2GB or 4GB of RAM for Vista?

[chizow]

Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer

Originally posted by: Imyourzero
The thing that sucks about 3GB is that you forfeit dual channel mode. But I guess with Vista the performance gain from that extra gig of RAM overshadows the comparatively minor loss from not having all of your memory running in DC mode.

2x1Gb

+

2x512

= 3gb

all dimms full

dual channel still a go

Makes sense, but if you have 4x1GB, even if only 3GB or 3.25GB is recognized by XP 32-bit, you'd still have dual-channel right?

I guess I can just answer this in a bit....got 2 GB of Ballistix sitting around and I could definitely use that extra 1GB of RAM now. CoH hit 3.4GB including PF yesterday lol.

 

[crossrode]

i thought when you start mixing an matching, so long as size is the same, timings will be adjusted to the lowest common denomitator. if not its hardly a chore to adjust the timings by hand.

Case in point. Built a Gigabyte socket 939 Nforce 4 SLI the other day. 2 x 1 GB OCZ Platinum PC3200 CAS LAT 2 in channel 1 combined with 2 x 512 MB Kingston PC3200 CAS LAT 3 in channel 2. This set up would not run in dual channel. Even if I went into BIOS and set the timings. Also, on Nforce 4 four DIMMS demands 2T. Not the case on the Intel 965 Chipset OP is considering.

 

[asdfqwertyuiop]

Originally posted by: bomax
Ok... after several hours of reading, I have come to understand the issues here fairly well. From this point forward I assume other people understand as well, so I won't bother paraphrasing.

Since my video card is 512MB, I'm afraid that's really going to eat into the 4GB address space I have to work with. And since PAE is unreliable at this time, I am leaning towards the 3GB that crossrode an Anandtech are recommending. 2x1GB and 2x512MB.

I think this subject would be worthy of a dedicated article on Anandtech, as the issue is only going to come up more and more as RAM prices fall.

Please continue to post useful links as you come across them.

Not sure how well mixed sizes will OC. I have 4*1GB.

I also have a 512MB vcard. I get 2.93GB RAM available in Vista....

 

[Imyourzero]

Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer

Originally posted by: Imyourzero
The thing that sucks about 3GB is that you forfeit dual channel mode. But I guess with Vista the performance gain from that extra gig of RAM overshadows the comparatively minor loss from not having all of your memory running in DC mode.

2x1Gb

+

2x512

= 3gb

all dimms full

dual channel still a go

Yep, we cleared that up a few posts back.

 

[theYipster]

Accommodating 4 gigs of RAM can be tricky, as you'll have to make a decision that will be a compromise on some issue. The posts in this thread are correct about 32-Bit Window's limitation in seeing four gigs of RAM. With a 512 Meg graphics card, you'll likely see no more than 3.2G. Yet Vista x64 is a monster all its own, with additional compatibility and performance issues that still need to be worked out. Fortunately, Vista x64 is worlds better than XP 64 in the compatibility and performance arena, thanks to Microsoft and vendors treating it as a first-class product. XP 64 was an odd duck indeed.

However, I believe that for 32-bit Vista, two gigs of RAM is absolutely fine. Vista is still new and immature, and no amount of RAM will make up for the performance loss one will experience with immature drivers and software that hasn't been built (or rebuilt) to fully fit with Vista's new underpinnings.

I have a Vista x64 system with four gigs of RAM, two 8800 GTX video cards, and an E6600 CPU overclocked to a stable 3.6 Ghz, and while the system is sickly fast, certain programs (like iTunes 7.1) are not as smooth as one might expect, and gaming performance isn't great in certain games (like F.E.A.R) that just run slow on the new OS. For better or worse, I have reasons beyond gaming to use Vista x64, and I can only hope that my programs will "grow into" the OS sooner than later.

As for the RAM, my old system (a P4 Northwood-C 3.0Ghz) had two gigs and Vista ran perfectly well and smooth where it could. Was it as fast as XP? Not really. Did it slow my system to a crawl at any point? No. Did the RAM impact the performance delta between the operating systems on my old PC? Maybe, but very little. Surely the four year old processor and motherboard had a greater impact.

Keep in mind that in 32-bit Windows, a single program can only utilize up to 2 Gigs of RAM, so you will see no performance increase in one single program or task. The extra gig will be helpful only in multitasking and in Superfetch, but I found that with even 2 Gigs, Superfetch worked like a charm. By buying two gigs now, you don't have to worry about DDR speed decreases. Plus, you'll have two open slots to add more memory when x64 matures. However, if you're set on adding four gigs now, I would strongly consider Vista x64. Otherwise what's the point?

Good luck,

Mark.

 

[crossrode]

Originally posted by: theYipster
Accommodating 4 gigs of RAM can be tricky, as you'll have to make a decision that will be a compromise on some issue. The posts in this thread are correct about 32-Bit Window's limitation in seeing four gigs of RAM. With a 512 Meg graphics card, you'll likely see no more than 3.2G. Yet Vista x64 is a monster all its own, with additional compatibility and performance issues that still need to be worked out. Fortunately, Vista x64 is worlds better than XP 64 in the compatibility and performance arena, thanks to Microsoft and vendors treating it as a first-class product. XP 64 was an odd duck indeed.

However, I believe that for 32-bit Vista, two gigs of RAM is absolutely fine. Vista is still new and immature, and no amount of RAM will make up for the performance loss one will experience with immature drivers and software that hasn't been built (or rebuilt) to fully fit with Vista's new underpinnings.

I have a Vista x64 system with four gigs of RAM, two 8800 GTX video cards, and an E6600 CPU overclocked to a stable 3.6 Ghz, and while the system is sickly fast, certain programs (like iTunes 7.1) are not as smooth as one might expect, and gaming performance isn't great in certain games (like F.E.A.R) that just run slow on the new OS. For better or worse, I have reasons beyond gaming to use Vista x64, and I can only hope that my programs will "grow into" the OS sooner than later.

As for the RAM, my old system (a P4 Northwood-C 3.0Ghz) had two gigs and Vista ran perfectly well and smooth where it could. Was it as fast as XP? Not really. Did it slow my system to a crawl at any point? No. Did the RAM impact the performance delta between the operating systems on my old PC? Maybe, but very little. Surely the four year old processor and motherboard had a greater impact.

Keep in mind that in 32-bit Windows, a single program can only utilize up to 2 Gigs of RAM, so you will see no performance increase in one single program or task. The extra gig will be helpful only in multitasking and in Superfetch, but I found that with even 2 Gigs, Superfetch worked like a charm. By buying two gigs now, you don't have to worry about DDR speed decreases. Plus, you'll have two open slots to add more memory when x64 matures. However, if you're set on adding four gigs now, I would strongly consider Vista x64. Otherwise what's the point?

Good luck,

Mark.

We opened 104 images in Adobe Photoshop CS3 from our recent trip to Las Vegas for CES 2007; with all 104 images opened and loaded, we then timed how long it would take for Microsoft Word to start. In Windows XP, despite some swapping, Microsoft Word 2007 started in just under 8 seconds. On our Vista test bed, starting Word took almost 20 seconds due to constant paging to disk. The only difference? Vista's heightened memory requirements took a stressful situation that worked reasonably well under XP and made it far more painful with the same amount of memory.

We then upgraded the Vista machine to 3GB and ran the test again; thanks to faster application load times and intelligent prefetching, Word started in 1.31 seconds. If you thought that 2GB was the sweet spot for Windows XP, chances are 3GB will be the new minimum for you under Vista.

Already posted in this thread.

 

[theYipster]

Indeed. But how often are you going to open one hundred and four images in Photoshop CS3 (a product which, btw, is still in beta?) I wouldn't call that a real world benchmark. However, I would call my six-months experience with an aging 2-Gig Vista machine real world, and I don't believe that 2-Gigs of RAM in Vista is a performance bottleneck (for real world tasks) by any means.

You can indeed get 3 Gigs of RAM, but you'll be at a disadvantage when upgrading later, assuming you want 4 Gigs and Vista x64 down the road. You'll have to replace the 2 512M sticks with 2 1 Gig sticks, and while I can't say how expensive that will be (my guess is not much,) you'd still be throwing away what you bought now.

Now what if you want to upgrade to 8 Gigs down the road (assuming you buy a motherboard that supports it?) Not only do you have to throw away the 512 sticks, but you'll have to throw your 1 Gig sticks as well. Who knows what prices will be in the future, but given what you'd throw away now, I don't think a 3 Gig setup is really that cost-efficient.

Mark.

 

[crossrode]

I use 3 GB in my C2D system. 3GBs perform much better than 2 in everything I do.

 

[theYipster]

I'm not saying that 3GB doesn't perform better. I have no doubt that it does.

What I'm saying is that in the long run, it may not be worth it. Especially if the plan is to upgrade to 4 Gig or more down the road. (The easier upgrade path of having three DIMMS is a drawback due to the reduction in speed.)

I'm also saying that 2 Gig should be more than enough for most people in Vista.

Mark.

 

[crossrode]

Same article:

Although we found that 2GB of memory is still quite passable under Vista, the new sweet spot if you happen to multitask a lot is 4GB - in no small part due to how well SuperFetch utilizes the additional memory. Do keep in mind that you'll need to make sure your motherboard has proper BIOS support for 4GB and also make sure Vista x64 has driver support for all of your peripherals before committing to the move.

 

[theYipster]

Yes. 4 Gigs may be a sweetspot for Vista x64. But then, if you have 4 Gigs, you really ought to be using Vista x64, which creates another layer of issues (as was discussed.)

I think there is a good deal of consensus in these forums that 4-Gigs for Vista 32 is overkill, since at the very least, 700 Megabytes will go unnoticed and unused.

If you want to use Vista x64, then by all means get 4 Gigabytes of RAM. However, if you are sticking with 32-Bit Vista, then I fully believe that 2 Gigs of RAM remains a perfectly fine "sweetspot," irregardless of what this article says. I have no doubt, too, that you'll find people and articles who agree with me, and some that agree with the article on this site.

