Is 4gb memory really worth it?

pieman109

pieman109

pieman109

Soldato
Joined
21 Oct 2002
Posts
7,430
Location
Bexhill on sea
As title. I'm contemplating getting some 8500 speed memory but theres mainly only 2 x 1gb kits available other than the 2 x 2gb offered by ocz and gskill. I'm currently using 2 x 2gb ocz 6400 (as in me sig), but when me wolfie 8400 arrives I'm hoping to be able to push the fsb above 400mhz which I reckon is gonna put a strain on the memory.
I don't do any heavy image manipulation like photoshop, etc and just normal gaming. Me question is would I really notice a difference in general performance if I go from 2 x 2gb to 2 x 1gb? I don't recall any difference noticed in the past when I changed over from 2gb to 4gb but I'd like to confirm that first.
Wadya reckon?:)
 
You'll not notice any difference by using faster ram. But it could restrict the overclock of the 8400 slightly. Running at 1:1 you be overclocking the ram speed. So you may need to increase the voltages or loosen the timings slightly, or both to get a stable system.

I would say it wasn't worth getting 8500 memory, as the performance difference would be minimum, even if the 6400 did restrict the cpu overclock.
 
Darryl_1983 said:
You'll not notice any difference by using faster ram. But it could restrict the overclock of the 8400 slightly. Running at 1:1 you be overclocking the ram speed. So you may need to increase the voltages or loosen the timings slightly, or both to get a stable system.

I would say it wasn't worth getting 8500 memory, as the performance difference would be minimum, even if the 6400 did restrict the cpu overclock.
Click to expand...

But faster ram would allow me to overclock the wolfdale well past 400mhz fsb, whereas with the 6400 ram, Id be limited to around 400mhz max. And faster ram would aid not restrict the overclock, thats whole point of faster memory:). I think you misunderstood what I was asking, basically, would I notice a difference going from 4 gb of memory to 2gb :)
 
Using Vista x64 there is a massive difference.

Vista absolutly flies with 4gb. Deffinatly worth it - Especially when you consider its price.
 
pieman109 said:
But faster ram would allow me to overclock the wolfdale well past 400mhz fsb, whereas with the 6400 ram, Id be limited to around 400mhz max. And faster ram would aid not restrict the overclock, thats whole point of faster memory:). I think you misunderstood what I was asking, basically, would I notice a difference going from 4 gb of memory to 2gb :)
Click to expand...

I've got 6400 Ram running at 1000 Mhz so no i don't think faster ram would be needed. Just depends if your memory is good overclocking.

I went from 2Gb of cheap unclocked 6400 memory to 4GB of ballistix clocked to 1000Mhz, and didn't really notice much of a difference to be honest, both in vista 64bit. Although i'm sure more intense games would utilies the extra ram more efficiently.
 
on the speed thing im running the OCZ gold 6400 ram at 980mhz, i only stopped there as i got my desired overclock, im sure i could get more out of it.

on the amount thing. 4GB and vista 64 really does fly, much better than 32bit and 2GB :)
 
Forgot to mention, this is on a dual boot system, XP 32bit and vista home premium 32 bit. See, there wouldn't be a prob if I was 100% sure me memory is gonna overclock to about 450mhz (900 ddr) and if it doesn't and assuming the new cpu will do 450mhz fsb, then I'm gonna have to get faster ram, 6400 to 8500. Now theres only a few sets of this 8500 that you can get in 2 x 2gb, all the others are 2 x 1gb.
So the question is, assuming I have to get 8500 to allow me to overclock to around 450mhz, would I notice the difference between 2gb and 4gb used in both the 32bit operating systems.
Shoulda mentioned that I reckon, my mistake.:)
 
I've seen my RAM usage go over 3GB in Vista 64bit when playing a big game of company of heroes before. The price of RAM is so low atm, it would be daft not to get 4GB

I'm using 4GB of PC5300 ballistix, which is capable of over 500mhz, but it's not clocked at that atm because the quad I've got doesn't like over 500fsb
 
allllec said:
Using Vista x64 there is a massive difference.

Vista absolutly flies with 4gb. Deffinatly worth it - Especially when you consider its price.
Click to expand...

Yes I agree, when I am on the desktop in Vista I can load my apps streight away, MSN comes up isntantly :). Allthough Windows Vista seems to take aaages to load, at first its fine, but then after a couple of days the amount of bars it takes is a lot more and I dont know why.

OT: Anyone else noticed the picture viewer in Vista always breaking? Every install I have had it happenes, coming up about something to do with a lack of memory or something and I cant solve it, it always happenes eventually and makes me have to open my pictures in MS Paint :\.
 
pieman109 said:
Forgot to mention, this is on a dual boot system, XP 32bit and vista home premium 32 bit. See, there wouldn't be a prob if I was 100% sure me memory is gonna overclock to about 450mhz (900 ddr) and if it doesn't and assuming the new cpu will do 450mhz fsb, then I'm gonna have to get faster ram, 6400 to 8500. Now theres only a few sets of this 8500 that you can get in 2 x 2gb, all the others are 2 x 1gb.
So the question is, assuming I have to get 8500 to allow me to overclock to around 450mhz, would I notice the difference between 2gb and 4gb used in both the 32bit operating systems.
Shoulda mentioned that I reckon, my mistake.:)
Click to expand...

I take it you know about the memory limilations of a 32bit OS ? I see you have a 3870x2 which had 1gig of graphics RAM. 32bit windows can only use a total of 4gig so things like graphics RAM have to be deducted. You might only end up with ~2.75gig system RAM, mainly for having a 1gig graphics card, which wouldn't really be worth it IMO.

You could find the max speed of the RAM you have by clearing all of your overclock settings and then slowly increasing you CPU speed but don't change the memory divider so that the memory speeds up straight away, long before your CPU is at it's limit.

If you have no intentions of getting a 64bit OS I wouldn't bother getting 4gig, mainly because of the 3870x2
 
XanderThal said:
for my thoughts... yes, but only under the following:

A) winblows Vista,
b) XP 64bit
c) XP 32bit but only if your doing rendering, or cad work.
Click to expand...

Vista 32bit is no different to xp 32bit when it comes to managing 4gig of memory
 
Went from 2Gb to 4Gb (3.25Gb useable) in XP Pro - Cuts down map load times a fair bit so even worth it in XP, sounds like it's a def for Vista 64
 
ten80p said:
Went from 2Gb to 4Gb (3.25Gb useable) in XP Pro - Cuts down map load times a fair bit so even worth it in XP, sounds like it's a def for Vista 64
Click to expand...

Yes it would, but he's not using vista 64, He is using 2x 32bit OS. You have a 768mb graphics card and he has a 1gig graphics card. When he is using vista he will only see less than 3gig
 
Last edited:
With the prices of RAM today, for me it wasn't even a decision.

Got a 2GB PC6400 Geil Kit for £37 posted or something (Was on special offer), can't moan at that price.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom