Will additional memory boost performance?

[Brutus04]

I am running a 2GB kit on my P35 system and just purchased an additional 2GB kit in case I ever go to Vista (All memory will be same type, brand etc.) Will it be worth installing it now? Appreciate the look...Thanks!

 

[her209]

It wouldn't hurt your performance if anything. Besides, why buy it and not use it?

 

[Cheex]

Yes, it will.

Windows XP 32-Bit will not recognize all 4GB but with 3.xxGB you will still see an improvement.

Windows in general will fell a bit snappier. However, you will notice a considerable improvement in your multi-tasking. More windows open, more programs, even more games. Everything feels more fluid.

:thumbsup: for 4GB!!

 

[Brutus04]

Thanks her209 and Cheex...loaded it up!

 

[Cheex]

Originally posted by: Brutus04
Thanks her209 and Cheex...loaded it up!

How is it?

Tell us what your experience is.

 

[LOUISSSSS]

i really didn't notice much improvement going from 2gb - 3gb in my S939 X2 4800 DDR1 system

usage was Gaming, Encoding a bit of video(i don't consider 5 mins an improvement), and general usage

 

[Brutus04]

Originally posted by: Cheex

Originally posted by: Brutus04
Thanks her209 and Cheex...loaded it up!

How is it?

Tell us what your experience is.

Windows reports 3.25GB. Not sure if I can tell much of a difference, at times it appears to have slowed a bit, : - /
Is there any affect on dual channel capability configured this way?

 

[error8]

You won't see a performance boost with more then 2 gigs of ram in Windows XP. I had XP with 2 gigs of ram and then with 4 gigs as well (only 3.5gb were reported though), and there was no improvement in anything. 2 gb of ram is the higher limit for XP. You will see a performance boost in Vista with big amounts of ram. That superfetch really makes the difference. I'm running my 4 gigs in Vista Ultimate 32 bits and it feels faster then XP felt, except some games of course.

 

[MrX8503]

I think in xp you wouldnt notice much difference compared to Vista. Namely because both OS's handle them differently. Vista will use as much ram as available whether it be 2gb, 4gb, or 8gb. At 8gb of ram, your idle ram will be much higher than 4gb or 2gb. Lastly I would say upgrade to 4gb when you upgrade your OS to 64-bit.

 

[Idontcare]

@OP - As you likely gathered from reading the responses there are many viewpoints on the performance merits of adding additional ram to your computer.

The advantages of adding more ram solely depend on which of the following categories your usage patterns fall under:

1 - you currently use your computer in such a manner that you never utilize more than the existing installed quantity of ram (as such your page file is rarely used for application and user data, it is used by windows per usual needs)...AND you have no intention of changing your computer usage patterns even if you add more ram.

2 - Same as #1...BUT you do intend to change your computer usage patterns once you add more ram (for example you intend to start playing the latest and greatest games that you haven't got around to yet)...AND when you do get around to changing your computer usage patterns you do consume more ram than you originally have installed in your system.

3 - Neither 1 nor 2, but rather even currently your computer usage patterns are such that you utilize more system memory than your installed ram capacity and your pagefile is getting used to store application data and user data.

Now with these 3 categories in mind you can already begin to see why some posters will say without hesitation that adding ram will absolutely help while other posters will categorically deny the ram will help anything at all. They are of course speaking from their own experiences based on their computer usage habits and as such are not really helping answer your question at all as they don't know what your existing or intended usage habits are exactly (because you haven't said and no one has asked).

So...did it get faster when you added more ram? If it didn't then I would guess that you fall into category #1 above. You likely weren't using all of the original 2GB of ram installed in the computer, so adding another 1+ GB won't help.

Did the system get slower? Yes and no. Depends on what your BIOS and Northbridge did with the extra DIMMs being loaded in terms of latency and ram timings. Timings should have been increased (increased latency) when you went from loading 2 slots to loading 4 slots. It would be crazy though to think you would actually notice this 0.05% decrease in system performance because of the ever so slightly increased latencies though. But the technical answer out to 5 decimal places is yes your computer likely got slower.

 

[chizow]

I found more than 2GB in XP x86 didn't really help much either, mainly because 32-bit apps will still address only 2GB max and still draw from the same 2GB of user-space for all programs by default. There's some benefit as more physical RAM is available for the OS/kernel-space but its marginal at best. In Vista 32 the situation improves somewhat, as that extra physical RAM over 2GB minus whatever the kernel-space needs can be used for SuperFetch, as others mentioned.

Best bet if you want to see real improvement from more RAM over 2GB is to go with a 64-bit OS, as many newer games and apps flag /largeaddressaware for 32-bit apps in 64-bit OS only, allowing up to 3GB for each application. Also, 64-bit OSes by default will not limit user-space apps to the same 2GB addressable space and will give them 2-3GB each as needed. For instance, if you were running a game in XP with some other apps using 200-300MB, the game would get 1.6-1.7GB with the rest of the user-space apps using the rest up to 2GB. In a 64-bit OS, the game itself can use 2GB and up to 3GB if /largeaddressaware is flagged without being restricted by the other apps using 200-300MB. Any additional unused RAM in Vista would be used by SuperFetch to cache commonly used data.