Conroe with 4gb of memory

Phil2008

Phil2008

Phil2008

Soldato
Joined
17 Dec 2004
Posts
8,743
Would you still be able to overclock ok if you were using 4sticks of mem?? Cos apparntly theres a 19% speed increase from using 4gigs vs 2gigs in vista, and to me thats a big difference.
 
Maybe a small performance drop, although the overlock of the CPU shouldn't be affected (correct me if I'm wrong here, I'm an AMD person). The problem being if the mobo could support all sticks in dual channel and at low latencies.
 
Last edited:
Traditionally speaking, Intel chipsets generally dont suffer any hit (overclocking or otherwise) from using 4 sticks of ram, due to server platform underpinnings i assume. Dunno if its still true with the 9xx series, but certainly was with the 8xx chipset :)
 
just slightly off-topic but how will vista have a 19% performance boost from the extra 2gig?

while i've been running vista on 2gig it has barely gone above 40% mem usage???
 
Not noticed much if any performance change between 2 and 4 gig! I'm running a 3700+ on a sapphire rd580 crossfire board with a samsung spinpoint.

gt
 
speedy2004 said:
Cos apparntly theres a 19% speed increase from using 4gigs vs 2gigs in vista, and to me thats a big difference.
Click to expand...

Now where did you hear this? :confused:

Unless you're *using* more than 2Gb, you won't see a performance increase by adding more memory (...only adding faster memory).

I can't imagine that vista will use more than 2Gb memory very often, even running a number of common programs.
 
I've heard people mention Oblivion get very close to 2GB when the super high res textures are used, and the grass details are set very high etc.
Now if Vista needs a little more memory than XP I can see how it could push it past 2GB, but that is only one game.

Perhaps photo and vid editing benefit more?
 
hmm, wonder if i can install virtual machine then run vista from inside it??

also would the full aero 3d view work properly on a laptop that has intel extreme integrated gfx?
 
There was a thread some time back about WinXP64 and 4Gb RAM and 4Gb RAM was always faster as XP64 could address the full 4Gb whereas XP could only look at 2Gb chunks at a time.

As Vista is a complete rewrite using the best technology from XP and XP64 plus a few enhancements, I would say that more RAM would be better. A 19% improvement sounds like an awful lot - it sounds like a claim you would find on the Memokit or Crucial websites where they found 1 area where RAM was a real bottleneck and then quoted that improvement.

Certainly the theory goes that with enough RAM you can hold all your programs and data in RAM cache and not have to swap out to the HDD pagefile. If you have 4Gb RAM and XP64 you can turn off the pagefile completely and it runs very quickly indeed.
 
Last edited:
Games that we knew used lots of memory didn't see much improvement from doubling the memory size to 4GB and other games that used very little memory actually saw a decent increase in performance when we provided the system with extra memory that it didn't even use.

1) Windows Vista is coming and with it come higher system requirements if you want a smooth enjoyable experience.
2) 2GB of memory will be enough to keep all of today's games running quite smoothly. However, in light of Battlefield 2, and the Battlefield 2142 Demo taking up over 1.8GB of a 2GB system, there isn't much room left for other programs running in the background.
3) I honestly won't be rushing out and buying Vista as it uses way more resources that Windows XP.
4) Eventually hardcore gamers will all own Vista as DirectX 10 is only available for this platform.

http://www.bcchardware.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=3135&Itemid=40&limit=1&limitstart=2
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom