RAM size vs. speed

[nullpointerus]

Is fast RAM worth the added cost? For most people, I would think it's better to use value RAM and then either double the RAM or spend the savings on a better CPU or video card (if gaming on this PC). Vista seems to underscore this strategy.

Personally, I'd rather spend < $300 on 4 GB value RAM than on 2 GB low latency/high bandwidth RAM although I'm not a heavy gamer. What is your situation, and which RAM strategy would you adopt if buying a new system today?

 

[jpeyton]

2GB for $115, 4GB for $235, plus shipping/tax.

 

[Jiggz]

Unless you are a serious OC'er, the choice will be Load Up on Value Ram!

 

[Ruptga]

If I was building a rig right now, I'd probably have one 667 1GB stick, and throw another in when I need it / want it / have the money for it. 667 is enough for modest OCing on Conroes (ie stock volts and cooler), and I'd get a 1GB stick so I can dualchannel later when I'll actually make use of 2GB.

I know with Vista things have changed a bit, so substitute 2GB for 1GB and 4GB for 2GB, the premise of my argument stands.

 

[DimZiE]

i'll go for more RAM

 

[fire400]

load up on 3 gigs for windows vista and you are set for two years

 

[Thegonagle]

Just ordered my new system with 4GB of Corsair Value Select, if that tells you anything about how I feel.

I even splurged on the E6600 in order to get the bigger L2 cache.

Can't wait to build it! 😀

 

[Captante]

Unless you are running the 64-bit version of Vista (or XP-64) you can afford to spend a bit more on 2gb's of better quality RAM & add 2 more later when more 64-bit drivers/apps become available... XP & Vista 32-bit run fine on 2gb's & can only address approx 3gb anyway. Although 4gb's in itself won't hurt performance, the higher latency of Value-RAM just might & your 32-bit OS-based system won't benefit from the extra RAM either except for very rare circumstances.