I was going to go with 12 GB ddr3 Corsair memory for X58 triple mb on new system build....its partially for bragging rights I suppose. Anyone think 12 GB is just stupid? Should I stay with 6 Gb ? Thanks...
6 GB or 12 GB Memory ?
- Thread starter Panthur
- Start date
n7
Elite Member
- Jan 4, 2004
- 21,281
- 4
- 81
If you are running applications that will utilize that much RAM, there's nothing stupid about it.
If you're an average user, even an average gamer, it's unlikely you'll need that much.
If you are unsure, i might suggest getting 3x2 GB initially, & then purchasing another kit later if you need to.
If you're an average user, even an average gamer, it's unlikely you'll need that much.
If you are unsure, i might suggest getting 3x2 GB initially, & then purchasing another kit later if you need to.
Yeah,I thought of that originally....but 12 GB sounded pretty cool. I do some achvd video work now and then so I suppose I could pass the 6 gb mark with that? I also do play some of the latest games....as long as that much ram has no possible negative effects, I am not concerned about the extra $225.00-$250.00 to go from 6-12 gb.
MagnusTheBrewer
IN MEMORIAM
- Jun 19, 2004
- 24,122
- 1,594
- 126
Your money to spend but, I'd take large bets against seeing any improvement except possibly in benchmarking.
I got 12GB because the G.Skill was on special, i read a few benchmark reviews and decided it was good enough compared to the bigger brands. I don't sit there running benchmark after benchmark to tell you the difference if i pull 6GB out. With the similar spec to the dominator i got twice as much for the same price. XMP only really works with 6GB though
ughh.... i dont think were talking about flash mem cards..... lol but yea ..... i sorta doubt that you'll be using 12Gbs sounds cool though =)
The only downsides are if you plan on OCing (harder to hit higher OCs with more sticks of ram) and if you plan on ever having MORE than 12 gbs (6 gbs leaves you 3 slots free to perhaps put 3X4 in the future.)
I'd totally agree on it being harder to OC with the 12GB v. 6GB (using 2GB sticks). That being said, multiple memory hungry applications, plus a 2GB XP Mode environment in Win 7 that I seem to always have running (just in case) seems to be enough that 6GB just wouldn't be practical for me at this point.
Yellowbeard
Golden Member
- Sep 9, 2003
- 1,542
- 2
- 0
I would never say running too much RAM is stupid but, if you will NEVER use it then there is no point in running it. You have 6 points of failure as opposed to 3, using more power, more stress on the memory controller, more heat, etc etc.
Just to be specific. Some 32 bit apps are large address space aware and can use 3gb of ram on a 32 bit operating system. But only if you set the /3gb boot ini switch.
Also I've been using an 8 Gb Xp 64 bit pro setup at work for legitimate reasons. I find it useful even for non legit reasons because I can just not worry about how much stuff is open. So if you don't mind spending the money the get the 12. Just make sure you have 64 bit drivers for everything you plan to use.
Also I've been using an 8 Gb Xp 64 bit pro setup at work for legitimate reasons. I find it useful even for non legit reasons because I can just not worry about how much stuff is open. So if you don't mind spending the money the get the 12. Just make sure you have 64 bit drivers for everything you plan to use.
6gb is plenty on a workstation for 99% of users. Unless you regularly use VirtualBox or VPC or work with CAD or another very specific application, you won't need more at this point in time.
For a server, I max it out. We have a box with 72gb in it.
keyword is windows restricts. the same 32 bit machine running *nix or osx can address more than 4GB of ram if it is wired up to do so.
matter of fact i've had 12gb of ram in an ancient dl380 G4 running windows 2003 (EE) for 5+ years. while a single application may have a 4gb limitation, and AWE has some limitations (not a big deal since sqlos handles this mode), it is really the o/s choice to limit ram. specifically the microsoft low end operating systems.
Nothinman
Elite Member
- Sep 14, 2001
- 30,672
- 0
- 0
Actually the key words are "virtual memory", I wasn't talking about physical memory. Every 32-bit OS is limited to 4G of VM no matter how much physical memory it can address. And a single process will always get less than 4G because that 4G must be split between the kernel and process.
In some cases, it isn't a low/high end question. Drivers have to be well coded to work with 32-bit PAE and apparently a lot of of the consumer level drivers have poor quality coding that can cause problems with PAE. Thus the decision was made to limit use of PAE to systems that were more in need of it.
I could dig out the article, but that was the gist of it.
6GB of memory is already a pretty excessive amount for most people, you'd only need 12GB if you're doing those audio-visual program type things with many, many instances.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter