3GB vs 4GB

[Eomer of Aldburg]

Right now I'm dual booting Windows XP and Vista ultimate edition 32 bit. I currently have 2GB of DDR2 800 and I would like to get more ram for games. Would you guys suggest getting another 2GB even though the 32bit edition only recognizes 3.25 or should I stick with getting another 1GB for a total of 3.0GB? Thanks for reading.

 

[Cutthroat]

Personally I would go for 2x1GB so you can get the dual channel benefits, and think about upgrading to Vista 64bit in the future so you can use all 4GB.

 

[JustaGeek]

Definitely 2 x 512MB in Dual Channel for a total of 3GB.

http://www.dansdata.com/askdan00015.htm

The future is now, IMHO. Either 3GB or more than 4GB on a 64 bit OS.

 

[Eomer of Aldburg]

thanks I was thinking 2x512 as well for a total of 3GB

 

[Cutthroat]

Heh, yeah I guess that works, never thought of 512MB sticks.

 

[dandragonrage]

With the price of RAM today, just go for 4GB, IMO.

 

[JustaGeek]

It's not only a question of price - it might confuse "the heck" out of the system. Please read the Dan's article closely...

 

[Nizology]

I currently I have 1 1g module. I just ordered 2 more 1g sticks. Is it possible to run three 1 gig modules together?

 

[JustaGeek]

Originally posted by: mattnisbet
I currently I have 1 1g module. I just ordered 2 more 1g sticks. Is it possible to run three 1 gig modules together?

It will be fine, but you will not be able to run the memory in Dual Channel mode - that can only be accomplished with "pairs", or matching modules, e.g. 2 x 1GB, 2 x 512MB = 3GB total.

Since you have been running your RAM in single channel mode so far, you will just not notice the change in "responsiveness", but it will improve the speed nevertheless. The system will not be using the Virtual Memory, or the Swap File, in memory intensive applications. It will "happily" use the extra RAM instead.

 

[Eomer of Aldburg]

Originally posted by: mattnisbet
I currently I have 1 1g module. I just ordered 2 more 1g sticks. Is it possible to run three 1 gig modules together?

They should have no problem running although they wont run in dual channel

 

[Nizology]

what is the benefit of dual channel mode?

 

[JustaGeek]

Single channel - 64 bit addressing.

Dual channel - 128 bit addressing.

Gain in bandwidth: about 50% more in dual channel.

 

[pallejr]

Exactly how 3 modules will be addressed depends on the memory controller. Some of the newer Intel chipsets will run dual channel over some of the ram and single over the last -if the amount in each channel is different. If you have like 2+1+1, with 2GB in each channel, it will run dual channel over all of it

 

[dclive]

And in the real world, the performance difference of single vs. dual will be .. ? 2%? 1%? 3%?

 

[note235]

yeah about 5%at max is what I hear

 

[Eomer of Aldburg]

well, I already bought 2 X 512MB of DDR2 800 for dual channel along with my 2 X 1GB! Cant wait to see how games and applications run with 3GB, not to mention got a sata DVD writer. Sick of IDE cables, going all Sata from now on

 

[kallekill]

I read the Ask Dan: What's with the 3 Gb memory barrier? article and I have one question. At the end he writes:

"It won't be long before 64-bit Vista becomes a sensible proposition for people who want a PC with 4 Gb or more RAM. Right now, though, there's very little point to it for normal users"

What does he mean by this? Why is Vista going to be a sensible solution before long? Are Microsoft working on some kind of fix or is new motherboards/chipsets needed?

 

[dclive]

Vista is also available in a 64 bit version. It has been significantly more popular (and hence more drivers) than 64 bit XP, so people will be more inclined to switch to it.

 

[JustaGeek]

The way I understand it, he means that 64-bit Vista will soon be mature enough to overcome all the issues.

And I would add - the hardware, i.e. motherboards and chipsets, will soon be more "user friendly" accepting and addressing >4GB of RAM.

There is not too many MB's on the market right now that work with e.g. 8 GB of memory withous issues, even though they (almost) all advertise 8GB as maximum.

 

[dclive]

If the chipsets can address it, the MB maker would have to go to an incredible amount of trouble to limit the board to under what the chipset supports - and possibly induce incompatibilities. Chipsets have supported >4GB for quite a while now. These issues are largely OS limitations - a 32 bit OS supports 4GB direct memory addressing (barring PAE, etc.) ... and 64 bit OSs solve that problem nicely.

 

[JustaGeek]

Absolutely right. But there is always that "grey" area between 3 and 4 GB, like the old "upper memory area' in DOS between 640 and 1000 KB.

All the hardware/BIOS now assign the "other memory" like Video, chipsets, PCI cards etc. in that bracket.

That's why Dan recommends either 3GB, or more than 4GB, to leave the 3 to 4GB bracket alone for that purpose.

Some motherboards often require a BIOS update to address the 8GB of RAM.

UPDATE: 64-bit OS is required to address >4GB of memory.

 

[dclive]

I don't see the benefit of 4 vs 4.5 GB on a 32 bit OS, assuming no PAE, etc. -- what are you saying?

 

[JustaGeek]

Absolutely no benefit on a 32 bit OS.

>4GB RAM will/might benefit a 64-bit OS only. Perhaps I wasn't clear, assuming it was obvious.

 

[dclive]

IC. But if you were speaking of 64 bit OSs, the 3 to 4 GB bracket isn't used for hardware allocations, so I'm still not sure what you'd meant?

 

[JustaGeek]

The way I understand it, the 3 to 4GB bracket is a "remnant" of the 32-bit "philisophy".

All the hardware, BIOS's and drivers are written with the 2GB application, 2GB hardware memory allocation in mind. It can be "shifted" by using the /3GB switch in boot.ini file, changing that proportion to 3GB application, 1GB hardware allocation.

But I believe that all the drivers are still written for the 2 to 4 GB bracket! I have recently experienced problems playing Far Cry with the /3GB enabled. It would freeze, and even ctrl-alt-del would not work; hard shutdown with the power switch/reset was the only option.

The symptoms included flickering of the whole screen with the ctrl-alt-del held down. Otherwise the screen was just black, and I could hear the Far Cry music in the background.
Nothing would work, even the Windows key, just the flickering screen.

It looked to me like there was a "serious fight" going on between conflicting files.

Perhaps it was just my imagination, but I subsequently deleted /3GB from boot.ini, and the problems have never occurred again.

And I believe that even the 64-bit drivers are still designed for that bracket. Where would they put it otherwise...? Between 120GB and 128GB....? (That is, I believe, the upper addressing limit in the 64-bit OS.)