4GB of RAM

[Charlescz]

I know there is a lot of issues with 64bit windows right now. I am looking for setup that I can use for couple of years and don't touch it. In 1 year 64bit Windows might be pretty stable with a lot of drivers and applications as PS. Am I going to be able to find matching 2GB RAM stick a year from now if I get only 2GB? Technology is changing so fast.

 

[Simmion2]

Hello

Not to steal Charlescz thread, but I do have a question after reading the posts in this thread.

If you wanted only 2 GB of RAM, what would be better (i.e. faster) - 4 x 512MB sticks, or 2 x 1GB sticks?

I'm curious to know if Andres3605's statement still applies in this situation. He/she said "bettter getting 2-2Gb if u get 4 you would need to run in ddr 333".

Anyways, thanks!

Sim

 

[ultimatebob]

Originally posted by: Charlescz
OK.. SO there is 2GB limitation in 32bit Windows. How about Windows XP 64-Bit Edition? Can win 64bit access more than 2GB easily?

That's not true... The 32bit versions of Windows XP, Windows 2000, and even Windows NT 4 can support up to 4GB of RAM. You need to switch to the 64bit or Enterprise versions of Windows to support more than that, or switch to Linux.

Seriously, though... I can't think of many non-server applications that need more than 2GB of memory. Video editing, maybe... But you would need to be doing some really high-end stuff to make that practical.

 

[imported_composer]

Ok, well here's my questions, I was just about to buy a 939 board and 2x512 for 1 GIG running in dual, if I add another 2x512, it will run slower???

So what then if I just order 1 stick of 1 GIG ram for now, and another down the road, and have 2 gigs running in dual. This is better for dual mode then 4x512 correct? So if I for sure want 2 GIGS of RAM in dual mode, I would be better getting 2 sticks of 1 GB modules?

What will happen on a 939 board with (1) stick of RAM, will it be slow with just one stick for the time being?

As musicians, our plug-ins use up RAM all the time.

My present system has 1 gig and I always use it up rather quickly.

Thanks

 

[IAteYourMother]

2 GB is plenty in my book.

 

[Lifted]

Windows XP (32 bit) can only give 2GB of RAM to any apps, the rest is saved for the OS. On Windows Server you can use a 3GB switch in the boot.ini file which whill let give 3GB to apps and 1GB for the OS.

If you want to move to XP 64 bit eventually, buy 2GB now (i doubt you'll EVER use more than 1GB!) and buy the other 2GB in a couple years when it will cost 1/2 - 1/4 of the current prices. By then there will be some apps optimized for the 64 bit OS (you probably don't/won't use them), but games will not. Developers are not going to write games that require 3-4GB of RAM when the norm right now, even for many gamers, is 512MB and in 2 years will probably be 1GB.

I guess my advice is the same as everyone elses, 4GB is useless and even 2GB will go unused for some time to come. Save yourself A LOT of $$$$$ and buy 1GB now, see how much is being used, then buy more if you need it. There is NO SENSE in buying more than you need right now, when memory only gets cheaper, and being stuck with it. With 1GB you can also buy faster memory as larger sizes don't run anywhere close to the speeds of the 512MB - 1GB sticks. It would probably be cheaper to buy one really fast 1GB stick than 2 slower 1GB sticks / one 2GB stick, and it will actually give you a noticable increase in performance.

 

[BFG10K]

I'd go with 2x2 as you'll get dual channel operation.

however windows XP isnt gonna make use of 4gb of ram correctly,

SP2 supports PAE so that should definitely help.

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: Charlescz
I am going to use it for graphic work and some video. I want to play games as well. I don't think that is very important what I am going to do with it. More important is how to set up this computer right. Is there any reason why everybody is asking? Am I asking for troubles with 4GB?

So I understand 2 sticks is way to go. That is what I though.

About the registered memory, are you sure they'll work with Athlon64 motherboards?

To Executor6: Not all MBs will work with the registered memory??? Ugh.. That's something I had no idea about. I'll check that out.

For anything above 1Gb-1.5Gb, registered really should be on your checklist.

Now what am I suppose to do? "Registered" should be on my list if I go over 1GB but on some boards it is not specified and some of them will tell you that only Un-buffered Non-ECC DIMM can be used.

