability. In regard to AMD's Athlon 64 and above processors, there is actually a reason to go with 64bit Windows. AMD processors execute code faster in long mode (64bit) than they do running 32bit code. The differences aren't earth shattering but under 64bit operating systems running 64bit code, Athlon and Opteron 64bit processors actually close the gap in performance with their Intel counterparts to some degree. I always noticed that 64bit Windows was a little snappier in general than 32bit Windows was. This was the case with my Athlon 64 3800+ and my dual Opteron 254 and 246 machines. Also the scheduler seemed to work better in the 64bit versions of Windows (at the time Windows XP Professional x64 Edition & Windows Server 2003 Enterprise x64 Edition) as anything multi-threaded worked perfectly in all instances where the 32bit versions of Windows required all kinds of dual core and SMP processor fixes for games and some other applications to work right.

The largest problem with 64bit versions of Windows comes from poor 64bit drivers, but this situation improves almost daily it seems. Little by little the gap in support and performance is closed. Now you would be hard pressed to tell the difference. Credit is also due to Microsoft as the Wow32.exe 32bit execution engine (not sure it quite qualifies as a 32bit emulator, I',m not a programmer) as it works flawlessly and in most cases with only the smallest reduction in performance and in some cases I've actually seen games run faster in Wow32.exe than they do in native Windows XP. This could be due to improved resource management in the 64bit variants of Windows which were initially based on the Windows Server 2003 SP1 sourcecode rather than the XP source code.

As always your mileage may vary, but 64bit Windows Vista is a solid way to go now and I would generally advise most people run that instead of the 32bit version of Vista.
 
shiznit said:
Dan, I just got 4x1gb Crucial Ballistix pc8000 for the coming Q6600 build (1 more week damn it). I can definitely use all 4gb but I'm hesitant to go 64bit. Are you seeing any major performance decreases in games? 90% of my gaming is in the Source engine atm (CS:S, INS, TF2 coming), I remember reading an article about how it runs a lot slower in 64bit. Also, does the dpad on the n52 work w/o the drivers? I have never used it w/o the software.
Click to expand...

I haven't had any problem with 4x1GB on my board so far. Now that I have BF2 working, my main issues with Vista 64 are:
- Lack of n52 drivers
- No decent SW firewall
- No 64 bit Rhapsody (may try Urge instead)

I haven't tried any Source games yet, but BF2 is pegged at 100fps in Vista 64 (just like it was in XP). I don't notice any lag while playing. I do notice map load times are faster since I popped in an old USB drive and configured it for ReadyBoost. I can't assign n52 d-pad keys or the orange button inside BF2; the other n52 keys work fine. There's a beta 64 bit driver (http://www.belkin.com/support/article/?lid=en&pid=F8GFPC100&aid=5234&scid=231), but I haven't gotten around to messing with driver signing so I can install it.

I've been using Vista firewall with this, but it's a little too cumbersome for my taste. I'm waiting for Comodo to release their 64-bit version.

The jury is still out on Vista 64 for me. I have more programs to install and test before I blow away my XP partition.
 
I have installed windows vista unltimate 64 bit and after a few days of searching for drivers etc I finally have a solid set up. I play bf2142 and when playing I am using my full 2 gigs of ram, for all of you saying why? That is why. This game that is been out for how many months - 660 plus hours of gameplay - it uses 2 gigs of ram when used on Ultimate. Don't kid yourself folks - the time when 4 gigs is the norm for gaming rigs is about to begin.
 
load up the world in conflict beta on max settings... and check your ram usage :eek:
 
Dan_D said:
Well I am not sure you can definitely go with a 4x1GB configuration. I don't know what motherboard you have. Some boards just don't behave well with a 4x1GB setup at all. The nForce 600 series for example doesn't usually do too well with it. It's not that it can't be done, but some combinations of board and memory just don't work right while others do.
Click to expand...
I haven't bought a motherboard yet because I am waiting for the Q6600 price drop. I was hoping to be able to hold out for the X38 but it doesn't look like it. I am definitely getting a P35 board, leaning toward ASUS P5K Dlx atm.
 
1. Vista - vista uses more ram to run - taking away ram from your gaming like bf2.
Click to expand...

Why is it that people constantly assume this? In a modern OS, that's simply not how things work. For the same reason disabling services does nothing for performance. Just because you free 15MB in services does not mean the game has an extra 15MB of physical RAM to work with. If something isn't being used it will simply be paged out, giving the game itself all the resources it needs (limited by the amount of physical RAM obviously though). For example, right now I opened up task manager and it says I am using 83% of my physical RAM (this is with Opera, a movie in MPC, uTorrent, Trillian, and Kasperksy open). Now 83% of 1024MB is equal to about 850MB, leaving 174MB of RAM free. Now if I booted up a game would I really only have 174MB of physical RAM for the game itself? Of course not, things are paged out in favor for the game. I know you probably know better than that, but sometimes stretching it a bit makes it easier to get your point across. ;)

Vista does an even better job than XP did when it comes to memory management.
 
Vista uses idle ram for Superfetch and releases it when it's needed for a game or other application. So while it looks like you have no available ram on a 2GB machine, that simply isn't true.
 
Dan_D said:
Vista uses idle ram for Superfetch and releases it when it's needed for a game or other application. So while it looks like you have no available ram on a 2GB machine, that simply isn't true.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Vista does exactly what it should do - use all its available resources. It baffles me why people seem to complain about high memory usage. I've even seen people upgrade from 1GB to 2GB and then start complaining Windows is using more RAM. :rolleyes:

Free RAM is wasted RAM.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top