any advantage to go from 2gb -> 4gb?

[nyker96]

since ram is so cheap now, I'm thinking going 4gb but do any of you guys who upgraded from 2->4 see any diff in games/apps? just want to hear your opinions on this before to deciding.

 

[LOUISSSSS]

depends what u do with the pc

and the OS that you're using

 

[trOver]

if your not using all 2gb that you have now on a regular basis, there's probably no reason to get more. However, if you are constantly using your page file because you have ran out of ram, it is probably a good idea to pick up some more.

You will only see all 4gb if you are running a 64 bit operating system.

 

[w00t]

the more the better

in all seriousness, unless you going to really use 4GB there is no point in doing so in fact I ran with 1GB after one stick of memory died on me and I was fine with that it just depends not that 2GB is worse but you really have to use it.

 

[MegaWorks1]

I bought 4GB because it was on sale.

 

[adairusmc]

4gig kits are so cheap now there really is no reason not to go with 4gb of RAM if you are doing a new build...or an upgrade for that matter.

 

[SickBeast]

You might as well get 4GB at the price it's at.

I personally would rather an E2180 w/ 4GB ram instead of an E4600 with 2GB of ram.

 

[nyker96]

Originally posted by: LOUISSSSS
depends what u do with the pc

and the OS that you're using

I use win xp sp2 and ubuntu on my machine so win xp I think can see 3.5 if I add another 2gb to the system while ubuntu can see all 4gb been 64bit and all. But I am thinking so many games are getting so big maybe it would run a bit faster with more RAM. but truefully I don't think I ever ran outta that 2gb in daily use.

But I got something bugs me, 32bit means the OS has 4gb address space why do the win xp 32bit see only 3.5? this is very odd unless it's not 32bit!?

 

[zsdersw]

If upgrading memory, I'd recommend getting the type that will work in any new platforms you're considering (Nehalem, for example). You'll get more life out of it.

I have 2GB of DDR2-667 now with my E6300.. and I'm using Vista Business 64-bit, so I would benefit from an extra 2GB.. but I'm not going to buy another 2GB of DDR2-667, when I know I'll probably need to buy new memory when I upgrade to Nehalem (I'm skipping Penryn).

 

[imported_Scoop]

If you are using XP, there's no need for more than 2GB unless you are doing some serious image editing. Your framerates won't be affected at all, unlike 1GB->2GB.

 

[taltamir]

there are known benchies of superme commander taking 2.1GB of ram BY ITSELF.
windows vista + background processess takes 1.1-1.3GB
And company of heroes, even on DX9 running on a 7900GS, can be set to max settings and take about 2.5GB BY ITSELF.

Those are the only two games I know of that take more then 2GB by themselves... Most games take about 1GB, WIC on max EVERYTHING took only 1.5GB for me... but that left only 500MB for the OS... and vista ultimate likes to sit idle at 1.1GB on my computer (still, it was a very small, only a few FPS improvement in WIC when I tested it) . So if you want to play games at really high resolutions and settings you WILL benefit a lot from the 2 -> 4GB transition...

CoH with 2GB, I had to lower my settings, I was getting less then 1fps on max settings due to paging... then I upgraded to 4GB and I started getting normal fps on max settings...
Also, using 4GB of ram on a 2.0ghz X2 processor (3800+ windsor) and 7900GS I was able to max out supreme commander with all settings on max on a 1920x1200 monitor and play at comfortable fps.

 

[Phunk0ne]

Just to support Taltamir a little bit in how you can benefit from 4GB over 2GB.

Check out this following link: http://www.overclockersclub.co...esta_extreme_800/3.htm

 

[nyker96]

Originally posted by: taltamir
there are known benchies of superme commander taking 2.1GB of ram BY ITSELF.
windows vista + background processess takes 1.1-1.3GB
And company of heroes, even on DX9 running on a 7900GS, can be set to max settings and take about 2.5GB BY ITSELF.

Those are the only two games I know of that take more then 2GB by themselves... Most games take about 1GB, WIC on max EVERYTHING took only 1.5GB for me... but that left only 500MB for the OS... and vista ultimate likes to sit idle at 1.1GB on my computer (still, it was a very small, only a few FPS improvement in WIC when I tested it) . So if you want to play games at really high resolutions and settings you WILL benefit a lot from the 2 -> 4GB transition...

CoH with 2GB, I had to lower my settings, I was getting less then 1fps on max settings due to paging... then I upgraded to 4GB and I started getting normal fps on max settings...
Also, using 4GB of ram on a 2.0ghz X2 processor (3800+ windsor) and 7900GS I was able to max out supreme commander with all settings on max on a 1920x1200 monitor and play at comfortable fps.