Any recommendation what combination of AMD FX 53 939 socket + motherboard + 4GB RAM would be way to go? It looks like mistake can be made very easily.

Can anybody explain for us, new folks here, why is registered/buffered memory important if you go over 1GB? That would be useful.

Any thoughts? Thanks Charles

when you say "graphic work and some video" i have a couple of questions. 1st is what type of graphics program and what size files? regarding video are we talking 720x480 or something like 1920x1080 hi def stuff? like others have posted games won't touch that much ram, you would be safe with 1GB. in all honesty you say in another statement that "technology is changing so fast" which is true but most people around here upgrade their systems every year or so, because everything changes about every 12-18mos. in 12-18 mos you will probably buy a new m/b and cpu and then ddr2 will be "old", you get the idea.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: Simmion2
Hello

Not to steal Charlescz thread, but I do have a question after reading the posts in this thread.

If you wanted only 2 GB of RAM, what would be better (i.e. faster) - 4 x 512MB sticks, or 2 x 1GB sticks?

I'm curious to know if Andres3605's statement still applies in this situation. He/she said "bettter getting 2-2Gb if u get 4 you would need to run in ddr 333".

Anyways, thanks!

Sim

what he meant was get 2x2gb sticks to give 4gb, this way he would only use 2 slots and run at PC3200

if he was to get 4x1gb sticks therefore filling all the DIMM slots, then his ram would only run at PC2700, its a known fact that A64 gets abit shirty when all DIMMs are filled, it jus doesnt like it

 

[wchou]

Is there ever enough ram? cost too much.

 

[imported_Phil]

A quick explanation of why you would want to consider Registered memory when using 4Gb.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: Dopefiend
A quick explanation of why you would want to consider Registered memory when using 4Gb.

Uh, that's basically just marketing BS.

Registered memory helps to increase stability by buffering and regenerating the control signals at the RAM chip itself. This can help with minor clock skew or noise on the control lines (which does get worse as you add more DIMMs) -- however, registered RAM costs more, requires a memory controller that supports it, and generally runs slower than unbuffered RAM (you won't find registered RAM with very tight timings). And I've seen little evidence that it really makes much difference. Most desktop systems will run just fine with 4GB of unbuffered RAM (albeit at PC2700 speeds if you're using 4x1GB DIMMs).

I'm pretty sure most server chipsets (and Opteron CPUs) still run at PC2700 with four DIMMs installed, even if they're registered (although some Intel chipsets may do PC3200 in that configuration with single-sided DIMMs, though I don't know if you can get single-sided 1GB DIMMs). But generally, in server situations, stability and a large amount of memory are more important than the speed, so you want Registered ECC RAM.

Keep in mind that under 32-bit Windows, individual processes cannot access more than 2GB of RAM (possibly 3GB with some registry tweaking) without being specially coded and running on a version of Windows that supports PAE (Physical Address Extension), which allows programs to access memory beyond 4GB. However, having 4GB of RAM would ensure you of being able to provide a full 2/3GB to a particular process/application (the OS and your other programs would use the remaining 2GB). With just 2GB of RAM, some would be in use by the OS and unavailable to the program, and obviously when multitasking the full amount would not be available either.

 

[muppet]

difficult to find any 1gb stick, quick modules anyway
i was thinking trying about 2gb RAM in a socket939 board, using un-registerred
but dont wana use all 4 DIMM slots

 

[Koing]

Originally posted by: Simmion2
Hello

Not to steal Charlescz thread, but I do have a question after reading the posts in this thread.

If you wanted only 2 GB of RAM, what would be better (i.e. faster) - 4 x 512MB sticks, or 2 x 1GB sticks?

I'm curious to know if Andres3605's statement still applies in this situation. He/she said "bettter getting 2-2Gb if u get 4 you would need to run in ddr 333".

Anyways, thanks!

Sim

What mother board do you have? Using 2Gb with 4 x 512MB is fine on most motherboards.

Koing

 

[caz67]

Absolutely pointless to have 4GB RAM. It's a waste of money, and can be spent on other things..

