• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Best way to do 2G of memory

R

rjn17960

Junior Member
I'm putting together a new Athlon 64 machine based on the ASUS A8N-SLI Deluxe. I'll be using it for games as well as Photoshop and some video editing. Mainly for Photoshop I want to get 2G of RAM.

From the thread on value memory, it seems like pretty much any PC-3200 memory will do. The question is do I get two 512x2 kits, or one 1Gx2 kit?

PQI 1Gx2 Kit ($359)

Mushkin 512Kx2 ($137 each)

The Mushkin is cheaper, but getting the PQI kit leaves more room open for expansion in the future. I'm leaning toward saving the $85 and going with the Mushkin. Is that basically the tradeoff, or is there something else to consider?

Thanks, RJN
 
2x1GB should be better, as there is some chance of not being able to run 4x512 at 200MHz.

However, why not just get 2 1GB modules of same model? You can do that for about $320 (PQI 1GB for about $160).
 
If it's not a mission critical computer load it up with 1gig sticks. If it's a computer you want that's rock solid stable, stick 512mb sticks in it (and look for a m/b that has 6 or even 8 slots -- Asus has done it, though not to Intel specs).

Higher the memory is packed the easier for memory errors. So it's something to think about in building computers from the start: do I need a lot of memory; or system stability (on non OCed and OCed systems)? Personally if someone's willing to pay over $250 per stick of memory and critical of timings and other things, 512s are the best bet. Pushing a system increases the chances of memory faults, something that nags OCed machines and prevents them from getting higher clocks.
 
The amount of errors should have little to do with DIMM density. It is true that increasing overall capacity will increase errors (IIRC, 1bit per 2 months per GB in an ideal environment), but AMD and Intel are both doing their best to keep registered ECC out of our grubby little hands.
 
if you really need the 2GB, plus some room to expand in the possible future, then I'd avoid 4 sticks right now. Until the new rev E0 A64s come out, you can't run 4 sticks at competitive speeds. They default down to DDR333, and relax the command rate to 2T, which hurts performance quite a bit. I recommend one of the following:
A) Wait for the rev E chips, then get 4 512MB sticks. They are supposed to be out in a month or 2
B) Get 2 1GB sticks, although you will still be limited in your upgrade potential due to the aforementioned memory controller problem.
C) Go socket 940 instead, and go with registered memory. 1GB sticks of it are easier to find, and they don't have the memory limitations of current socket 939 chips. In fact, nvidia just released its nforce4 pro chipset, which is basically an nforce4 ultra/sli, single/dual CPU chipset, depending on the mobo maker's design.
 
Originally posted by: Cerb
The amount of errors should have little to do with DIMM density. It is true that increasing overall capacity will increase errors (IIRC, 1bit per 2 months per GB in an ideal environment), but AMD and Intel are both doing their best to keep registered ECC out of our grubby little hands.
Click to expand...

For a desktop machine I'd skip ECC. There's a slight lag for all the memory checking. Plain unbuffered would do (at least for now).

It just depends on what's important to the user. If they're an extreme OCer, they would prefer less of any memory errors to push the clock further. For the average Joe Smoo, he'd probably careless if he got 10 errors a week.
 
Originally posted by: Terumo
Originally posted by: Cerb
The amount of errors should have little to do with DIMM density. It is true that increasing overall capacity will increase errors (IIRC, 1bit per 2 months per GB in an ideal environment), but AMD and Intel are both doing their best to keep registered ECC out of our grubby little hands.
Click to expand...
For a desktop machine I'd skip ECC.
Click to expand...
For large amounts of RAM, it would promising if not for chipset suppot lacking. It's even cheap enough now.
There's a slight lag for all the memory checking.
Click to expand...
Look at socket-940 vs. 939 benches...even synthetic, the difference is just barely there.
Plain unbuffered would do (at least for now).
Click to expand...
Yeah.
It just depends on what's important to the user. If they're an extreme OCer, they would prefer less of any memory errors to push the clock further. For the average Joe Smoo, he'd probably careless if he got 10 errors a week.
Click to expand...
Yup. The thing is, how much do those errors affect the usability and stability of the PC?
 
Originally posted by: Terumo
If it's not a mission critical computer load it up with 1gig sticks. If it's a computer you want that's rock solid stable, stick 512mb sticks in it (and look for a m/b that has 6 or even 8 slots -- Asus has done it, though not to Intel specs).

Higher the memory is packed the easier for memory errors. So it's something to think about in building computers from the start: do I need a lot of memory; or system stability (on non OCed and OCed systems)? Personally if someone's willing to pay over $250 per stick of memory and critical of timings and other things, 512s are the best bet. Pushing a system increases the chances of memory faults, something that nags OCed machines and prevents them from getting higher clocks.
Click to expand...
??????? Your saying 4x512mb would be better for Oc'ing ?????????

ok.......

ANYWAY (where do you get your crack, err i mean info?)

another vote for 2x1Gb to ensure it runs 400mhz.
 
2x1GB. Nforce 3/Nforce 4/A64 Mem controller don't play nicely with all 4 DIMMs filled. They have a tendency to want to downclock your RAM one step (i.e. DDR400 keeps getting reset to DDR333 for some reason, DDR333 to DDR 266, etc...)


EDIT: 4x512 for OC? If you say so...😕
 
terumo!!!!!! you failed me!!!

4x 512's would make the ram run at a slower speed. if you knew jack sh!t about the a64 and it's onboard memory controller, you would know this.

you need to crawl back under whatever rock you came from.
 
Originally posted by: Cerb
For large amounts of RAM, it would promising if not for chipset suppot lacking.
Click to expand...

Oh, that's what you meant. Yep, after 2gigs it's gets to be messy.

Current chipsets as the manufacturers don't see the desktop market benefiting from it (OCers would a lot. They're plaqued with memory errors higher they go).

Originally posted by: Cerb
Yup. The thing is, how much do those errors affect the usability and stability of the PC?
Click to expand...

You have a point. The trade offs are up to a person's opinion. Just like some folks are annoyed by fan noise and want quiet PCs. Then others think 43db fans are quiet after years of bearing with 58db screamers.

But the bottom line for most computer owners is still cost, not performance. They'll willing to spend $40 less to OC to what they really wanted to buy (caring less about the strain on the entire system top down, or the effects of thermal degradation over a year). In the days when processors were close to $300 and celeries could be found for under $100, OCing made real sense. Now it's more for bragging rights. :/ Sad thing too the market offers it to the consumers, who'll fry their hardware faster and buy newer hardware. In the end, the consumer is taken for a ride (the manufacturers make those warranties shorter and shorter to make sure the RMAs slow down, as there will be many) for their ego. 🙁
 
Originally posted by: fishmonger12
terumo!!!!!! you failed me!!!

4x 512's would make the ram run at a slower speed. if you knew jack sh!t about the a64 and it's onboard memory controller, you would know this.

you need to crawl back under whatever rock you came from.
Click to expand...

You're so full of a64 you can't think of anything else. Apparently you have AMD on the brain. :/

BTW, which a64 to confuse people with again?

http://www.ocforums.com/showpo...?p=2748995&postcount=5

That said, enjoy....

http://www.xtremeresources.com...&p=404284&postcount=12

<Only a dummy would go that far to tweak something for bragging rights. Normally folks have something called a life, considering the below. >

Pricewatch pricing...

Intel
===
P4 560 3.6ghz LGA775 = $433
P4 3.4ghz Prescott = $276
P4 3.4ghz 800mhz = $265

AMD
===
Athlon 64 3700 = $434
Athlon 64 3500 939pin = $265
Athlon 64 3500 90nm 939pin =$290

Any and all of the hype is about loyalities. The days of a real bang for the OC buck is over. 🙄
 
Originally posted by: fishmonger12
4x 512's would make the ram run at a slower speed. if you knew jack sh!t about the a64 and it's onboard memory controller, you would know this.
Click to expand...

Is this true? I guess I'm the last person to hear this.

I would've assumed CL 2.5 would be faster than CL 3. Therefore I would've suggested the 512MB sticks for being cheaper and faster. Honestly, by the time you need more than 2GB of RAM, you'll be wanting a new motherboard, and plain PC3200 won't be the memory to get. There's virtually no need to worry about leaving room for expansion when installing 2GB RAM.

How exactly does the memory controller work that the system slows down when using all 4 banks? Is there an article on this I can read?
 
My googling sucks right now. IIRC, lostcircuits (unreachable) and firing squad (can't find article 🙂) have articles you are looking for.

Here's the deal: with RAM, you have those sticks in the slots. With unbuffered RAM, the signal degrades a fair amount going through the chips and back to the bus. The faster you go, the worse this becomes. Athlon64 chips and motherboards will reduce the speed of the RAM, if necessary, in this situation, which happens when you fill up all the banks. With registered RAM, you can usually get twice or so the number of sticks on the bus at a given speed, as the signal on the bus only goes to one or two chips per DIMM, rather than 8-16. This is why server and workstation boards and chipsets use registered RAM. You've been able to do four full-speed DIMMs per chip in Opteron boards since the release of the 2GHz model. This won't be garunteed for the Athlon64 parts until the new stepping (E0?) is released, and even then we may get stuck at some penalty (possibly slow command rate). Some RAM on some boards will make it at full speed, but some won't, and there is no garuntee it will work properly with 4 DIMMs.

CL 2.5 is faster than CL 3, but the difference is only measurable in synthetic tests like Sandra's, and even there is almost nothing. The Athlon64's on-die memory controller effectively negates CAS latency advantages. Better CAS latency is still saught-after for OCing, but has no value at stock speeds for the Athlon64.

IMO, it sucks that we know DDR-2 will fall into this mess at some point, too, and that the RAM companies didn't just give RDRAM a chance. If they had, we could be using much better RAM right now (RDRAM or XDR), with no worries like this.
 
Originally posted by: Terumo
Originally posted by: fishmonger12
terumo!!!!!! you failed me!!!

4x 512's would make the ram run at a slower speed. if you knew jack sh!t about the a64 and it's onboard memory controller, you would know this.

you need to crawl back under whatever rock you came from.
Click to expand...

You're so full of a64 you can't think of anything else. Apparently you have AMD on the brain. :/

BTW, which a64 to confuse people with again?

http://www.ocforums.com/showpo...?p=2748995&postcount=5

That said, enjoy....

http://www.xtremeresources.com...&p=404284&postcount=12

<Only a dummy would go that far to tweak something for bragging rights. Normally folks have something called a life, considering the below. >

Pricewatch pricing...

Intel
===
P4 560 3.6ghz LGA775 = $433
P4 3.4ghz Prescott = $276
P4 3.4ghz 800mhz = $265

AMD
===
Athlon 64 3700 = $434
Athlon 64 3500 939pin = $265
Athlon 64 3500 90nm 939pin =$290

Any and all of the hype is about loyalities. The days of a real bang for the OC buck is over. 🙄
Click to expand...


read cerb's post.

running 4 dimms of ram in any a64 socket 939 board will get the ram bumped down to 333 mhz because the onboard memory controller doesn't like running at 400 mhz with all those dimms.
 
terumo, i still don't understand what the point of your post is. i didn't have time earlier to look into the links you posted, but now that i've read them they have nothing to do with memory speed and the number of dimm slots taken up. they seem to have to do with processor model numbers and specs, and the other one is about processors and basic overclocking.

here's a couple sites with some somewhat relevant information on the topic, just got these off a google search so don't be mad if they aren't exactly what you're looking for:

http://www.pcbuyerbeware.co.uk...roblems.htm#installing
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=1487636&enterthread=y

i may find some more later, but the basic message is the more dimm slots you fill up, the slower the ram is going to run in order to avoid errors. a quote:

"If you read AMD's specifications for the Athlon 64 processor, you'll discover the admission that it can't handle the timing issues involved in running more than one double-sided module at the full DDR 400 speed. According to the same specifications, it states that systems with two or more double-sided modules can only be operated at the speed of DDR 333 modules.

As usual, AMD is being rather conservative with its specifications, probably in order to avoid as many problems as possible. Some Athlon 64 motherboards will run as much good-quality double-sided memory (i.e., made by Crucial) as the board can be fitted with without any problems, and others support a maximum capacity of particular brands of DDR 400 RAM that should run without problems."

 
Thanks for all the replies! I'm not in a huge hurry to build this system, so I'll have to do more research into the new rev E0 A64s.
 
I'd say 2 GB is overkill for your purposes, but then thats my opinion.

I'd buy one Mushkin 512x2 kit and then figure if more is needed - cost effective either way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top