Quality vs. Quantity : 4 GB DDR2-667 vs. 2 GB DDR2-800

[chizow]

Originally posted by: BonzaiDuck
Forward to 2004, and I started with 1 GB in a socket-478 system, only replacing it several months ago with a 2 GB kit. From the looks of it -- through Task Manager and benchmarks -- it is more than adequate.

Well that really depends on a lot of things. If you're only running a 32-bit OS with 2GB of RAM, of course its going to *seem* adequate since that's what your stuck with and performance will still seem good. But that doesn't mean it couldn't be *better*. Also, your video card, resolution and in-game settings are going to also determine how much RAM is needed.

Even when I was running XP, there were games @1920 with max everything that began pushing my system to "the 2GB wall", which is when I started looking at 4GB and a 64-bit OS. Performance in those games wasn't necessarily bad, but there was at times noticeable paging and lots of HDD thrashing/activity as commit charge hit 1.8GB+. With LOTRO its a well-known issue and a major cause of client crashes. Even a simple task like alt-tabbing out of LOTRO to another app slowed the system to a crawl. Once I upgraded to 4GB (along with a nice client patch), performance has increased dramatically and switching apps is as if I have nothing but a few instances of IE running.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: deadseasquirrel

Originally posted by: chizow
all of this is much less of an issue if you have a mobo that can run your FSB and RAM speeds independently.

What C2D mobos support running RAM at DDR2-667 and FSB at 400, so you could run a Q6600 at say 9x400 and not overclock the ram at all?

I think the lowest any mobo goes is 1:1 or DDR2-800 in that situation. The exception is the RD600 ATI chipset or the Nvidia 650/680i boards. Neither of which I would recommend unless you need SLI.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: BonzaiDuck
There are many conflicting opinions posted here, so here's my $0.02-worth.

Even the "hype-the-enthusiast" magazine Maximum PC in the most recent issue stated succinctly per their "Dream Machine '07" build -- that you probably won't be able to use the full potential of 4 GB -- not just yet.

I've been very judicious about picking memory and the amount of memory. My 2002-2003 system was "short" at 512 MB, and I had to replace the two modules with 2x512 = 1 GB.

Forward to 2004, and I started with 1 GB in a socket-478 system, only replacing it several months ago with a 2 GB kit. From the looks of it -- through Task Manager and benchmarks -- it is more than adequate.

So now -- 75% through to the end of my C2D system with a C2-Quad swap that will occur today or tomorrow -- 2 GB seems ample. But go figure -- if Maximum PC spins a lot of hype and limits their review comparisons to show their biggest advertisers on top, why would they choose 2 GB of PC2-10000 Corsair modules over 4 GB of same, when a 2005 Dream Machine with dual dual-core Opteron 175s was outfitted with 8 GB?

In the world of "Dress for Success," there was an old adage that I found to be golden wisdom: "A poor man cannot afford a cheap suit."

Put your money into bargain-priced high-quality memory, and don't buy more than you need -- or better -- more than you can use.

Memory prices are going up soon I hear...why not buy 4GB while you can? Plus the memory they used in their "uber eleet pc" :roll: was overpriced D9 based Corsair stuff. I would never ever ever buy that. They were taking into consideration the price. Now, I can buy 2GB of G.Skill HZ memory rated to DDR2-800 4-4-4-12 and run them at DDR2-1000 4-4-4-12 and for the same price as 2GB of the Corsair stuff I can buy 4Gb of the G.Skill.