Vista superfetch and ram

[bwanaaa]

So vista can do this 'reading your mind thing' and loading up the ram with the apps you use. It's probably based on what you recently used. Anyway, if vista has more ram , say 8 gb, does that mean that more apps get cached?

I am trying to decide betweent 4 gig and 8 gig. I do some video and photo editing and also office type stuff. Gaming too (30%)

Thing is, 1 gb modules can be had at cas4 timings but 2 gb modules are cas5. So the tradeoff is amount of mem vs latency.


mushkin 5-5-5-12
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16820146693

patriot 5-5-5-12
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...p?item=N82E16820220227

ocz reaper 4-4-4
http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/...p?ProductCode=10005297

I'm not sure though if the reaper is a 2 gig module or not-it looks like it on the zzf site but the ocz site does not mention 2 gig modules.


So, how do people here feel about the 2 gig module?

 

[nullpointerus]

To answer your questions:

1. Memory latency is not nearly as important as quantity.
2. If 8 GB is useful for the *specific* programs (i.e. Photoshop?) you intend to run, then order it.
3. Getting 8 GB primarily for SuperFetch would be a *huge* waste of money.
4. You will need a 64-bit OS[1] (e.g. Vista x64 or XP 64) to even use more than 3.25 GB.

[1] IIRC, some editions of Windows 2K and 2003 will see a full 8 GB w/ PAE enabled.

 

[firewolfsm]

Get 4GB in two 2GB dimms, then upgrade if you feel the need.

 

[lopri]

With Vista, I should say the quantity vastly out-weighs quality of RAM (doesn't mean defective sticks, though ) . I traded brand-name 1GB sticks with generic 2GB sticks and I'm not looking back.

 

[lopri]

Oh, and don't bother to try installing Vista with 4GB+ of RAM. 90% of the time you will have blue screen towards the end of installation process. Install first with 2GB, then upon successful installation add more sticks. This is a known issue which will be very frustrating to folks who are not aware of it.

 

[Rebel44]

I have Vista 64 and 4GB ram and its perfect. Also i didnt have single problem so far (knock on the wood)

 

[nullpointerus]

FWIW, I've done multiple installations of Vista 32-bit and 64-bit (with and without setup updates) on two different motherboards with 4 GB (4 x 1GB sticks) installed and never encountered the BSOD problem you are describing.

 

[Nizbot]

I currently have 3 x 1g corsair 675 stick. How beneficial would it be for me to add another 1 gig? I am currently running Vista.32 I know I am not taking advantage of dual channel, so should I drop down to 2 gigs, stay at 3, or bump up to 4?

 

[lopri]

Here is a very old comparison of single vs dual channel performance.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...owdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=13

It obviously depends on apps, anywhere between 5~15% difference. Synthetic benches, such as Sandra, will show a huge difference of course.

 

[chizow]

I'd agree with what the others said about going 2x2GB first then seeing if you need more. Also agree that more RAM is better than expensive RAM for the same price. There isn't much difference in performance past DDR2-800 which is pretty much the standard now in terms of pricing.

Personally I've seen a pretty huge difference going from 2GB to 4GB, not just in games, but swapping between games and apps. Vista will "superfetch" and use up every bit of RAM you have, but has a bit more overhead than XP so 2GB simply doesn't cut it imo.

The person who asked whether they should stay with 3GB, go to 2GB or 4GB, I'd absolutely stay at 3GB, but 4GB wouldn't hurt. That 1GB is going to do more for your system performance than dual channel would. Actually I think AT did a comparison of this very topic, 2GB vs. 3GB with Vista about the time it launched. Their conclusion was also that 3GB was the new "minimum" for those running Vista going forward.