Surely 3GB is better than 2GB?

BennyBoy83

BennyBoy83

BennyBoy83

Associate
Joined
18 Oct 2007
Posts
12
Hi everyone!

If this question has been covered before then please just post a link to the thread if not then please offer an answer.

Whenever I read people's spec checks quite often I see them spec 4GB of RAM and you always get one person replying saying something like 'I hope you have either XP-64 bit or Vista, as XP-32 bit only recognises up to 3ishGB of RAM'. Now I'm not an expert but surely 3GB on XP-32 is better than 2GB?

I ask as I'm about to buy and build a PC and I want XP-32bit (I'll probably upgrade to Vista-64 when SP1 comes out) as I want the stability of XP, but I also want as much RAM as possible. Is it just silly then to get 4GB even if it will only recognise 3ish GB?

Thanks in advance!
 
It's usually more like 3.5GB so you don't lose that much. I've got 4GB in my second PC under XP as I use it to run multiple emulations under VMWare so need as much as I can get.
 
BennyBoy83 said:
(I'll probably upgrade to Vista-64 when SP1 comes out) as I want the stability of XP, but I also want as much RAM as possible.
Thanks in advance!
Click to expand...


I was in same boat about a month ago. After reading a lot of info about the stability of Vista and an awful lot of people saying to basically not touch it with a barge pole.
However, I decided to take the plunge and for me, Vista x64 has been fantastic. A few very minor issues but really well worth upgrading from XP.
 
I use Vista 32 bit. Last week I went from 2GB to 4GB. It shows using 3070MB. But it has made a difference. So after a lot of dithering I'm happy and will upgrade to 64 bit next year.
 
I'm using 4 gb on 32 bit XP , it shows up as 3.5 gb, seems to make windows nicer to use(snappier) app windows open quicker, + there has never been a better time to buy ram.

Go for it, don't think you will be disappointed.

.
 
It is cos its running in flex memory mode

Everest Data with 2 Gig
Memory Read 8419 MB/s
Memory Write 7536 MB/s
Memory Copy 7779 MB/s
Memory Latency 61.3 ns

Everest Data with 3 Gig
Memory Read 8311 MB/s
Memory Write 7488 MB/s
Memory Copy 6697 MB/s
Memory Latency 61.5 ns
 
wombraider said:
3 x 1G = slower than 2 x 1G
Click to expand...

by 3 n/s in everest latency benchy... really notiable in the real world ........ not

I'm using 3 x 1gb sticks, clocked to max @ 667 (333 x 2) and have no slow down on my system.

I have found aslight performance inrease in gaming with the extra 1gb.
 
what if you got 2x1gb and then get 2x512 sticks, would that not work just as good?

The problem is finding the same memory for a decent price - 2x512 of the same cellshock c5 is 180 odd quid, and OcUK seem to have none left :(
 
I assume, though, that even if 2 x 1GB is quicker than 3 x 1GB, the 3GB will be more capable for larger files etc or when the full extent of the RAM is really required. What I mean is the 3GB has the larger capacity even if it's not actually quicker. Is this correct?
 
OK, correct me if i am wrong here. Windows XP/Vista 32 Bit can only read 4Gb total of ram. This 4Gb limit includes normal RAM AND grahics card RAM. This is why some people get 3.5Gb in wiondows. I perosnly get 3.25 Gb as my graphics card has 768Mb.

Also putting in 4x 1Gb modules shouldnt give slower performance as the ram is actually there but it just cant index the memory addresses. However putting in 3x 1Gb would make the RAM slower as to run at DD2 speeds there has to be equal amounts of RAM in the A & B slots in the motherboard. Therefor 2x 1Gg + 2x 512Mb > 3x 1Gb.

As for the original question. Yes, ~3 Gb is better 2Gb.
 
Wizardskills said:
However putting in 3x 1Gb would make the RAM slower as to run at DD2 speeds there has to be equal amounts of RAM in the A & B slots in the motherboard. Therefor 2x 1Gg + 2x 512Mb > 3x 1Gb.

As for the original question. Yes, ~3 Gb is better 2Gb.
Click to expand...

3 x 1gb has no advese effect on pc speed, ok so a benchmark may tell you its half a nano second slower, but in real terms that equates to jack squit diffrence. Ok so you loose dual channel mode, flexi mode is still fast enough.

I'll benchy 2x1gb sticks and 3x1 gb sticks later and show the fraction difference in latency / read / write speed...

you'd use 3 x1gb if you got you ram for £7 per gb!! lol im not spending daft money on ram i'll want to replace 12months down the road.
 
Last edited:
Yep your right
Memory Copy 7779 MB/s - 2G
Memory Copy 6697 MB/s - 3G

Difference 1092 MB/S

So it only 13.9 % slower at moving data around in memory

Its not like anyone on these forums would ever care about loosing almost 14% of memory throughput

Maybe its something with the P35 Chipset alone ?

Has anyone else tried to see what difference 3G / 2G ram has on memory bandwidth?
 
Last edited:
wombraider said:
Yep your right
Memory Copy 7779 MB/s - 2G
Memory Copy 6697 MB/s - 3G

Difference 1092 MB/S

So it only 13.9 % slower at moving data around in memory

Its not like anyone on these forums would ever care about loosing almost 14% of memory throughput
Click to expand...

True, i wouldnt be to bothered. But you know some people, there never happy :p
 
Well I still get 7136mb/sec copy with 4gb @ speed in sig and Vista is flying
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom