is more memory always better?

[Ghouler]

sorry if that is dated.
But it is interesting to see that 4x512MB performed worse then 2x512MB modules:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2006/0.../memory_-_is_more_always_better/2.html

 

[GamerExpress]

Originally posted by: Ghouler
sorry if that is dated.
But it is interesting to see that 4x512MB performed worse then 2x512MB modules:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2006/0.../memory_-_is_more_always_better/2.html

I don't really know how it's interesting, if you want to go with 2GB's you want to go 2x1GB instead of 4x512. It's just the simple truth that 2x1GB is faster.

 

[Ghouler]

you are surely right.

point is getting >2 512 MB modules decreases perfromance. I did not know that.

 

[StrangerGuy]

I think most of us here already know that 2 sticks are better than 4 sticks by now, especially when OCing.

 

[furballi]

4 modules will default to 2T timing, which is slower than 1T timing when running 2 modules. It also costs more CPU clock time to manage four modules of RAM. If your physical memory does not exceed 1000MB with the most demanding application, then there is no benefit in adding more than 1GB of RAM.

I don't buy the argument that there is no need to shut down un-needed applications when you have too much RAM. Always practice good PC housekeeping. Having a bunch of applications running in the background will cost CPU clock time and increase probability of software conflick.

 

[furballi]

4 modules will default to 2T timing, which is slower than 1T timing when running 2 modules. It also costs more CPU clock time to manage four modules of RAM. If your physical memory does not exceed 1000MB with the most demanding application, then there is no benefit in adding more than 1GB of RAM.

I don't buy the argument that there is no need to shut down un-needed applications when you have too much RAM. Always practice good PC housekeeping. Having a bunch of applications running in the background will cost CPU clock time and increase probability of software conflict.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: furballi
4 modules will default to 2T timing, which is slower than 1T timing when running 2 modules. It also costs more CPU clock time to manage four modules of RAM. If your physical memory does not exceed 1000MB with the most demanding application, then there is no benefit in adding more than 1GB of RAM.

That only applies to Athlon 64s, but any other CPU I know that uses a memory controller in the north bridge does not have this limitation. Also, was there a later rev of A64 that fixed this or am I insane? Another person noted running 4 modules at DDR400/1T was out of PC3200 spec or something like that, but AFAIK it works anyway. More CPU clock time to manage 4 modules? I don't know about that.

Right now I am running 4x512MB due to the fact I had 2x512MB to start with and didn't want to put the dough down for another 2x1GB kit. But in every aspect it is faster in practical use than my 2-2-2-5-1T 400 MHz (eff.) 2 512MB modules. There was a 1T vs. 2T thread showing little 5% difference. I'm not sure about the DDR333 part. No arguing DDR400/1T is faster, but it's probably not worth the money if you already have 2x512MB and want 2GB.

I don't buy the argument that there is no need to shut down un-needed applications when you have too much RAM. Always practice good PC housekeeping. Having a bunch of applications running in the background will cost CPU clock time and increase probability of software conflict.

I agree with that.