- May 13, 2007
- 993
- 0
- 76
Sort of off topic, but should I buy a stick of ram that is sold "As-Is" on ebay? It's untested, but people have given the guy good feedback on as-is items before.
Maximilian
Lifer
- Feb 8, 2004
- 12,603
- 9
- 81
No, dont buy parts from ebay that are easily broken, ram comes under the category of easily broken. RAM is cheap anyways just buy from a website.
- May 13, 2007
- 993
- 0
- 76
ohhh, but its only $12
UPDATE: Couldn't resist...stupidly...bought it for $13.50. It was a Corsair Dominator 2GB stick. If it works, then I'm set. If it doesn't...well then I'm down $13.50, and I'll throw it up on eBay and SOMEONE will buy it.
UPDATE: Couldn't resist...stupidly...bought it for $13.50. It was a Corsair Dominator 2GB stick. If it works, then I'm set. If it doesn't...well then I'm down $13.50, and I'll throw it up on eBay and SOMEONE will buy it.
You should have verified whether your motherboard benefits from running memory in pairs before buying a single stick.
- May 13, 2007
- 993
- 0
- 76
I'm confused. I have a 1GB stick and then I'd be putting in this 2GB stick as well. Would that be paired?
ibex333
Diamond Member
- Mar 26, 2005
- 4,090
- 119
- 106
Originally posted by: Maximilian
I think ibex was the same guy spreading crap about starcraft II if i remember correctly....
Just because your opinion was different from mine, and falsely so, doesn't mean I was spreading crap. Since when is voicing opinion synonymous with spreading crap?!
Vista isnt bad, its not great either IMO but you should definately keep 1 ultimate edition as XP-64 is a dead end and eventually you may need more than 4GB of ram. Yeah, keep saying that. People said it two years ago, and continue saying this now. Except it didnt happen then, and it still hasnt happened as of yet. XP is still very much supported, and 2gigs ram is still very much enough as long as you are not using stuff like photoshop or running Vista.
Oh also the "new OS" is windows 7 and it is basically the same as vista with a few little changes. Well, that little detail does not matter. What matters it that it will no longer be Vista. and if the majority of people will use it, remains to be seen. They tried baiting people into Vista by forcing DX10 on them, but it didn't work... I'd like to see what other tricks they have up their sleeve.
Oh, please, spare me the "people like you statements".... Please explain to me, how EXACTLY is Windows Vista one of the best OS out there now? How exactly is is better than XP? Don't give me individual factors, like "support for more than 2gigs RAM" (which is useless for those who don't need it) tell me how it is better OVERALL for the general public. And if you want to go into the "people like you" stuff... Well, people like you said XP was dead a long time ago, but it's still going strong. Support for XP was supposed to be stopped, but XP is still supported. There was an article somewhere that said that Microsoft stated that support for XP will continue if people want that. And it looks like a large number of people do want this.
You are saying that you are gaming on Vista just fine... But are you willing to bet that given exactly the same hardware I wont get better performance in games on my XP as opposed to your Vista? Good performance on Vista is not "good enough" when there is a better alternative like XP. And when you mention DX11, you counterargue yourself and further prove my point, when I said that DX10, Vista, and 64bit is all marketing BS. Look... Let's say DX11 comes out... Well, what about all those people who bought DX10 cards? Their cards were never really taken advantage of... Sure, all those new cards were much better performance wise, but why all the DX10 nonesense? It was jsut a way to make people buy newer cards and Vista...
I'm a hardcore gamer and my main OS is now Vista x64(yes after using XP for 7 years),I like the extra security ,looks better,rock stable and does everything I want, got a problem with that?... tough luck.
That's pure fanboyism right there... Did I tell you not to use Vista? Do whatever you want! lol I said, it's better overall for gamers, and I know I am right. I wouldnt be arguing otherwise.
I suggest you look at the latest benchmarks on the net you'll find Vista is right up there with XP,please stop spreading pure FUD,people like you don't have a clue what they are talking about.
"Right up there"? lol.. Is that all you got for me? I want to hear "EXACTLY THE SAME OR BETTER IN EVERY GAME". Otherwise what you're saying is just moot point.
You're a gamer and can't figure out why 4GB would be beneficial?..that says it all,as to DX10 well try Stalker Clear SKy in DX10 mode and tell me it does not look better then in DX9.
You're using ONE game to prove a point?! ONE game?! Give me a break. And I beat CS all the way to the end. It looked just fine with DX9. For the most part, DX10 does not look "better enough" in games to justify saying that DX10 is a necessity or anything close to that. As for 4gigs RAM, no... I don't see why a gamer would absolutely need this much. Especially on XP. I play at 1280x1024 on a 17" monitor at all max settings and I'm a happy camper.
VashHT
Diamond Member
- Feb 1, 2007
- 3,064
- 871
- 136
No, they have to have matching capacity in order to run dual channel. You should be running a C2D in dual channel, having one stick isn't recommended. Anyway 2Gb of ram isn't that bad for Vista but I would use vlite like someone else suggested.
And ibex you're a tool, you formed your opinion on anecdotal evidence from your friend, maybe you should actually use it yourself before you bash it. Me and plenty of people on here use Vista to game and it doesn't give us problems, and since drivers have improved there isn't a performance hit either.
ibex333
Diamond Member
- Mar 26, 2005
- 4,090
- 119
- 106
Thanx for calling me names champ, that's real smart.
"The word "tool" may be used as an insult, describing someone who is being used by an establishment willingly (as a sycophant), or unwillingly (as one who blindly conforms). Alternatively, the insult "tool" can imply that a person is unable (or unwilling) to form an independent opinion on a given topic."
I believe I'm actually more original than you in that I choose to remain with XP when you side with the masses of Vista fanboys. My opinion is very independent and very different from yours. I dont believe your insult applies to me.
Don't assume I formed my Vista opinion on just my friend. I formed it on my own personal experience, on hundreds of utube videos, and forum articles. I used Vista for a month, and hated it. Why the hell do people assume I'm telling everyone not to use Vista? I ADVISED the OP from using Vista, because gaming performance on it will be worse on average when compared to XP. (not a lot worse but there is still a few frames difference) Vista performance can be very good, but does this mean he has any specific reason to get Vista as far as games go? NO, he doesn't. Unless he imagines one for himself. I proceeded to tell him that he doesn't HAVE to have 64bit OS or any of Vista's features to have better performance than that on XP.
Everything from that point is his business.
Answer to question, even though OP has already bought more RAM:
If you have 2GB of RAM, use XP for gaming.
If you have 4GB of RAM, Vista 64 is a viable option for gaming.
Under no circumstances should any serious gamer consider using Vista 32.
Fact is, Vista IS bloated. Any new Microsoft OS brings most machines to their knees at release date, they always have. However, hardware has caught up somewhat and Vista now has a service pack. It is now a much better experience than when it was first released. And while ibex might not be interested in individual cases, several of them form a whole load of user opinion that could be useful to some. There is only 1 game I own that runs better in XP, GRID. Dunno why, but the rest run either as good or better in Vista 64.
In ibex's defence, he *may* argue with me that looking at my sig, it took an Intel chip at 3.8Ghz, an overclocked 4850 and 6GB of RAM to 'tame' Vista.
And he might well have a valid point were he to do so.
If you have 2GB of RAM, use XP for gaming.
If you have 4GB of RAM, Vista 64 is a viable option for gaming.
Under no circumstances should any serious gamer consider using Vista 32.
Fact is, Vista IS bloated. Any new Microsoft OS brings most machines to their knees at release date, they always have. However, hardware has caught up somewhat and Vista now has a service pack. It is now a much better experience than when it was first released. And while ibex might not be interested in individual cases, several of them form a whole load of user opinion that could be useful to some. There is only 1 game I own that runs better in XP, GRID. Dunno why, but the rest run either as good or better in Vista 64.
In ibex's defence, he *may* argue with me that looking at my sig, it took an Intel chip at 3.8Ghz, an overclocked 4850 and 6GB of RAM to 'tame' Vista.
And he might well have a valid point were he to do so.
Mem
Lifer
- Apr 23, 2000
- 21,476
- 13
- 81
Originally posted by: ibex333
Originally posted by: Maximilian
I think ibex was the same guy spreading crap about starcraft II if i remember correctly....
Just because your opinion was different from mine, and falsely so, doesn't mean I was spreading crap. Since when is voicing opinion synonymous with spreading crap?!
Vista isnt bad, its not great either IMO but you should definately keep 1 ultimate edition as XP-64 is a dead end and eventually you may need more than 4GB of ram. Yeah, keep saying that. People said it two years ago, and continue saying this now. Except it didnt happen then, and it still hasnt happened as of yet. XP is still very much supported, and 2gigs ram is still very much enough as long as you are not using stuff like photoshop or running Vista.
Oh also the "new OS" is windows 7 and it is basically the same as vista with a few little changes. Well, that little detail does not matter. What matters it that it will no longer be Vista. and if the majority of people will use it, remains to be seen. They tried baiting people into Vista by forcing DX10 on them, but it didn't work... I'd like to see what other tricks they have up their sleeve.
Oh, please, spare me the "people like you statements".... Please explain to me, how EXACTLY is Windows Vista one of the best OS out there now? How exactly is is better than XP? Don't give me individual factors, like "support for more than 2gigs RAM" (which is useless for those who don't need it) tell me how it is better OVERALL for the general public. And if you want to go into the "people like you" stuff... Well, people like you said XP was dead a long time ago, but it's still going strong. Support for XP was supposed to be stopped, but XP is still supported. There was an article somewhere that said that Microsoft stated that support for XP will continue if people want that. And it looks like a large number of people do want this.
You are saying that you are gaming on Vista just fine... But are you willing to bet that given exactly the same hardware I wont get better performance in games on my XP as opposed to your Vista? Good performance on Vista is not "good enough" when there is a better alternative like XP. And when you mention DX11, you counterargue yourself and further prove my point, when I said that DX10, Vista, and 64bit is all marketing BS. Look... Let's say DX11 comes out... Well, what about all those people who bought DX10 cards? Their cards were never really taken advantage of... Sure, all those new cards were much better performance wise, but why all the DX10 nonesense? It was jsut a way to make people buy newer cards and Vista...
I'm a hardcore gamer and my main OS is now Vista x64(yes after using XP for 7 years),I like the extra security ,looks better,rock stable and does everything I want, got a problem with that?... tough luck.
That's pure fanboyism right there... Did I tell you not to use Vista? Do whatever you want! lol I said, it's better overall for gamers, and I know I am right. I wouldnt be arguing otherwise.
I suggest you look at the latest benchmarks on the net you'll find Vista is right up there with XP,please stop spreading pure FUD,people like you don't have a clue what they are talking about.
"Right up there"? lol.. Is that all you got for me? I want to hear "EXACTLY THE SAME OR BETTER IN EVERY GAME". Otherwise what you're saying is just moot point.
You're a gamer and can't figure out why 4GB would be beneficial?..that says it all,as to DX10 well try Stalker Clear SKy in DX10 mode and tell me it does not look better then in DX9.
You're using ONE game to prove a point?! ONE game?! Give me a break. And I beat CS all the way to the end. It looked just fine with DX9. For the most part, DX10 does not look "better enough" in games to justify saying that DX10 is a necessity or anything close to that. As for 4gigs RAM, no... I don't see why a gamer would absolutely need this much. Especially on XP. I play at 1280x1024 on a 17" monitor at all max settings and I'm a happy camper.
Oh please if thats all you are going to post then don't even bother,I could give you more details on everything I have stated but what's the point you are really not worth my time.
@ Mem
Despite the fact I agree with you, a bit of 'quote editing' might not have gone amiss there fella
@ ibex
Did you try Vista with the rig in your sig, which only states 2GB of RAM? If so, no wonder you had a bad experience.
I disagree with the posters in this thread who claim that 2GB is enough for Vista, it really isn't. Hellgate London is a shite game, but it's a good benchmark. It ran like crap at lowest settings and 2GB of RAM, 3.8Ghz chip and OC 4850, it ran superb with the same config but another 2GB added.
Unless you can be arsed to tweak it a lot, Vista is poor at gaming with 2GB of memory.
Despite the fact I agree with you, a bit of 'quote editing' might not have gone amiss there fella
@ ibex
Did you try Vista with the rig in your sig, which only states 2GB of RAM? If so, no wonder you had a bad experience.
I disagree with the posters in this thread who claim that 2GB is enough for Vista, it really isn't. Hellgate London is a shite game, but it's a good benchmark. It ran like crap at lowest settings and 2GB of RAM, 3.8Ghz chip and OC 4850, it ran superb with the same config but another 2GB added.
Unless you can be arsed to tweak it a lot, Vista is poor at gaming with 2GB of memory.
Maximilian
Lifer
- Feb 8, 2004
- 12,603
- 9
- 81
Vista isnt bad, its not great either IMO but you should definately keep 1 ultimate edition as XP-64 is a dead end and eventually you may need more than 4GB of ram. Yeah, keep saying that. People said it two years ago, and continue saying this now. Except it didnt happen then, and it still hasnt happened as of yet. XP is still very much supported, and 2gigs ram is still very much enough as long as you are not using stuff like photoshop or running Vista.
Dude your post is a total shambles... ill try and deciper it though.
You were spreading crap, irrational hate about something popular is all that your posts consisted of. In line with an emo or a goth maybe, they hate popular things too.
Originally posted by: ibex333
Yeah, keep saying that. People said it two years ago, and continue saying this now. Except it didnt happen then, and it still hasnt happened as of yet. XP is still very much supported, and 2gigs ram is still very much enough as long as you are not using stuff like photoshop or running Vista.
Vista is fine on 2GB of ram, it gets better the more ram you have due to superfetch, i cant be bothered explaining superfetch though but theres nothing wrong with vista, theres nothing worth actually buying vista over (for most people some may disagree) but its definately worth having if you have a spare copy (like the OP) or it comes with a new computer. Its better than XP is, not by much and not considering the time they took making it but it is better.
Umm ill say it again one more time windows 7 will basically BE windows vista + some extra goodies. So why does it matter that its not called vista when its basically the same thing? Windows 7's primary advantage over vista will be its time of release technology will have moved on by 3 years and will be ready for it, people with 512mb of ram will no longer be moaning about it being a system hog and since its basically vista, all the problems vista had initially which tarnished its name have been ironed out so the windows 7 should launch far more smoothly than vista did.
- May 13, 2007
- 993
- 0
- 76
Wait...so I can't use the stick of ram unless I'm in dual channel? Do I have to be in dual channel to use C2D?
UPDATE: I looked at my mobo manual. It doesn't say I have to use dual channel. It does say it only supports up to 2GB of ram...but someone on newegg who reviewed the board said he had 3GB of ram, and that it supports up to 4. I also remember reading on the box that it supports up to 4. I'm guessing the manual is outdated.
Is it bad to not be using dual channel? Am I better off with 2 GB dual channel or 3GB no dual channel? If it turns out that the stick does indeed work, could I just buy ANY other 2 GB stick that supports dual channel, and have working dual channel?
UPDATE: I looked at my mobo manual. It doesn't say I have to use dual channel. It does say it only supports up to 2GB of ram...but someone on newegg who reviewed the board said he had 3GB of ram, and that it supports up to 4. I also remember reading on the box that it supports up to 4. I'm guessing the manual is outdated.
Is it bad to not be using dual channel? Am I better off with 2 GB dual channel or 3GB no dual channel? If it turns out that the stick does indeed work, could I just buy ANY other 2 GB stick that supports dual channel, and have working dual channel?
Bullshit. I gamed for over a year with 2GB on Vista with zero problems. I have never used over 2GB while gaming. I game at 1680x1025 with zero problems.
Bullshit. 4GB is not required for Vista. Perhaps if you run a bunch of stupid crap in the background AND try to game at the same time 4GB might be needed in limited circumstances. The only reason I have 4GB is because memory is cheap, and if it's cheap, well why not?
Bullshit. I game on Vista 32 just fine and dandy, it's perfectly stable. There is little, if any performance difference at all seeing as 99.9% of games still run in 32-bit mode when playing on Vista 64 or XP 64.
mancunian, you are as bad as the guy spreading fud about Vista being bad. Your information is just as misleading and bogus.
@ LS8
Think what you like, I am only giving MY experience, which you so kindly refer to as "Bullshit".
Note that I said in a post above:
If you think you can play games like Crysis at high or full settings at 1680 x 1050 and above on an *untweaked* 2GB Vista system, then I'd like some of what you have been smoking. That probably explains the hard drive thrashing I experienced when running Hellgate London and Crysis at high settings when I had 2GB of RAM.
Stability isn't an issue, framerates are. Times have changed, some games need more than 2GB of RAM, and future ones aren't going to use any less the more complex they get. You are living in the dark ages if you cannot see that.
No, 4GB is not *required* for Vista. Where did I say that it was *required*?
Good for you if you enjoy slow frames. But not all of us do. You might not like it, but 64 bit is the future, more gamers are adopting it. Moreover, 4 Gigs of RAM runs smoother than 2 if like most people, you can't be arsed tweaking the shit outta the OS. And as for your insult about me being as bad as the other guy, I take that shit with a pinch of salt, your attacking nature nature does your point no favours at all.
Think what you like, I am only giving MY experience, which you so kindly refer to as "Bullshit".
Note that I said in a post above:
If you think you can play games like Crysis at high or full settings at 1680 x 1050 and above on an *untweaked* 2GB Vista system, then I'd like some of what you have been smoking. That probably explains the hard drive thrashing I experienced when running Hellgate London and Crysis at high settings when I had 2GB of RAM.
Stability isn't an issue, framerates are. Times have changed, some games need more than 2GB of RAM, and future ones aren't going to use any less the more complex they get. You are living in the dark ages if you cannot see that.
No, 4GB is not *required* for Vista. Where did I say that it was *required*?
Good for you if you enjoy slow frames. But not all of us do. You might not like it, but 64 bit is the future, more gamers are adopting it. Moreover, 4 Gigs of RAM runs smoother than 2 if like most people, you can't be arsed tweaking the shit outta the OS. And as for your insult about me being as bad as the other guy, I take that shit with a pinch of salt, your attacking nature nature does your point no favours at all.
I call it like I see it.
I don?t do much tweaking of my system at all. What I do keep track of is unneeded programs. If you have a ton of crap running in the background it will push your memory usage up. I?m currently using 1.2GB of ram with Cod4 running in the background. I have never exceeded 2GB of ram usage. Tweaks are not required, common sense is though.
The dark ages? More clever quotes but essentially bullshit. There may come a time when 4GB is needed to play games on a PC; that time isn?t here yet.
You presume to know what frame rates I get which shows even more of your ignorance. I?ll say it again. 99.9% of games run in 32-bit mode on Vista or XP 64. In short, it doesn?t matter.
I never said I didn't like 64 bit, in fact I prefer it - however, your dismissal of Vista 32 shows your bias and ignorance which you feel the need to spread to others on this forum.
Yes, you are as bad as the other guy. Please spare us your future nonsense. You are spreading fud, plain and simple.
- May 13, 2007
- 993
- 0
- 76
PLEASE tell me how you do this. I have 2GB of ram, and when I go to play a game it says I'm using 50% of my memory, but I'm not actually running anything.
Your desktop idles at 1GB memory usage? Obviously you have SOMETHING running. How many processes? Vista will idle at 450-500MB even with AV running as long as you don't have a bunch of useless apps running.