Yeah I play CoH a lot, haven't max out settings because running on med is okay on 7900gs and any higher is bit sloppy for me. So this looks like it might be paging out somehow. If so I would get that extra 2gb of RAM cause this is one game I love to play.

 

[nyker96]

Originally posted by: Phunk0ne
Just to support Taltamir a little bit in how you can benefit from 4GB over 2GB.

Check out this following link: http://www.overclockersclub.co...esta_extreme_800/3.htm

thanks for benchs, looks like at high res, the 4gb gives like 10-15% more FPS. I think probably depend on how much RAM the games need, once over 2gb it's paging too much and slows tthings down.

 

[DSF]

Originally posted by: nyker96
But I got something bugs me, 32bit means the OS has 4gb address space why do the win xp 32bit see only 3.5? this is very odd unless it's not 32bit!?

You're correct that a 32-bit OS has 4GB of address space. However, that 4GB is shared not only by system memory, but by everything the computer needs to address - sound card, video card, etc. That's why you usually only end up seeing 3-3.5 GB.

 

[Pain999]

I don't think you will see a huge difference in measurable FPS on games with 4GB, but the games will subjectively feel smoother with less pauses and especially loading new maps/levels. You will certainly notice how the games starts and quits faster Also ALT+TAB while running a game can get you access to other needed programs like a server manager or voice program and back into the action much faster.

 

[nyker96]

Just read a bunch online, looks like the 4gb is total 32-bit address space but the 32-bit OS also leaves some amount to PCI/PCIe devices. So the memeory taken up by those cards will take away the ability of the 32-bit OS's ability to address the entire 4gb of DDR2. If you look at DDR2 as a type of card as well. Then the combined memory addressability exceeds 32-bit OS's 4gb limit. Thus 32-bit windows will just leave off a portion of 4gb DDR2 unused. I think the biggest memory address users: g-card, DDR2 and some sound cards that has a ton of buffers on it. Anyways, thank god I only got a 256mb card, if you got a SLI of 512mb card, you just lost 1gb address space. THere's a /PAE switch that allows higher addressability in 32-bit OS running on 64-bit CPUs. But it's not stable for all drivers. So I guess I'll probably just see a tad over 3GB with 4x1gb.

 

[DSF]

Originally posted by: nyker96
Just read a bunch online, looks like the 4gb is total 32-bit address space but the 32-bit OS also leaves some amount to PCI/PCIe devices. So the memeory taken up by those cards will take away the ability of the 32-bit OS's ability to address the entire 4gb of DDR2. If you look at DDR2 as a type of card as well. Then the combined memory addressability exceeds 32-bit OS's 4gb limit. Thus 32-bit windows will just leave off a portion of 4gb DDR2 unused. I think the biggest memory address users: g-card, DDR2 and some sound cards that has a ton of buffers on it.

Which I posted a couple hours ago.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: nyker96

Originally posted by: taltamir
there are known benchies of superme commander taking 2.1GB of ram BY ITSELF.
windows vista + background processess takes 1.1-1.3GB
And company of heroes, even on DX9 running on a 7900GS, can be set to max settings and take about 2.5GB BY ITSELF.

Those are the only two games I know of that take more then 2GB by themselves... Most games take about 1GB, WIC on max EVERYTHING took only 1.5GB for me... but that left only 500MB for the OS... and vista ultimate likes to sit idle at 1.1GB on my computer (still, it was a very small, only a few FPS improvement in WIC when I tested it) . So if you want to play games at really high resolutions and settings you WILL benefit a lot from the 2 -> 4GB transition...

CoH with 2GB, I had to lower my settings, I was getting less then 1fps on max settings due to paging... then I upgraded to 4GB and I started getting normal fps on max settings...
Also, using 4GB of ram on a 2.0ghz X2 processor (3800+ windsor) and 7900GS I was able to max out supreme commander with all settings on max on a 1920x1200 monitor and play at comfortable fps.

Yeah I play CoH a lot, haven't max out settings because running on med is okay on 7900gs and any higher is bit sloppy for me. So this looks like it might be paging out somehow. If so I would get that extra 2gb of RAM cause this is one game I love to play.

CoH was the game that made me get 4GB of ram... I buy ram and harddrives only when they run out... on the day they run out... the day I noticed ram run out in CoH I went and got 4GB of ram... and it immidiately improved performance on high. I just got opposing fronts and noticed that with the new version (v2.100 and higher, avilable for original CoH as well) their ram usage went down a lot, but GPU (and possibly CPU) usage went up. Is the game's built in ram bar full for you? if it is not full then it supposedly has enough ram, if it goes over than you definitely need more... I just tested it and it was just over 1GB of ram for the game... much better than with v1.71

 

[Dadofamunky]

Originally posted by: DSF
[You're correct that a 32-bit OS has 4GB of address space. However, that 4GB is shared not only by system memory, but by everything the computer needs to address - sound card, video card, etc. That's why you usually only end up seeing 3-3.5 GB.

Interesting. With 2 GB of RAM, you "see" all 2 GB in the OS, do you not? (Windows Task Manager states this.) Based on this model, wouldn't we wind up with 1.5 GB usable space in a 2 GB system? Then the OS gobbles up a big chunk. During my normal workloads, I wind up with between 200MB - 300MB usable memory space remaining but I run a crapload of publishing and graphics apps. Also, what tools would you use to verify what devices/apps are using which address space?

That being said, RAM is so cheap that 4GB is almost a no-brainer. <a href=http://www.newegg.com/Product/...m=N82E16820220174>I mean, c'mon, you can get 2 GB PC6400 kits for 30 bucks now!</a> The Egg has some DDR2-667 2GB kits for $20 after rebate. I'd provide more links but their server's crashing right now.

 

[Triton67]

Played Crysis SP the other day (been busy with CoD4 MP) and my LG TFT only shows clear images on native 1680x1050 rez, so I've had to select settings carefully (by FPS)...Playing an hour, two until I looked at the memory usage on G15 LCD: 77% used of 4GB...Crysis itself took 1350MB - Shaders, Textures Shadows and Water on Medium, otherwise on High (PostProcessEFX=Low)...So, not even 3GB is enough today....Imagine if I had more powerful GPU than 8800GTS 640MB and set 19x12, more settings High....

 

[DSF]

Originally posted by: Dadofamunky
Interesting. With 2 GB of RAM, you "see" all 2 GB in the OS, do you not? (Windows Task Manager states this.) Based on this model, wouldn't we wind up with 1.5 GB usable space in a 2 GB system?

No, you should (and do) still see all 2GB. This is because you still have 4GB of address space in a 32-bit OS. Since you're not packed to the gills with RAM, your computer can allocate address space for all of your cards and ports and still have well over 2GB of room left to show all of your system memory.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: Dadofamunky

Originally posted by: DSF
[You're correct that a 32-bit OS has 4GB of address space. However, that 4GB is shared not only by system memory, but by everything the computer needs to address - sound card, video card, etc. That's why you usually only end up seeing 3-3.5 GB.

Interesting. With 2 GB of RAM, you "see" all 2 GB in the OS, do you not? (Windows Task Manager states this.) Based on this model, wouldn't we wind up with 1.5 GB usable space in a 2 GB system? Then the OS gobbles up a big chunk. During my normal workloads, I wind up with between 200MB - 300MB usable memory space remaining but I run a crapload of publishing and graphics apps. Also, what tools would you use to verify what devices/apps are using which address space?

That being said, RAM is so cheap that 4GB is almost a no-brainer. <a href=http://www.newegg.com/Product/...m=N82E16820220174>I mean, c'mon, you can get 2 GB PC6400 kits for 30 bucks now!</a> The Egg has some DDR2-667 2GB kits for $20 after rebate. I'd provide more links but their server's crashing right now.

not really... windows XP has 4GB of "memory addressess"... 4GB and downwards is reserved to address the video ram as well as other devices. While regular ram is assigned upwards.

If you put in 2GB of ram than address 1 to 2,000,000 are mapped to the ram from 1 to 2,000,000. the address from 2,000,000 to 3,200,000 are unused. Other devices are mapped from 3,200,000 to 3,500,000. And your 500MB of video ram is mapped from 3,500,000 to 4,000,000.

PS. I know KB =1024 and so on, i am simplifying.

 

[Denithor]

For a new system build or memory expansion:

If you plan to use 64-bit OS on your rig in its current form just get the 2x2GB/4x1GB and be done with it. While on 32-bit OS you will have 3.2-3.5GB usable RAM but once you go to 64-bit all will be used correctly.

If you do not plan to move to 64-bit on your current setup, go with 2x1GB + 2x512MB for 3GB which will all be used (and used in dual channel mode, unlike 3x1GB).

But really, the price difference between 3GB and 4GB is very small so probably just go with 4GB (you will be happier if you later decide to move to 64-bit without completely upgrading your system).