4gb 800MHz or 2gb 1066MHz

2gb of either with 1066mhz being the faster stock memory. With 4gb some memory seems to lack being visible in the 32bit versions of Windows while the board will still see the total amount. The need for over 2gb comes down to CAD or large graphics design apps demanding more over games which can easily run with only 512mb installed. It also helps to know the make and model board the new memory will go on to see if the 1066mhz is the memory standard and supported.
 
I looked at buying a pair of 2gb dimms(DDR2 800) for the new build in the works here until seeing the price tag on either Kingston Hyper X or Corsair xms series memory and stiffled fast at the nearly $400 price tag. I''ll certainly run the 2gb sitting on my desk at the moment until some prices come down there.
 
Burgerbob said:
Then 2GB is pretty much the max, as 32bit XP will not recognize 3.4GB of RAM or above. 2GB is the best amount for XP.
Click to expand...

The actual barrier before seeing any lack of memory is 3gb while 2gb is generally by itself a little more then what most will need except for seeing 1gb on each memory channel when in dual channel mode. At the 4gb max memory is then allocated to hardwares by Windows resulting in seeing less available when looking.

This is also seen with Vista as well as XP due to the 32bit limitations there. But I wouldn't advise installing 16gb on a board that supports that amount and expecting great results from the 64bit versions of either XP or Vista at this time. Despite being 64bit they are still Windows with their apparent problems. The 64bit versions of Linux would probably have seen more progress there.
 
As of June of 2007 one article outlines some advice for the average user about memory and which version of Windows to go with.
Overall

As things stand at the moment (June 2007), the sensible course of action for the vast majority of Windows users buying a new PC is to get a standard 32-bit WinXP system with at most 3Gb of memory. It'll come as close to Just Working as Windows ever does, and you'll be able to use as close to all of the installed RAM as makes no difference, if you don't go totally crazy with your video card choice.
If you insist on buying Vista version 1.0, it's still not a bad idea to stick with 3Gb of RAM and use the 32-bit installation option, because 64-bit Vista needs 64-bit drivers. 64-bit drivers are not necessarily fully cooked, or even available, for the hardware you want to use. Many 32-bit XP drivers work in 32-bit Vista (subject to the limitations I explained back in the first Ask Dan), but no 32-bit XP drivers work in 64-bit Vista.
(If you've got 4Gb of RAM, by the way, the Vista installer may not work anyway. You can work around that problem, if you have it, by pulling some of the RAM while you install Vista, then putting it back. Apparently Microsoft limit the maximum available memory in 32-bit Vista to 3.12Gb anyway, though, so it's hardly worth the trouble of buying more.)
It won't be long before 64-bit Vista becomes a sensible proposition for people who want a PC with 4Gb or more RAM. Right now, though, there's very little point to it for normal users.
Yes, if you install 8Gb of RAM (the artificially-limited maximum for Vista Home Basic; Home Premium can take 16Gb) in 64-bit Vista, you'll be able to use more than 7Gb of that RAM, no matter what. But unless you're using 64-bit workstation/server applications (not just Photoshop), or multitasking a whole lot of big 32-bit apps, or running multiple virtual computers on your one physical one, then the extra memory will only give you a small performance gain.
Small enough that if someone steals half of your memory, you may well not notice.
http://www.dansdata.com/askdan00015.htm

16gb of memory on a system running a 64bit OS sees only 7gb? Regardless I'll still be seeing the 32bit versions of XP Home and Vista Home Premium on the new build here with 2gb of performance memory rather then throwing money at nothing.
 
PC eye said:
As of June of 2007 one article outlines some advice for the average user about memory and which version of Windows to go with.
Overall

As things stand at the moment (June 2007), the sensible course of action for the vast majority of Windows users buying a new PC is to get a standard 32-bit WinXP system with at most 3Gb of memory. It'll come as close to Just Working as Windows ever does, and you'll be able to use as close to all of the installed RAM as makes no difference, if you don't go totally crazy with your video card choice.
If you insist on buying Vista version 1.0, it's still not a bad idea to stick with 3Gb of RAM and use the 32-bit installation option, because 64-bit Vista needs 64-bit drivers. 64-bit drivers are not necessarily fully cooked, or even available, for the hardware you want to use. Many 32-bit XP drivers work in 32-bit Vista (subject to the limitations I explained back in the first Ask Dan), but no 32-bit XP drivers work in 64-bit Vista.
(If you've got 4Gb of RAM, by the way, the Vista installer may not work anyway. You can work around that problem, if you have it, by pulling some of the RAM while you install Vista, then putting it back. Apparently Microsoft limit the maximum available memory in 32-bit Vista to 3.12Gb anyway, though, so it's hardly worth the trouble of buying more.)
It won't be long before 64-bit Vista becomes a sensible proposition for people who want a PC with 4Gb or more RAM. Right now, though, there's very little point to it for normal users.
Yes, if you install 8Gb of RAM (the artificially-limited maximum for Vista Home Basic; Home Premium can take 16Gb) in 64-bit Vista, you'll be able to use more than 7Gb of that RAM, no matter what. But unless you're using 64-bit workstation/server applications (not just Photoshop), or multitasking a whole lot of big 32-bit apps, or running multiple virtual computers on your one physical one, then the extra memory will only give you a small performance gain.
Small enough that if someone steals half of your memory, you may well not notice.
http://www.dansdata.com/askdan00015.htm

16gb of memory on a system running a 64bit OS sees only 7gb? Regardless I'll still be seeing the 32bit versions of XP Home and Vista Home Premium on the new build here with 2gb of performance memory rather then throwing money at nothing.
Click to expand...


WoW! :eek:
Thanx for the info it helped. I made a deal with my friend that he would buy 4gb and give me a 1gb for $30.:) So he will be running 3gb on 32bit XP which will be perfect i think.
 
I would not reccomend getting RAM that is clocked faster than your system can handle. better off looking for something that can handle low latency instead

eg: if you have a pc6400 board, get pc6400 ram with preference for lower latencies (ideal ould be corsair dominator twin2X2048 pc6400 C3DF with timings of 3-3-3-4-1 (or sumthin like that anyway)

but thats expensive as hell, so i suppose whatever is in your budjet!!
 
The perfomance type of memory like Corsair's xms series or Kingston Hyper X will see a Cas Latency of 4 depending on model selected. As far as 7gb being seen out of 8gb with four 2gb dimms installed some boards won't fully see the total due to chipset limitations. For 32bit OSs you wouldn't be going with that much anyways. A good solid 2gb works well on most systems since most softwares are based around the 512mb minumum.
 
Corsair is a good reliable brand as well as a performer. Their value ram is high rated for that type of memory along with the Kingston Value Ram currently used on the case here. The new build will see a large boost with Hyper X memory and a much faster DX10 card over the budget model now used. But the important thing there is seeing good results and not running into the 3gb barrier problem with a 32bit OS. Now it's upto you to keep it running that way. :P
 
If the memory standard seen in the board's specifications are DDR2 800 then that's what to go with. Apparently the bugs are still being seen in the 1066mhz memory anyways. But backclocking a faster memory loses something in translation there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top