6g vs 12g ram

[tarmc]

is there any real benefit to running 12g instead of 6g?
have the choice between 6g
http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product...82E16820145254
or 12g (2 kits)
http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product...irtualParent=1
at 1600 can get better timings with the first kit but does it really make a difference in gaming? or at all really?

 

[ShintaiDK]

Depends if your applications use more than 6GB. Else no.

Timings and speed doesnt really matter much at all.

You should avoid buying 1.65V memory when you can get non overvolted 1.5V memory instead. You didnt list your specs either. But 1.65V memory might also void your CPU warranty.

 

[tarmc]

I7 920 (@ 3.8) on a ga-ex58-ud5. I dont really think anything i do would really use more than 6g. Already have the ram just unsure of which kit(s) would be better to use

 

[blastingcap]

Depends if your applications use more than 6GB. Else no.

Timings and speed doesnt really matter much at all.

You should avoid buying 1.65V memory when you can get non overvolted 1.5V memory instead. You didnt list your specs either. But 1.65V memory might also void your CPU warranty.

This, except that I would say that unless you save more than a few bucks, I would go with DDR3-1600 over DDR3-1333. Always 1.5V or below. If you have to ask, 12GB will not make a difference to you.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

If you don't need it' you'll just be sucking more power from the wall for no reason. Don't get it if you don't need it.

 

[gpse]

http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product...82E16820233146

CORSAIR Vengeance 12GB (3 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) Desktop Memory Model CMZ12GX3M3A1600C9

I wouldn't get 6GB, I like to think 8GB is the minimum for 2013, if you get 6GB, in a year or two you'll need more, so might as well get 12GB now, so you don't have to upgrade for a while.

or buy this if you're tight on cash:

http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product...82E16820231314

since it's gonna be running in dual channel mode you'll loose 2-3% of performance (you wont notice unless all you do is benchmark) My computer also uses the X58 Chipset, and has a triple channel memory controller, but I run 4 sticks instead of 3 (8GB total) and haven't noticed any performance difference.

 

[_Rick_]

Advantage is in more caching, so less critical I/O accesses in daily use (last I checked I had around 17GB of memory used as cache), and you can multitask way more. With 6 GB you might have to swap when switching between a browser and gaming, depending on the load each of those puts on memory. 8GB is really the lower limit for me, so definitely go for 12. If we were 6 months back, I'd recommend trying 48, but prices have increased quite a bit since, so right now I'd not do that.
Given that you have that 6x2 kit, I'd definitely install it. You can never have too much RAM, and the day you don't have enough, it just hurts so bad...

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

By the looks of it, my system is only using 1.39Gb of my 6Gb installed. This is with my local email app open, and my browser with 3 tabs open. I've used task manager to check my ram usage. If there is a more accurate app, please let me know.

If your (tarmc) user scenario requires more then go for it, if not you are wasting money for nothing.

 

[tweakboy]

Im using 12GB as were talking. Doing projects Ive seen usage go to 35GB

6GB is too litle. Grab a 16GB kit ,,,, very affordable. gl

 

[tarmc]

By the looks of it, my system is only using 1.39Gb of my 6Gb installed. This is with my local email app open, and my browser with 3 tabs open. I've used task manager to check my ram usage. If there is a more accurate app, please let me know.

If your (tarmc) user scenario requires more then go for it, if not you are wasting money for nothing.

No money is going to be spent, i already have the ram. But tossing between what ram would be more ideal to use. I am currently running 6g @ 1600 6-6-6-20 1t. But it doesnt sound like running tighter timings will make much of a difference

 

[2is]

I'd go with 12, even if YOU don't use it, windows will use it to cache more items.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

Is there a way to tell the OS to use more ram to cache apps?

 

[2is]

It does it automatically based in your usage afik

 

[Socio]

Another reason to go with more ram is if you want to make a virtual drive out of some of it, off load temp files to it, you can even move the page file to it I believe, take some of the load off your hard drive.

 

[tweakboy]

Or run couple OSes at same time, hehe

 

[tweakboy]

Naw but seriously guys, COME ON! RAM is soo cheap now, grab a 16GB kit 2x8GB dual channel ....... thx

 

[_Rick_]

you can even move the page file to it

Just no.

That would be like having a 4 seater car, and flipping the rear seats so that you can get four into the car, because now there's enough room for two in the trunk!

Memory management has come along far enough, that as long as you have enough, you won't have to worry about it. The pagefile only slows things down, if there isn't enough memory. Moving the pagefile into memory reduces available memory, so you'll be accessing the pagefile more. But your overall charge limit goes down.

Now, if you get a PCIe 3.0 x16 card with a "north bridge" (memory controller) on it, and some GB of RAM on there which the CPU can not address as RAM, but only via a storage driver, then, if you already have the maximum capacity RAM installed for your main memory controller, you can use that extra memory for the pagefile, because the OS can address more memory than the memory controller, and thus use that semi-transparently.
Of course, that's a completely out there scenario.

 

[A5]

I went from 6GB to 12GB a couple years ago and have to admit that I haven't noticed any performance difference in my usage. My next system will probably start at 8GB, especially since RAM prices keep going up.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

In my user scenario I could do fine with just 4Gb

 

[lsv]

I7 920 (@ 3.8) on a ga-ex58-ud5. I dont really think anything i do would really use more than 6g. Already have the ram just unsure of which kit(s) would be better to use

I have a similar i7 920 @ stock for silence and went up to 12gigs due to work.

While it nice having my production applications and a game in the background that I can switch to at any time without the need for work I wouldn't need the 12gigs.

Lsv

 

[tweakboy]

I'd go with 12, even if YOU don't use it, windows will use it to cache more items.

Windoz will use a lot of cache the more RAM you have.

 

[tweakboy]

No money is going to be spent, i already have the ram. But tossing between what ram would be more ideal to use. I am currently running 6g @ 1600 6-6-6-20 1t. But it doesnt sound like running tighter timings will make much of a difference

Very nice, those are nice latency @ 6

 

[blastingcap]

Just no.

That would be like having a 4 seater car, and flipping the rear seats so that you can get four into the car, because now there's enough room for two in the trunk!

Memory management has come along far enough, that as long as you have enough, you won't have to worry about it. The pagefile only slows things down, if there isn't enough memory. Moving the pagefile into memory reduces available memory, so you'll be accessing the pagefile more. But your overall charge limit goes down.

Now, if you get a PCIe 3.0 x16 card with a "north bridge" (memory controller) on it, and some GB of RAM on there which the CPU can not address as RAM, but only via a storage driver, then, if you already have the maximum capacity RAM installed for your main memory controller, you can use that extra memory for the pagefile, because the OS can address more memory than the memory controller, and thus use that semi-transparently.
Of course, that's a completely out there scenario.

+1 for making me laugh with that car analogy

 

[tarmc]

may as well use the 12, less ram collecting dust now at least haha

 

[tweakboy]

Depends what type of work you do. But 6GB is way too low here in 2013.. you need 12 or 16GB minimum. gl