Mark.

 

[crossrode]

This thread already determined that. Clearly. See ASUS website lnk in the thread.

 

[crossrode]

A worthwhile discussion posted earlier in this thread.

http://vip.asus.com/forum/view.aspx?id=...odel=P5B+Deluxe&page=1&SLanguage=en-us

 

[Mem]

I'm using 4GB of ram with Vista x64,also using 4GB ReadyBoost flash drive too,rock solid with 0 problems,personally if you are thinking of going 4GB then I would say go for Vista x64 if you have 64 bit drivers for your hardware,3GB is not really worth it to be honest over 2GB.

Vista x64 does have a few advantages over Vista x68,added security,better at larger memory handling and also no 16 bit software/support in the Vista x64 so that layer of old 16 bit software is removed ,which adds a layer of stability.

So either stick with 2GB and Vista x68 for now or upgrade to 4GB and Vista x64.

 

[crossrode]

I plan on going to Vista 64 soon.

 

[drum]

i've got a gigabyte ds3, e6600, 8800gtx, vista 64 with 1GB ram and i've had zero problems with it running.
The rest of my ram is in an RMA but that 1 gig hasn't been giving me any trouble.
just throwing that out there

 

[theYipster]

I too have had no problems with Vista x64. My system is stable and performance is solid, except for certain applications and games that need to be re-tuned. I also read somewhere (believe it was on winsupersite.com) that only the x64 Edition of Vista supports the randomizer feature, where kernel and system components are mapped to random points on the memory map to thwart the nastier viruses, malware, and rootkits out there. I'm not sure if it's true, or if the 32-bit edition has this feature as well, but I think it's a great,

Mark.

 

[chizow]

Just to follow-up, I've got 4x1GB running now in dual channel in XP32, 3.25GB recognized by XP. Haven't noticed any major differences yet, but so far CoH does seem to run smoother and there's less paging if I alt-tab out and start using other apps.

I'd say for Vista users, 3GB is definitely better than 2GB, so if you're planning to make the switch anyways and want more RAM now, you might want to get 4GB (2x2 or 4x1) instead of 3GB even if the 750MB or so isn't used in XP32.

 

[Nocturnal]

After learning that I could run all of my memory in dual channel as long as both slots were populated I went ahead and added 512x2 to my already existing 1GBx2. I have a total of 3GB Crucial Ballistix. I haven't noticed that much of an increase in speed but I am really looking forward to installing Vista. I may do it tonight on a separate hard drive.

Oh, BTW, I thought that when filling all four dimm slots that the timings would not run at 1T? I checked my timings via CPU-Z and BIOS and it says that it is running all memory at 1T. Is this due to me not using 4x1GB sticks and using instead 2x1GB and 512x2?

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Nocturnal
After learning that I could run all of my memory in dual channel as long as both slots were populated I went ahead and added 512x2 to my already existing 1GBx2. I have a total of 3GB Crucial Ballistix. I haven't noticed that much of an increase in speed but I am really looking forward to installing Vista. I may do it tonight on a separate hard drive.

Oh, BTW, I thought that when filling all four dimm slots that the timings would not run at 1T? I checked my timings via CPU-Z and BIOS and it says that it is running all memory at 1T. Is this due to me not using 4x1GB sticks and using instead 2x1GB and 512x2?

I'd say being able to run 1T reliably with any memory configuration depends more on the motherboard/chipset than the memory. I was never able to run 1T on this board so no loss for me.

 

[Chaotic42]

For what it's worth, my 4GB of memory shows up as 3326MB in 32-bit Vista. I don't think it's worth $200 to unlock that extra 600MB of memory.

 

[stuman74]

Another question I have for adding sticks of RAM. Does it matter if two sticks are one brand and the two other sticks are another? They would all be PC6400. My new Dell came with two sticks of some Hynix brand and I would prefer to get two additional sticks of Crucial. If it causes problems, then I'd have to get 4 sticks of the same Crucial part number.

 

[secretanchitman]

i have 3GB in my desktop rig (2x1GB ddr-500, 2x512MB ddr-400 all overclocked at the same speeds) and vista runs awesome. my "memory score" in the vista user experience crap dropped from 5.9 to 5.0 (who cares), but other then that, its great. nice and fast...i seriously think 3GB is the sweet spot for vista 32 bit.

since you are picking from 2x1GB or 2x2GB, i'd just get 2x2GB and get it over with...at least you can use 3GB-3.2GB out of the 4GB, as opposed to just having 2GB.

trust me, you'll be better off with picking 2x2GB.

 

[stuman74]

When I go to the configurators at Crucial and Corsair, they indicate that my max is only 1 GB per slot (4 x 1 GB).

 

[Pryde]

C2D does better with high FSB than tighter timings. DDR2 1000 @ 5.5.5.15 is much better than DDR2 800 @ 4.4.4.12 ( At least with gaming ). Go for 2x2 or 4x1 for dual channel and try to match your memory.