Am I going to notice the difference?

r3dh3adkid · 08-18-2006, 03:13 AM

I plan to upgrade from my current memory (2x512 3200) to 4x512 3200 and just get two more of the same sticks that i already have ( http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820145450 )

My question is would i notice a better preformance jump if i went from 4x512 to 2x1gig? I know the 2x1 gig is better but would i actually notice it that much?

Upgrading to the 2x1 gig costs more than getting 2 more 512 sticks even if i sell the current two sticks that i have.

SirKenin · 08-18-2006, 03:35 AM

You won't notice any difference at all between 4x512 and 2x1GB. All you will do is free up two slots with the latter, which is never a bad idea.

PC eye · 08-18-2006, 03:37 AM

In a number of ways especially when running some of the newer games that just "LOVE MEMORY" you will often see an immediate difference even if it is only a small one there at first. The problem often seen with smalled muliple dimms is what is termed "memory holes" where once the first dimm is filled a gap is seen when data jumps over to the next. I went from a matched pair of 512mb performance dimms to a pair of 1gb value memory and have seen a new machine in the process in more then one way(my old board crapped). But with 2gb I don't see any stalls or locks like what was seen with the 512s.

r3dh3adkid · 08-18-2006, 03:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PC eye

In a number of ways especially when running some of the newer games that just "LOVE MEMORY" you will often see an immediate difference even if it is only a small one there at first. The problem often seen with smalled muliple dimms is what is termed "memory holes" where once the first dimm is filled a gap is seen when data jumps over to the next. I went from a matched pair of 512mb performance dimms to a pair of 1gb value memory and have seen a new machine in the process in more then one way(my old board crapped). But with 2gb I don't see any stalls or locks like what was seen with the 512s.

Is it really worth it to spend an extra 114 bucks so that it wont lag a little?

SirKenin · 08-18-2006, 04:03 AM

Anandtech did a test comparing two DIMM and four DIMM combinations. He tried mismatched and matched pairs. Now don't get me wrong, I don't like Anand one bit, but he did all the homework so I don't have to.

Here are the benchmarks:

http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=1839&p=4

You will notice the 4 DS modules perform slightly better in the benchmarks. The difference, however, will not be noticeable in every day usage.

PC eye · 08-18-2006, 04:17 AM

You'll note that in two out of the three tests there the performance gain was actually seen with the two dimm setup over the four dimm. Anytime you have an increase in memory by simply adding to the existing or swapping one size dimm or dimms out for larger ones there will be a gain in some areas. But at the time the lower amount of larger dimms will see an overall gain in the long tun when you start running different types as well as different apps.

SirKenin · 08-18-2006, 04:33 AM

Actually I am afraid that is incorrect. Look at the results again. The Sandra test, not the Memtest. They are very, very close with 4 DIMMs taking a small lead.

That small lead will not be noticed in every day use. Trust me. I have played with Sandra, timings, etc for hours and hours. Sometimes I get really damn bored.

I don't know where you got that silly memory hole idea from.

Motoxrdude · 08-18-2006, 04:39 AM

You won't notice any difference. 4 dimms might be slightly faster, but you will not notice it. Either is fine, but if you get 2 dimms, that frees up two more slots so you can upgrade later.

PC eye · 08-18-2006, 05:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirKenin

Actually I am afraid that is incorrect. Look at the results again. The Sandra test, not the Memtest. They are very, very close with 4 DIMMs taking a small lead.

That small lead will not be noticed in every day use. Trust me. I have played with Sandra, timings, etc for hours and hours. Sometimes I get really damn bored.

I don't know where you got that silly memory hole idea from.

"November 2003
Avoiding Memory Fragmentation

[Back]

Be careful when allocating and de-allocating memory so that you are not creating unnecessary memory fragmentation by leaving many small memory holes that are not usable. These small holes are free memory and will be counted as such, i.e. calling the function Runtime.getRuntime().freeMemory() will return the amount of all free memory including the holes. However, this memory is unusable since the holes would be too small to hold the data objects."
http://developer.sonyericsson.com/si...ryfragment.jsp

"The regions within the STT that contain entries for addresses within unsectored regions are never referenced. Not to be wasted, these “holes” within the STT are made available as additional sectored storage through incorporation into the free list."

http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/.../tremaine.html

SirKenin · 08-18-2006, 06:45 AM

That is a myth PC eye. A well known myth as a matter of fact. If you had done a quick search on Google before posting that you would have found that out. Windows XP has very effective memory management. The companies that tell you otherwise are trying to sell you something you don't need. I am well aware that memory holes exist, but they have absolutely no effect on performance like you falsely asserted, and that is what I was trying to get at when I said that. In fact, if you optimize your RAM you will degrade performance significantly. You need to do more research before you start flinging links around and unrelated concepts to the OP.

For example, here is just one result at Google:

http://www.4peeps.com/ivb/lofiversio...hp/t20862.html

Quote:

Reality - "RAM Optimizers have no effect, and at worst, they seriously degrade performance. Although gaining more available memory might seem beneficial, it isn't. As RAM Optimizers force the available-memory counter up, they force other processes' data and code out of memory. Say that you're running Word, for example. As the optimizer forces the available-memory counter up, the text of open documents and the program code that was part of Word's working set before the optimization (and was therefore present in physical memory) must be reread from disk as you continue to edit your document. The act of allocating, then freeing a large amount of virtual memory might, as a conceivable side effect, lead to blocks of contiguous available memory. However, because virtual memory masks the layout of physical memory from processes, processes can't directly benefit from having virtual memory backed by contiguous physical memory. As processes execute and undergo working-set trimming and growth, their virtual-memory-to-physical-memory mappings will become fragmented despite the availability of contiguous memory." - Source

http://www.overclock.net/faqs/88781-...lable-ram.html

Quote:

RAM Optimizers don't have any effect on performance, at worst, they can and do cause performance to degrade seriously. It seems like gaining more available RAM is beneficial, it's not. How RAM optimizers get you more available ram is by dumping important and often used processes out. Lets say that you are running a word processor, as an example. When the optimizer dumps the physical memory, the open document's text and the program code that was part of the word processor's working set(in RAM) before the dump. It must be read again from the relatively slow hard disk as you continue to type up your document.

http://www.techenclave.com/forums/wi...work-6519.html

Quote:

Memory Optimizers

They claim "Increasing the amount of available RAM improves performance". However, the only thing that these programs can do is harm real system performance.

Although gaining more available memory might seem beneficial, it isn't. As RAM Optimizers force the available-memory counter up, they force other processes' data and code out of memory. However, because virtual memory masks the layout of physical memory from processes, processes can't directly benefit from having virtual memory backed by contiguous physical memory. As processes execute and undergo working-set trimming and growth, their virtual-memory-to-physical-memory mappings will become fragmented despite the availability of contiguous memory.

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/driver...nel.mspx#ECLAC

Quote:

Memory Management
Windows XP provides improved memory management. The memory manager provides the system services to allocate and free virtual memory, share memory between processes, map files into memory, flush virtual pages to disk, retrieve information about a range of virtual pages, change the protection of virtual pages, and lock the virtual pages into memory. The memory manager also provides a number of services, such as allocating and de-allocating physical memory and locking pages in physical memory for DMA transfers, to other kernel-mode components inside the executive as well as to device drivers.

Memory management enhancements include the following:

• Logical prefetcher for faster boot and application launch

• Enhanced memory management for better scalability

• Reduced paged pool usage

• Increased number of system Page Table Entries (PTEs)

• Support of giant drivers

Memory holes are clearly not an issue here and you should have never confused the issue by even bringing it up in the first place, IMO. You will never see an impact on performance from memory holes. There will be no more or no less memory holes with two sticks verses four. The only improvements you saw were either in your head or as a result of getting rid of a crappy memory controller on the old motherboard.

08-18-2006, 03:13 AM	#1 (permalink)
r3dh3adkid Bronze Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Age: 20 Posts: 97	Am I going to notice the difference? I plan to upgrade from my current memory (2x512 3200) to 4x512 3200 and just get two more of the same sticks that i already have ( http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820145450 ) My question is would i notice a better preformance jump if i went from 4x512 to 2x1gig? I know the 2x1 gig is better but would i actually notice it that much? Upgrading to the 2x1 gig costs more than getting 2 more 512 sticks even if i sell the current two sticks that i have.

08-18-2006, 04:39 AM	#8 (permalink)
Motoxrdude Diamond Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Nor Cal Age: 19 Posts: 7,922	You won't notice any difference. 4 dimms might be slightly faster, but you will not notice it. Either is fine, but if you get 2 dimms, that frees up two more slots so you can upgrade later. __________________ Estne volumen in toga, an solum tibi libet me videre?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
would i notice a dramatic difference?	opera936	Computer Memory and Hard Drives	2	08-14-2006 06:17 PM
Will I notice a difference?	mrbagrat	CPUs and Overclocking	3	04-20-2006 11:04 AM
Will i notice a difference between these	ckfordy	Computer Memory and Hard Drives	5	04-16-2006 08:24 PM
Will it be worth it...notice the difference?	Djunknown	Desktop Computers	10	02-06-2006 10:31 PM
Will I notice the difference?	NeuromancerWGDD'U	Computer Memory and Hard Drives	10	06-25-2005 10:07 AM

08-18-2006, 03:35 AM	#2 (permalink)
SirKenin banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 4,711	You won't notice any difference at all between 4x512 and 2x1GB. All you will do is free up two slots with the latter, which is never a bad idea.

08-18-2006, 03:37 AM	#3 (permalink)
PC eye banned Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 21,091	In a number of ways especially when running some of the newer games that just "LOVE MEMORY" you will often see an immediate difference even if it is only a small one there at first. The problem often seen with smalled muliple dimms is what is termed "memory holes" where once the first dimm is filled a gap is seen when data jumps over to the next. I went from a matched pair of 512mb performance dimms to a pair of 1gb value memory and have seen a new machine in the process in more then one way(my old board crapped). But with 2gb I don't see any stalls or locks like what was seen with the 512s.

08-18-2006, 04:03 AM	#5 (permalink)
SirKenin banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 4,711	Anandtech did a test comparing two DIMM and four DIMM combinations. He tried mismatched and matched pairs. Now don't get me wrong, I don't like Anand one bit, but he did all the homework so I don't have to. Here are the benchmarks: http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=1839&p=4 You will notice the 4 DS modules perform slightly better in the benchmarks. The difference, however, will not be noticeable in every day usage.

08-18-2006, 04:17 AM	#6 (permalink)
PC eye banned Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 21,091	You'll note that in two out of the three tests there the performance gain was actually seen with the two dimm setup over the four dimm. Anytime you have an increase in memory by simply adding to the existing or swapping one size dimm or dimms out for larger ones there will be a gain in some areas. But at the time the lower amount of larger dimms will see an overall gain in the long tun when you start running different types as well as different apps.

08-18-2006, 04:33 AM	#7 (permalink)
SirKenin banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 4,711	Actually I am afraid that is incorrect. Look at the results again. The Sandra test, not the Memtest. They are very, very close with 4 DIMMs taking a small lead. That small lead will not be noticed in every day use. Trust me. I have played with Sandra, timings, etc for hours and hours. Sometimes I get really damn bored. I don't know where you got that silly memory hole idea from.