4x2GB vs 2x(2x2GB)?

[Nathelion]

I was looking around and newegg, contemplating 8 gigs of (DDR2) ram. Now it doesn't seem like there are any 4GB sticks, so any 8 GB ram setup would require 4 sticks of ram. Now here is the odd thing: There are kits of 4x2Gb sticks being sold... but they come in at $270-$400. Now if someone were to buy two 2x2GB kits, those go for $80-$90 each for a total of $160-$180. What's that about? Would there actually be any benefit to getting the 4 stick kit, or is the pricing just dumb?

Speaking of which, is there any actual benefit in getting 8 GB of ram at this point, or would most of it just sit there unused? This would be for gaming/DC/mathcad/interactive physics/mathematica etc... Would that depend on the processor, as in would a faster processor benefit from more ram in this situation (how about in general)?

I'm also curious about dual channel. Does dual channel actually work on a 4-slot motherboard when you fill up all slots, or is the "dual" part that two sticks will use wire traces for all 4 slots, so that 4 sticks would by necessity operate in single-channel mode? And does (or has with say ddr) dual channel actually bring any performance increase? In the real world, that is.

Am I correct in thinking that with more sticks of ram, the OC headroom decreases? If so, why is that? Would that be why the kit of 4x2GB is more expensive, because the regular 2x2GB kits may not be able to run at spec with another kits in the system?

Thx for any replies

 

[MrX8503]

I'm not sure why the 4stick kit is so much, but just buy 2 kits of 2x2gb. Its pretty much the same thing compared to getting 2 single 2gb sticks or 2x2gb kit. As for 4gb vs 8gb, I dont think you would really see much of a difference, but the great thing about Vista is that it will utilize the ram if it has it, if you have Vista 64-bit.

OC Headroom does decrease because you're working with 4 sticks instead of two. Meaning you would have to get all 4 sticks stable.

 

[Rike]

Do you have a 64-bit OS? If not, 3.25GBs is all your system will see whether you put in 4GB or 8GB.

On the pricing, I'd say the 4 x 2GB kits are just for suckers.

 

[Nathelion]

Does anyone have any info on real-world performance of 8 gb vs 4 (in the form of personal experience or benchmarks)? I've noticed that there are a few people on here with 8 gb in their sigs, any insights?

 

[BlueAcolyte]

Well, not many programs can use 8GB of RAM... 32-bit executables run out at 2GB, 4GB if you use the "LARGEADDRESSAWARE" flag.

SupComFA does this... Not sure what else. One of the guys on their forums released a program that can do this for other applications.

 

[n7]

Originally posted by: Nathelion
Does anyone have any info on real-world performance of 8 gb vs 4 (in the form of personal experience or benchmarks)? I've noticed that there are a few people on here with 8 gb in their sigs, any insights?

I don't really notice much difference between 4 & 8 GB, but due to DDR2 being so cheap right now, for Vista users it's not really such a silly idea.

Anyone running a ton of things at once, or running VMWare, video encoding, heavy gaming, etc. can easily get to around 4 GB of RAM usage in Vista x64, so i don't think it's a bad investment considering the great pricing on DDR2.

Even if you never use over 4 GB, basically all of it will get cached, which at least theoretically does help in performance overall.
I've also noticed that the more RAM you have, the higher usage the RAM usage in Vista, which seems to indicate it does scale based on memory amount.

For XP users, more RAM that's not actively being used goes to waste, but in Vista, i firmly believe there's no such thing as too much RAM, since it's basically always being put to some use.


As for the OP's questions, in no way is a 4x2 GB kit necessary.

You can get two 2x2 GB kits just fine; that's what we all do.
I run one Mushkin & one G.Skill kit in dual channel.

Yes, four dimms do tend to put more stress on the northbridge, but with a decent P35/X38/X48 motherboard, you should be able to run four dimms just fine.

If you have a P965 like me...hehe, it's a lot less fun, but still do-able.

 

[Goldfish4209]

I think the 4x2 kits are just matched sticks with similar headroom. This may or may not matter to you, so I'd just go with 2x2x2.

 

[sgrinavi]

A 4 stick set is guaranteed to run at the rated speeds, (2)2 sticks sets are not. I have two sets of mushkin pc8500 sticks (2x1GB) that will not run at anywhere near their rated speeds when all four sticks are installed, 938 was the best I could do, yet when run the sets in pairs each set will go close to 1200.

FWIW 2x2 gb is a better deal anyhow

 

[sgrinavi]

Originally posted by: Nathelion
Does anyone have any info on real-world performance of 8 gb vs 4 (in the form of personal experience or benchmarks)? I've noticed that there are a few people on here with 8 gb in their sigs, any insights?

Works great when I am working a very large AutoCAD or 3dsMAX model... but other than that it has not made any difference.

 

[Nothinman]

If not, 3.25GBs is all your system will see whether you put in 4GB or 8GB.

While 3.25G is probably a common number the amount varies depending on the hardware configuration.

Well, not many programs can use 8GB of RAM... 32-bit executables run out at 2GB, 4GB if you use the "LARGEADDRESSAWARE" flag.

LargeAddressAware processes will run out at 3G not 4G, and only if the system is booted with the /3GB switch.

For XP users, more RAM that's not actively being used goes to waste, but in Vista, i firmly believe there's no such thing as too much RAM, since it's basically always being put to some use.

It won't go to waste in XP, it'll be used by the cache just as in Vista. The only difference being that XP doesn't have SuperFetch to preemptively fill that cache.