Upgrading Memory to 4GB, Buy Same Memory I Have Now or Buy Completely New?

[gigahertz20]

When I built my computer back in 2007, I bought 2GB of Crucial Ballistix 2GB DDR2-800 and my Motherboard is a Gigabyte GA-P35-DS3R revision 1.0 that supports DDR2 1066/800/667 memory.

I want to upgrade to 4GB and install Vista Ultimate 64 bit, should I buy 2GB more of the same memory I have now or buy 4GB of completely different memory?

If I bought new memory, I would get two 2GB DIMM's for a total of 4GB, if I keep the same memory I have now, I would have to buy two more 1GB DIMM's, which would fill up all 4 DIMM slots on my motherboard for a total of 4GB.


I'm probably just going to buy 2GB more of the same memory I have now, but I wanted to see what you guys thought. Any problems running 4 sticks at 1GB each in dual channel mode?


Memory I currently have installed:

Crucial Ballistix 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory Model BL2KIT12864AA804 - Retail
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16820146565


Motherboard:

http://www.gigabyte.com.tw/Pro...roductName=GA-P35-DS3R

 

[faxon]

i would check how much memory the board supports. if it supports 8GB then you can just get a kit of 2x4gb and use it along side the ram you have now in most cases. i have a kit of 2x1gb Ballistix 1066 C5 rated that i use alongside a kit of 2x2gb G.Skill 1066 C5 with an XFX 680i LT, and it tested fine on my EP45 UD3P as well. chances are such a combination is compatible with your motherboard as well. the particular kit i use is actually the exact same price as its DDR2-800 counterpart http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16820231166

should work fine at DDR2-800 speeds, and if you need bandwidth > capacity for anything it will give you a good performance boost. i own 3 kits of that already, and with DDR2 on the way out i may pick up a spare before the price/gb starts seeming like a bad deal the way DDR is now, despite being cheaper than it ever was when it was in use.

ed: i would also recommend staying away from ballistix kits right now. the frys i work at just had our entire stock of tracer ram called back, as well as our 1066 kit of ballistix, which is in line with the issues i have been hearing about with it since last summer.

 

[Blain]

Originally posted by: gigahertz20
When I built my computer back in 2007, I bought 2GB of Crucial Ballistix 2GB DDR2-800 and my Motherboard is a Gigabyte GA-P35-DS3R revision 1.0 that supports DDR2 1066/800/667 memory.

I want to upgrade to 4GB and install Vista Ultimate 64 bit, should I buy 2GB more of the same memory I have now or buy 4GB of completely different memory?

I'm probably just going to buy 2GB more of the same memory I have now, but I wanted to see what you guys thought. Any problems running 4 sticks at 1GB each in dual channel mode?


Memory I currently have installed:

Crucial Ballistix 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory Model BL2KIT12864AA804 - Retail
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16820146565

Your current Ballistix memory lasting this long is great. But with the reputation Ballistix has for dropping dead, I would not buy more of it.
Memory is relatively cheap...
Buy some good G.Skill @ 1.8-1.9v and be happy. :thumbsup::laugh:

 

[imported_Scoop]

If you feel like you can afford it, go with 2x2GB. I bought another 2x1GB going from 2GB->4GB, had to raise MCH voltage to get it stable and lost a bit of performance via increased latency. Though the performance hit isn't really noticable unless I test it with Everest.

 

[gigahertz20]

All right, thanks for the replies guys. Didn't know the Crucial Ballistix sticks had a bad reputation, I'll probably go with a 2X2GB kit like you guys recommended.


Instead of DDR2-800, should I go with DDR2-1066 since my motherboard supports it? Or is it better to go with DDR2-800 and get lower timings?

 

[pcslookout]

Why not go with 8 GB ?

 

[gigahertz20]

Originally posted by: pcslookout
Why not go with 8 GB ?

Little performance improvement for the kind of stuff I do, the speed increase you get after upgrading more the 4GB is negligible.

 

[sxr7171]

8GB will allow you to explore the possibilities that come with virtual machines. If anything a nice learning experience.

 

[Blain]

IF your CPU supports virtualization...
IF you're interested in running virtual machines...
Then 8GBs of memory wouldn't be a total waste of cash.

But other than that, just buy the 4GBs of PC2-6400 rated for 1.8-1.9v and be happy.
It doesn't matter if your MB supports PC2-900000.
If you're going to push some extreme overclocking, there may be a case for the DDR2-1066. Otherwise just stick to the standard DDR2-800 (PC2-6400). Even it will allow for some OCing.

Tell us what CPU you're running on your old Gigabyte P35 MB.

 

[pcslookout]

Originally posted by: gigahertz20

Originally posted by: pcslookout
Why not go with 8 GB ?

Little performance improvement for the kind of stuff I do, the speed increase you get after upgrading more the 4GB is negligible.

That depends how much you multitask.

 

[imported_Scoop]

Originally posted by: gigahertz20
All right, thanks for the replies guys. Didn't know the Crucial Ballistix sticks had a bad reputation, I'll probably go with a 2X2GB kit like you guys recommended.


Instead of DDR2-800, should I go with DDR2-1066 since my motherboard supports it? Or is it better to go with DDR2-800 and get lower timings?

Most of the time, frequency > timings. But still, go with the 800. They might surprise you if you OC and you can still play with the timings and multipliers in the BIOS. Like both of my DDR2 800 CL 4 kits go 1066 CL5 easily. I just run them @ 1000 Mhz because that's the best with the available FSBRAM ratios. This isn't guaranteed of course but I'd save some dough.

 

[gigahertz20]

Originally posted by: pcslookout

Originally posted by: gigahertz20

Originally posted by: pcslookout
Why not go with 8 GB ?

Little performance improvement for the kind of stuff I do, the speed increase you get after upgrading more the 4GB is negligible.

That depends how much you multitask.

Upgrading more then 4GB really does not have that much affect on multitasking, only reason to have more is if you run multiple virtual machines.

http://www.tomshardware.com/re...dule-upgrade,2264.html

We can only recommend larger capacities of 8 GB to 12 GB for professional applications where its usefulness has already been documented and for servers. None of our tests required high-memory capacities and wasted RAM is a burden both financially and ecologically.

 

[pcslookout]

Originally posted by: gigahertz20

Originally posted by: pcslookout

Originally posted by: gigahertz20

Originally posted by: pcslookout
Why not go with 8 GB ?

Little performance improvement for the kind of stuff I do, the speed increase you get after upgrading more the 4GB is negligible.

That depends how much you multitask.

Upgrading more then 4GB really does not have that much affect on multitasking, only reason to have more is if you run multiple virtual machines.

http://www.tomshardware.com/re...dule-upgrade,2264.html

We can only recommend larger capacities of 8 GB to 12 GB for professional applications where its usefulness has already been documented and for servers. None of our tests required high-memory capacities and wasted RAM is a burden both financially and ecologically.

I dare you to say that when having two games running in the background, firefox, photoshop, etc

 

[vj8usa]

Originally posted by: pcslookout
I dare you to say that when having two games running in the background, firefox, photoshop, etc

I don't know about you, but I close my games when I'm not playing them. The only times I've ever filled up my 6GB were when I made stupid syntax errors in Mathematica.

To the OP: I'm actually running the same configuration you're considering upgrading to - 2x1GB + 2x2GB (G.Skill + vanilla Crucial). It works great, and it's more than enough (other than the Mathematica blunders which would've eaten up any amount of RAM I had, the most I saw being used when at the desktop was a hair over 4GB). Don't bother going to 8GB, as then you'd have to ditch the 2GB you already have.

 

[pcslookout]

Originally posted by: vj8usa

Originally posted by: pcslookout
I dare you to say that when having two games running in the background, firefox, photoshop, etc

I don't know about you, but I close my games when I'm not playing them. The only times I've ever filled up my 6GB were when I made stupid syntax errors in Mathematica.

To the OP: I'm actually running the same configuration you're considering upgrading to - 2x1GB + 2x2GB (G.Skill + vanilla Crucial). It works great, and it's more than enough (other than the Mathematica blunders which would've eaten up any amount of RAM I had, the most I saw being used when at the desktop was a hair over 4GB). Don't bother going to 8GB, as then you'd have to ditch the 2GB you already have.

I don't all the time. I prefer to have some safety net room.

 

[Gooberlx2]

Originally posted by: gigahertz20

Originally posted by: pcslookout
Why not go with 8 GB ?

Little performance improvement for the kind of stuff I do, the speed increase you get after upgrading more the 4GB is negligible.

I dunno. I noticed a huge improvement going from 4GB to 8GB. I'm sure it depends on how you use the computer though. I run VMs quite often, alongside doing image and video work.

 

[pcslookout]

Originally posted by: Gooberlx2

Originally posted by: gigahertz20

Originally posted by: pcslookout
Why not go with 8 GB ?

Little performance improvement for the kind of stuff I do, the speed increase you get after upgrading more the 4GB is negligible.

I dunno. I noticed a huge improvement going from 4GB to 8GB. I'm sure it depends on how you use the computer though. I run VMs quite often, alongside doing image and video work.

As did I. I don't do image and video work though. Nor VMs but may soon. Just noticed simple things that were a lot quicker.

Like for example pages in firefox that used greasemonkey load a lot quicker now. No I did not change anything else. I think it is just the way firefox uses ram. Hated for so long how it took forever to load the page that used greasemonkey. Now sense upgrading from 4 GB to 8 GB it doesn't take nearly as long. Very nice improvement. Didn't expect this to happen. Maybe it is because I run so much at once.