 

[Baked]

If you wanna play games while rendering, use the RAM money for a dual processor mobo and processors. The limiting factor will be the processor, not the amount of RAM.

 

[VirtualLarry]

This debate should get a little more interesting once AMD and Intel release their CPUs/chipsets with support for "virtualization", which I assume also includes some sort of "hardware-level resource partitioning" scheme as well. That would mean that you could put 4GB of physical RAM to use, running two 2GB hardware partitions, for example. I'm not certain of the details, so I could be wrong about whether that could actually be done or not, but I think that's the general idea.

This also might be part of the quid-pro-quo going on between Intel and MS right now. If Intel adds that sort of virtualization to the hardware platform, that would allow a specialized multi-hardware-partition version of Windows to far more effectively compete against Linux, which is currently running on IBM's server hardware in a multi-partition scheme as well. So Intel does that for MS... and MS does what it has been doing for Intel, delaying the introduction of the 64-bit XP for AMD64, hobbling AMD's 64-bit advantage in the Windows-using marketplace.

 

[Chaotic42]

I think that 2x2GB would be best, but 2GB modules are really, really expensive. I mean, 2 2GB modules would cost as much as a whole system.

4GB is overkill for anything except specialized work, but if you have unlimited money and fountains of flowing diamonds and whatnot, go for 2x2GB.

 

[Yanagi]

If cost doesnt matter go 2x2gb. otherwise go 4x1

 

[jose]

Get an Opteron mobo, awhile back someone asked why his Asus A8N wasn't working w/ 1 gig dimms. Asus's qualified memory page showed that the A8N only supported 1gig dimms in 2 slots only..

You are much better off w/ an opteron mobo some support 16gigs. And since your willing to buy a FX chip , you can afford an Opteron processor..

Look at the Tyan K8WE w/ Dual 246's (2.0Ghz, $310 ea.) and get 4 x 1 gig of memory. This leaves you alot of upgradablity later. Also this mobo is pci-e , a plus for the future.

Regards,
Jose

 

[imported_NoGodForMe]

I have 2 gig of ram in my system if you want to see what it looks like.
Scroll to the bottom.
http://www.nogodforme.com/MyBabyTera.htm

I only play games on my machine so the full 2 gigs is never used. I bought extra memory thinking that was holding my OC back, but it was the MB instead. So now I'm just leaving the 2 gig in there.

But now you know the Asus A8V will run 2 gigs of the Corsair memory.

 

[Blain]

Anyone who's even thinking about running 4GB of memory should start with a dual Opteron 248, or possibly a dual Xeon 3.4GHz base.
Even then, 2GB should do you fine.

 

[apesoccer]

You can use up to 3 gig per process for windows xp professional, you just have to use the switch /3gb (boot up option). Look it up for the details on MS site. There have been problems trying to use 3 gig switch, however you can set it for less than that and avoid some of those problems. Otherwise it's set to 2gb. You WILL see a large increase if your job can use it. People using it saw a real life difference of 20-35% decrease in run time, depending on how much data was being swapped on hds instead of ram vs 2gb. If your jobs aren't running over 1.5gb in size i wouldn't worry about getting 4gb. As to the hardware side of things...finding out what mobos are really supporting sticks over 1 gig might be hard. You might check in to getting a low end server mobo and cpu, and checking in to driver availablitiy with win xp. That way you cover your bases, and you get good cpus for less the cost (assuming you stay with amd). If you're going that route, you might as well look at purchasing a dual board, and putting one cpu in now, one later if you want. Tyan is the brand to look for in the AMD world for server/workstations. You might also be interested in pci-e sli, you might email nvidia and find out whether they will be supporting your product. If so, dual cpus with dual gpus would be a big plus (and cost). Jesus i'm long winded...Anyway good luck.

<edit> Forgot who i was talking to...when i say server [mobos and] cpus, i'm refering to Opterons...
<edit2> Also, Athlon 64s do not support buffered memory. The memory controller is on the chip, thus why it would be up to the chip (939s). see http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content...e/white_papers_and_tech_docs/24659.PDF

 

[imported_asfd]

not bad idea. for 2x2, you may setup ram raid 1, for 1x4 , raid 0+1. wow, your system is free of mem crashing!