4GB vs. 2GB

XtremeGamer · 20 Feb 2007 at 09:55

Whats best?

2GB with Very High Latencies :

Team Xtreem 2GB (2 x 1GB) DDR2 PC2-6400C3 800MHz Dual Channel Kit (x1)

With 3-3-3-8 timings

OR

OCZ 2GB (2 x 1GB) PC2-6400 Dual Channel Platinum Revision 2 XTC Series DDR2 (x2)

With 4-4-4-15 timings

Personally, being a newbie at hardware, I would go for more GBs, so i would choose the latter but would like your opinion guys! Thanks in advance for any replies!

clv101 · 20 Feb 2007 at 09:58

You mean low latencies not high latencies - I'd say 4GB is better than 2GB, irrelevant of latencies. Anyway, it's not as if the OCZ is slow!!

FrenchTart · 20 Feb 2007 at 10:05

For gaming, there's no need for 4GB yet.

Unless you're not going to upgrade for at least 2+ years, go 2GB.

Jumping · 20 Feb 2007 at 10:50

Depending on your motherboard, when you populate all memory slots it might slow down your memory.

Also to properly address 4GB RAM you need a 64bit OS.

Imho getting 2x1GB Low latency RAM is the better option and if you ever feel the need for more RAM in *** future just buy another 2x1GB sticks or by then 2GB sticks might have dropped down in price so you can get 2x2GB

XtremeGamer · 20 Feb 2007 at 10:58

Thanks guys... and yeah.. you are right! Low Latencies... got that mixed up sorry!

Mr-White · 20 Feb 2007 at 11:21

why not 4GB low latencies

MW

bfar · 20 Feb 2007 at 11:56

I installed 4Gb last week, and managed to get round to changing x86 to x64 Vista last night. All four gig up and running, and the system is running very well.

I've overclocked in such a way that I haven't stressed the northbridge as much as I could be. On an Asus P5B I'm at 401*8 giving around 3.22ghz. At this fsb the mobo sets the 1066 strap. The four sticks of ram are running at DDR801 @ 4.4.4.12. Everythings going fine. I reckon it would be harder to overclock the memory with 4 banks full tho.

On a side note I noticed a good difference going from 2 to 3 GB on my 32bit OS's. Less of a difference going 3 - 4 when I installed x64. Safe to conclude that while 4GB is probably overkill, 3GB definately offers improvements over 2. Makes perfect sense. So while apps don't seem to need 4GB, 3GB seems a good sweet spot atm. However, to run dual channal, you need the matching sticks, and therefore will probably want another 2GB set. I wouldn't say you need to rush into a 64bit OS tho, 3GB is great for now.

Zefan · 20 Feb 2007 at 12:08

What is it with people and saying 32 bit OS's can only address 3GB of RAM?

It was true of earlier OS's but not with Vista.

Look at the number that dictate the maximum addressable memory, 32. Do the required math and you'll discover that it's infact a maximum of 4GB on the head. Any limits under 4GB of RAM in the past have been software, nothing to do with the bit ystem it works on.

Even a simple google can reveal this.

bfar · 20 Feb 2007 at 12:35

Zefan said:
What is it with people and saying 32 bit OS's can only address 3GB of RAM?

It was true of earlier OS's but not with Vista.

Look at the number that dictate the maximum addressable memory, 32. Do the required math and you'll discover that it's infact a maximum of 4GB on the head. Any limits under 4GB of RAM in the past have been software, nothing to do with the bit ystem it works on.

Even a simple google can reveal this.

Dude, no disrespect, but have you actually experianced this yourself? XP and Vista x86 can address 4GB in total, yes. But that includes the address space for all your hardware to operate in - PCI allocation, video memory etc. Windows 32bit reserves a pretty big block (around 1gb worth of addresses) for those things. Thats before you plug in your RAM, which gets the remaining address space. Thats usually around 3GB. Total is 4GB, which is shared by all your hardware.

Seen it with my own eyes!!

Google my ass

Zefan · 20 Feb 2007 at 12:41

That makes more sense! Finally someone who can explain it properly to me!

Tyvm!

snowdog · 20 Feb 2007 at 12:46

bfar said:
Dude, no disrespect, but have you actually experianced this yourself? XP and Vista x86 can address 4GB in total, yes. But that includes the address space for all your hardware to operate in - PCI allocation, video memory etc. Windows 32bit reserves a pretty big block (around 1gb worth of addresses) for those things. Thats before you plug in your RAM, which gets the remaining address space. Thats usually around 3GB. Total is 4GB, which is shared by all your hardware.

Seen it with my own eyes!!

Google my ass

Physical address extention? I thought that's what it was for, to allow 4 gb on 32 bit os

bfar · 21 Feb 2007 at 09:58

snowdog said:
Physical address extention? I thought that's what it was for, to allow 4 gb on 32 bit os

Apperently it doesn't work properly on XP home/pro or Vista 32. It was never supported on those OS's.

snowdog · 21 Feb 2007 at 17:54

bfar said:
Apperently it doesn't work properly on XP home/pro or Vista 32. It was never supported on those OS's.

I'm running winxp pro 32 bit and:

SkeeterUK · 21 Feb 2007 at 18:24

Physical Address Extension is just for 2gb and over i think. I mean when i go to control panel, system, it shows 2gb PAExtension. And i only have 2gb anyhow so more or less its just a way for windows to use more than so much ram i think. Its nothing really imporant so dont worry about PAE.

snowdog · 21 Feb 2007 at 20:16

SkeeterPSA said:
Physical Address Extension is just for 2gb and over i think. I mean when i go to control panel, system, it shows 2gb PAExtension. And i only have 2gb anyhow so more or less its just a way for windows to use more than so much ram i think. Its nothing really imporant so dont worry about PAE.

Not worrying about anything, but bfar says winxp (32bit) doesn't support it while obviously it does...

HighlandeR · 21 Feb 2007 at 20:28

Vista works best with 4GB RAM

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37756

Dunno if its true but inquirer seem to think so