- May 13, 2007
- 993
- 0
- 76
Or, actually the Gadget (I exit sidebar before playing games) says I'm using 50% of my ram. I don't think that's counting ram used by superfetch, since superfetch uses the other 50% apparently. One sec and i'll check ram usage after I close all this stuff...
UPDATE: So after closing everything (which I normally do before playing games), I checked again, and task manager says I'm using 33% of my memory. But, Superfetch caches pretty much all of the ram available, as it's supposed to. I tried Crysis, and for the first bit I played, there was a fair bit of stuttering going on. But, then I died, and it loaded up from my last save point, and that time I didn't have any problems.
Could it be that Superfetch isn't being efficient in giving up RAM so that Crysis can pick it up? I'm not sure that this is a problem with lack of ram, since Crysis was apparently taking up about 850MB of ram. If 33% was taken up prior, and then 850 MB was taken up, then about 75% of my RAM is being used up. There shouldn't be any issues.
UPDATE: So after closing everything (which I normally do before playing games), I checked again, and task manager says I'm using 33% of my memory. But, Superfetch caches pretty much all of the ram available, as it's supposed to. I tried Crysis, and for the first bit I played, there was a fair bit of stuttering going on. But, then I died, and it loaded up from my last save point, and that time I didn't have any problems.
Could it be that Superfetch isn't being efficient in giving up RAM so that Crysis can pick it up? I'm not sure that this is a problem with lack of ram, since Crysis was apparently taking up about 850MB of ram. If 33% was taken up prior, and then 850 MB was taken up, then about 75% of my RAM is being used up. There shouldn't be any issues.
QueBert
Lifer
- Jan 6, 2002
- 22,392
- 722
- 126
Dual Channel is whatever, there is a performance boot but you won't notice it. I wouldn't say it's worthless, but it's not special. I am sure somebody here will link to a benchmark showing a Dual Channel setup get some smoking score in some weird non real world test. But no you don't need it, and you won't benefit much from it.
AdamK47
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 15,207
- 2,838
- 126
Dual channel is about as worthless as Triple channel will be. There is no need for it. There is also no need for DDR2 since DDR performs roughly the same at lower costs. You won't notice the difference. There's no need to go with high speed DDR since the lower speed performs about the same. You might even get away with using PC133 since the extra bandwidth from DDR is overkill. I haven't seen any real benifit from using PC133 though, so I've been sticking with the cheaper PC66. Seems to perform great so far.
QueBert
Lifer
- Jan 6, 2002
- 22,392
- 722
- 126
nice post and all, but OP is being misinformed by people in here saying he "needs" to run dual channel. I was trying to help him out and let him know that not only does he not need dual channel, but that dual channel won't yield him a noticeable performance boost,
If you want to run a system with EDO by all means have fun with it
And closing down those apps is what I meant by tweaking. You are now giving the same advice as me. Think before you flame.
Continue the attacks and insults and you will be reported to the moderators. I have been posting around here quite a while and have not once been subjected to the kind of childishness that you are now displaying, your tone is very offensive.
I notice you've only been here a few months. One thing we do here is make a point without being condescending and insulting, something you seem unable to do.
So grow up and stop trying to have the last word. You are giving your view and I am giving mine. This can be done without the tone you are using. I'll continue to post what I think on these forums, regardless of what YOU may think.
And let me know how many frames you get in Crysis at high settings, DX10, 1680 x 1050 resolution and with 2GB of RAM on Vista, I'm very interested to know the answer, seeing as you know it all.
Bottom line, for the average user who doesn't even WANT to go messing around with the OS, 2GB of RAM will result in a slideshow in CERTAIN games. I cannot even believe you are arguing over this when RAM is as cheap as it is. Your 939 Opteron @ 3.0Ghz is also hardly suitable for comparing any situation I might encounter, it'd have to run at about 4.2Ghz for you to know about that. So yes, I like fast frames. And unless you have comparable experience, best you keep your mouth shut.
Do not reply to any of this, I'm done with you and this thread.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 9K
-
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter