RAM.. 2gb or 4gb..?

[uberowo]

After reading this board, and having some stability issues, I have decided to dump my Epox and 4GB of (what I thought was good) Corsair RAM, and instead ordered a DFI LANPARTY UT nF4 SLI-D and 2GB of OCZ Dual Channel Platinum Enhanced Latency (2-3-2-5) or whatever the full name is (OCZ4002048ELDCPE-K).

Now, the question is, will I be able to run 4GB of of this OCZ RAM on the DFI board with no problems? I'm not really sure how exactly it is dual channel works, but I understand the difference isnt all that big.. But if I had to run say single channel and use the 2T setting instead of the 1T setting that would add up to like 10% in performance difference wouldnt it?

Also, a friend told me that AMD chipsets today arent able to handle more then 5 "sides" of RAM, so unless my sticks are single-sided anything more then 2 modules is a waste?

Anyone able to to a quick rundown for me?

 

[Furen]

You can run 4 double sided dimms in dual channel mode, but you'll need 2T command rate. Personally, If you already have 4 1GB dimms then I'd try 2GB@1T and 4GB@2T and chose whichever configuration "feels" better. If you actually use the 4GB then having them would probably make up for the 3-5% penalty of using 2T.

 

[dguy6789]

Im real tired and won't go into detail.

You will have no issues with 4 sticks of ram. You will be running PC3200 in dual channel with 2T timings. This is around 1-2% performance drop depending on the situation.

Bottom Line:

You will have no problem with 4GB of ram.

Prepare for a bunch of people to come in and say you don't need 4GB of ram.

 

[Shenkoa]

No one needs 4 GB's of RAM.

 

[Heckler 5th]

that RAM is probably the best decision you could've made for that motherboard, as far as 2x1GB is concerned. that said, what will you be using your computer for?

edit: your PSU is a concern, tho. what are its specs? never heard of mist...

 

[uberowo]

I get that alot. Stats for the PSU (in norwegian mind you) http://www.microplex.no/rubweb/php/rd.php?rd=MIST500BHE12&toc=5037
It comes highly recommended from some norwegian hardware enthusiast sites so I just assumed it was pretty good when I bought it..

I dont really use my computer for anything useful outside of gaming. I do play a little bit of EverQuest2 though, and expect to play similar games down the line (like Vanguard if your into that genre). EQ2 is pretty much unplayable with 1GB RAM at the settings I'm using, so I figured maybe I'd get even better performance with 4GB, especially in those next titles coming up this fall and in 2006.

Will having 4 sticks limit my overclock possibilities? If the only issue is having to run 2T instead of 1T I'd say its probably worth it..

 

[ssvegeta1010]

Originally posted by: uberowo
Will having 4 sticks limit my overclock possibilities? If the only issue is having to run 2T instead of 1T I'd say its probably worth it..

You could easily also run a divider to keep the RAM at an acceptable speed. I think the only real issue will be running at 2T, as the RAM still could probably do 205-210 FSB with no major problems. Summary: Go for 4 GB.

 

[Heckler 5th]

yep, dual +12V rails, 18A+18A; you're set in the PSU department.
honestly, i would hold off on the extra 2GB. it absolutely won't help you, at least for awhile. it's more stress on your cpu's memory controller (i.e. looser timings, higher latencies). when there's a game that can actually address >2GB you'll probably be using a DDR2 mobo anyway.

 

[imported_BikeDude]

Originally posted by: Shenkoa
No one needs 4 GB's of RAM.

Wrong. You might not need it, but never assume everyone else limit their computer use the same way you do.

 

[uberowo]

Maybe I should clarify: I'm not asking whether or not you think I NEED 4GB, I am asking what the drawbacks are if I were to use 4GB as opposed to 2GB..

 

[coomar]

another thing to note is that the difference between 1T and 2T becomes less the tigher the timings are, ie at 3-3-3 the difference will closer to 10% while at 2-2-2 it will be closer to 1-3%

 

[uberowo]

Aha. What do you think is realistic timings wise with the OCZ ram mentioned above if I ran 4 modules?

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: Shenkoa
No one needs 4 GB's of RAM.

Bulls***. If you're working on data that can not be fit in 2GB, then 4GB or more would certainly help. With that said, gamers ought to stick with 2GB these days, as they wouldn't use any more with currently available software, and from what others are saying, the overclocking is better with fewer sticks.

 

[Chef Brian]

2gb of ram is probably as much as you can use. Instead of 4gb of ram, I would get 2gb of high performance ram, like Mushkin's HP 2x1024 (2-3-2-5) DDR400...$291 ish before tax.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: uberowo
I get that alot. Stats for the PSU (in norwegian mind you) http://www.microplex.no/rubweb/php/rd.php?rd=MIST500BHE12&toc=5037
It comes highly recommended from some norwegian hardware enthusiast sites so I just assumed it was pretty good when I bought it..

I dont really use my computer for anything useful outside of gaming. I do play a little bit of EverQuest2 though, and expect to play similar games down the line (like Vanguard if your into that genre). EQ2 is pretty much unplayable with 1GB RAM at the settings I'm using, so I figured maybe I'd get even better performance with 4GB, especially in those next titles coming up this fall and in 2006.

Will having 4 sticks limit my overclock possibilities? If the only issue is having to run 2T instead of 1T I'd say its probably worth it..

2gb would be fine for your use. 4gb would only be necessary if you were a heavy Photoshop user and one that ran Max/Maya/or some other such App simultaneously with Photoshop. 4gb is overkill for games, at least for the next year or 2, if not longer.

 

[imported_BikeDude]

Originally posted by: sandorski
4gb would only be necessary if you were a heavy Photoshop user and one that ran Max/Maya/or some other such App simultaneously with Photoshop.

No, PS will easily eat up that much on its own. Think 8GB if you're a medium-to-heavy PS user. 4GB is pretty much minimum. (4GB is what I had to get for running my own small set of actions on my pictures -- and that's while limiting myself to working with a single picture -- I haven't even started testing PS' new HDR feature yet)

And yeah, a 64-bit OS helped. (PS happily gobbled more memory)

 

[ProviaFan]

Well, I consider myself "medium to heavy" in PS usage, but then maybe the reason why I can get by well enough on 2GB is that my DSLR makes small (2.6MP) images.

4GB would be nice, though.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: BikeDude

Originally posted by: sandorski
4gb would only be necessary if you were a heavy Photoshop user and one that ran Max/Maya/or some other such App simultaneously with Photoshop.

No, PS will easily eat up that much on its own. Think 8GB if you're a medium-to-heavy PS user. 4GB is pretty much minimum. (4GB is what I had to get for running my own small set of actions on my pictures -- and that's while limiting myself to working with a single picture -- I haven't even started testing PS' new HDR feature yet)

And yeah, a 64-bit OS helped. (PS happily gobbled more memory)

Nice to know. Just shows how light of a PS user I am. It took me PS, Maya, and UEd to use up 1.4gb of memory.

 

[zendari]

Games are now eating up 1 gig for dessert, 2 gigs though is enough for a gamer.

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Nice to know. Just shows how light of a PS user I am. It took me PS, Maya, and UEd to use up 1.4gb of memory.

Well, in my humble opinion, 2GB should be standard these days for PS users, and 4GB is in the "very nice to have but not absolutely necessary" category. Unless you have expensive tastes for the latest 16.7MP DSLRs or 25MP medium format digital backs, then you probably don't even need to think about 8GB for another couple of years.

 

[uberowo]

Ok so, to sum it up:
If I run 4GB I will be able to overclock roughly the same, but I would have to run 2T, and other then that there wouldnt be any noticable drawbacks?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: ProviaFan

Originally posted by: sandorski
Nice to know. Just shows how light of a PS user I am. It took me PS, Maya, and UEd to use up 1.4gb of memory.

Well, in my humble opinion, 2GB should be standard these days for PS users, and 4GB is in the "very nice to have but not absolutely necessary" category. Unless you have expensive tastes for the latest 16.7MP DSLRs or 25MP medium format digital backs, then you probably don't even need to think about 8GB for another couple of years.

That's probably why my ram useage is so low. I don't have a Digital Camera and use PS just for creation of Textures. Most of what I work on is measured in single digit mb and not gb.

 

[imported_BikeDude]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Nice to know. Just shows how light of a PS user I am. It took me PS, Maya, and UEd to use up 1.4gb of memory.

Well, PS is kind of a (excuse my French) bitch sometimes. First you need to tell it to use all available memory, and even then you'll be missing out if you're not running 64-bit Windows.

The interesting bit is that PS' scratch file bypasses the cache manager, unless you have a substantial amount of memory (the threshold for "substantial" is somewhere north of 4GB). So you not only have to monitor the amount of memory used by photoshop's process, but also observe the size of the scratch file.

 

[imported_BikeDude]

Originally posted by: ProviaFan
Unless you have expensive tastes for the latest 16.7MP DSLRs or 25MP medium format digital backs, then you probably don't even need to think about 8GB for another couple of years.

I wouldn't bet on it. I guess you'll hit that (4GB+) with pictures from a 8MP camera when using e.g. PS' HDR (multiple exposures combined into a 32-bit per colour picture).

Or put differently, there are conspicuously many who spec their rigs with one or more 15K RPM drives and claim they want it for PS' scratch disk. I think that has changed, or will change, now that PS (CS2) is capable of using more memory. I'll be the first to admit though that I don't have any hard numbers.

YMMV, but I don't think anyone should be scared of buying more memory...

 

[Furen]

Ok, I'll answer your question (someone already answered it but you probably missed it in between all the people telling you that you dont need 4GB of ram)...

First here's some speculation on my part (it's speculation because i cant test it since I dont have 4 double sided dimms): The more banks the memory controller has to work with, the more stressed it becomes, so having 8 banks (4 dimms x 2 banks each) may limit your memory controller's overclocking ability. Since the memory controller is on chip it MIGHT end up being what limits your overclock, then again, there are lots of other parts of the cpu that could limit your overclock as well.

Now, assuming that I am wrong and your mem controller doesnt limit you then:
Your cpu is guaranteed to work at DDR400@2T with 4 double-banked dimms. So, as long as you use a divider to keep your ram working as close to DDR400 as you can, you should be able to get close to the highest overclock attainable by your cpu (by the way, be careful with overvolting your X2, they turn into mini-presscots at higher voltages, so I'd try to stay under 1.5v--of course, it all depends on your full-load temps).

EDIT: spelling...