1024mb vs. 1536mb vs. 2048mb RAM

[Gigantopithecus]

Would I notice a significant (read: worth the money) difference if I upgraded my current RAM to either 1536mb or 2048mb?
I've read a few articles online about this issue but have never really been convinced by any of the arguments.

 

[WobbleWobble]

What do you mainly do with your computer? Games? Programming? Office? Multimedia?

 

[ribbon13]

Remember running more than 2 DIMMs on a CPU is bad. 2T == performance hit.

You'd have to get 1024MB modules.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

D'oh! That's certainly relevant. It's late, brain not working properly.
I use my computer mainly for analyzing large data sets & gaming. I also do a fair amount of basic graphic & video editing.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: ribbon13
Remember running more than 2 DIMMs on a CPU is bad. 2T == performance hit.

You'd have to get 1024MB modules.

You think replacing the two 512 pc2700 I have with two 1024 pc3200 modules would be a very significant improvement? That's a bit of cash.

 

[ribbon13]

If you make extensive use of photoshop yeah. The loss of dual channel is that big of a performance loss at all, so you could replace just one if you wanted.
I got two of these for my GF's rig but this would be cheaper.

 

[boborich]

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus
D'oh! That's certainly relevant. It's late, brain not working properly.
I use my computer mainly for analyzing large data sets & gaming. I also do a fair amount of basic graphic & video editing.

I think more RAM will help you. Anyway, RAM is so cheap these days, the price drops everyday.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: ribbon13
Remember running more than 2 DIMMs on a CPU is bad. 2T == performance hit.

You'd have to get 1024MB modules.

I have been told that running two 1gb modules, need to be set at 2t anyways in dual channel or single chanel systems. Either way it's still faster than waiting on a HDD. If you are running Windows 2000 or XP try editing BOOT.INI and where it says /fastdetect add the command /nolowmem to it if you are running 2gb of ram or more. It will minimize on the swapfile usage.

 

[Googer]

What kind of chipset and processor are you running?

 

[Philippine Mango]

Originally posted by: Googer

Originally posted by: ribbon13
Remember running more than 2 DIMMs on a CPU is bad. 2T == performance hit.

You'd have to get 1024MB modules.

I have been told that running two 1gb modules, need to be set at 2t anyways in dual channel or single chanel systems. Either way it's still faster than waiting on a HDD. If you are running Windows 2000 or XP try editing BOOT.INI and where it says /fastdetect add the command /nolowmem to it if you are running 2gb of ram or more. It will minimize on the swapfile usage.

what if your running 1GB of ram, will that lowmem trick work? What exactally do you guys mean; it will run at 2T=performance hit? Because back in the days of socket7, to increase performance, I remember having settings similar where you increase ram timings. But these days I don't think they are as crude but more like 2-2-2-5 for example...

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: Philippine Mango

Originally posted by: Googer

Originally posted by: ribbon13
Remember running more than 2 DIMMs on a CPU is bad. 2T == performance hit.

You'd have to get 1024MB modules.

I have been told that running two 1gb modules, need to be set at 2t anyways in dual channel or single chanel systems. Either way it's still faster than waiting on a HDD. If you are running Windows 2000 or XP try editing BOOT.INI and where it says /fastdetect add the command /nolowmem to it if you are running 2gb of ram or more. It will minimize on the swapfile usage.

what if your running 1GB of ram, will that lowmem trick work? What exactally do you guys mean; it will run at 2T=performance hit? Because back in the days of socket7, to increase performance, I remember having settings similar where you increase ram timings. But these days I don't think they are as crude but more like 2-2-2-5 for example...

I have done it on my system that has 512mb and it is actually slower in aplications (10%) than if it were left alone but on the flip side of that my start menu and and ICONs appear almost instantaiously with out lag vs /nolowmem disabled (and my start menu is loaded). It takes a lot of ram. MS Recomends that it have 4gb before /nolowmem is enabled.

Note: in both start comparisons i conducted the registry was set to menushowdelay = 0. When /nolowmem was not enabled there was a 1 to 2 second delay for the hdd to load the menu and it's icons.

 

[Zucarita9000]

Originally posted by: ribbon13
Remember running more than 2 DIMMs on a CPU is bad. 2T == performance hit.

You'd have to get 1024MB modules.

Only if you're using an Athlon 64. Intel chipsets can handle 8 banks of RAM at full speed, IIRC.

 

[Alex]

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus
D'oh! That's certainly relevant. It's late, brain not working properly.
I use my computer mainly for analyzing large data sets & gaming. I also do a fair amount of basic graphic & video editing.

in that case, specially if you use photoshop, an increase from 1gig to 1.5 gigs or even 2 would definitely be worth it... the main problem is due to not being able to have more than 2 sticks without performance suffering so it might cost you more than it would otherwise to get 2x 1024... i say get one stick and lose dual channel cause the performance loss won't really be noticeable and then maybe when you get more cash upgrade the second stick and enjoy dual channel goodness again!

 

[Philippine Mango]

there is so much conflicting information about whether or not filling up all 4 dimm slots causes the memory to run slower it's so confusing!

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: Zucarita9000

Originally posted by: ribbon13
Remember running more than 2 DIMMs on a CPU is bad. 2T == performance hit.

You'd have to get 1024MB modules.

Only if you're using an Athlon 64. Intel chipsets can handle 8 banks of RAM at full speed, IIRC.

you mean 4?

 

[Duvie]

I though on my neo2 board 4 dimms would reduce t 333ddr but I didn't know it would revert to 2t as well...

 

[Blain]

Originally posted by: Philippine Mango
there is so much conflicting information about whether or not filling up all 4 dimm slots causes the memory to run slower it's so confusing!

Not much of a mystery here. Just check the MB manufacturers manual. The fog should lift then.

 

[Bad Dude]

Hey,
I went from 1Gig to 2Gig with looser timing and it's a huge different in speed and response time. The 2Gig is much faster and this is not counting of how many programs you can open at one time. I have also tried with two 2Gig kits =4Gig, I would not advice this as the 4Gig seems slower.