Does having more sticks of RAM slow your PC down?

[MoobyTheGoldenCalf]

Like having 4 sticks of 128MB, instead of 2 sticks of 256MB or 4 sticks of 256MB instead 2 sticks of 512MB, etc.

Also, what if any speed difference would there be with 4 sticks of 256MB as opposed to 2 sticks of 256MB. If it slows the system down, is it worth it to have the additional RAM? Thanks.

 

[Rickr]

I don't think it matters. I have benchmarked my system when it had only two sticks and when it had four, and the memory benches came out exactly the same.

 

[audiophan]

I don't think bigger ram chips, ie 512mb, o/c as well as smaller ones like 128mb.

 

[thorin]

It makes absolutely no difference, think of the huge timing problems that would create for your system if it mattered how many sticks of RAM u used.

Thorin

 

[LintMan]

I think in some systems, if you want 3-4 sticks of memory, you need to use registered memory, and I'm getting kinda iffy here, but I think that registered memory can't run with 1T command rate timing, making it potentially slightly slower (at least compared to if you have RAM that works at 1T). But that kind of performance difference I'm guessing is most likely completely unnoticeable unless you're running memory benchmarks.

 

[aka1nas]

It shouldnt make a difference on any modern chipset. The only ones I can think of that had problems with memory capacity were some of the old pentium 1 chipsets which had to have an optional TagRAM chip installed on the board to have more than 64mb of RAM, and then it reduced performance of the RAM because the TagRAM chip had to interprete it.

 

[CrutchIsHeavy]

Well, it would appear that you are generally stuck with slower latency timings with the bigger blocks (and therefore fewer sticks) of RAM.

Just look at Crucial's PC133 SDRAM lineup. By default, the bigger 1GB and 512MB sticks there carry only a latency of 3 Clock cycles (CL=3) while the smaller ones 256MB and below can come in 2 Clock Cycles (CL=2) for latency.