Which memory for 8Gb??

Carol Steele · 30 May 2007 at 11:07

I'm thinking about upgrading my memory to 8Gb (from 4Gb).

I have two choices available, both from Corsair. One set has memory timings of 5-5-5-15 and the other 5-5-5-18 and I could save myself around £45 by going for the slightly slower timings.

Would I see much difference in performance by going for the slightly slower chips???

JonnyGeee · 30 May 2007 at 11:48

Would it really make that much difference considering you had 8GB??

Jonny L · 30 May 2007 at 11:54

Lol is this an e-penis extension??

Lol go for the looser timings, you can probably tighten them up yourself anyway

Carol Steele · 30 May 2007 at 12:11

No, - but I'll ask my husband about the extension

Prime use is in Adobe Creative Suite 3 (mainly Photoshop and ACR work) where I am working with Gb's of raw image files at once. Here the more RAM installed, the better the program works.

jbloggs · 30 May 2007 at 12:22

Carol Steele said:
I'm thinking about upgrading my memory to 8Gb (from 4Gb).

I have two choices available, both from Corsair. One set has memory timings of 5-5-5-15 and the other 5-5-5-18....

Would I see much difference in performance by going for the slightly slower chips???

No.

Reality|Bites · 30 May 2007 at 15:07

Which OS are you using?

Carol Steele · 30 May 2007 at 15:52

At the moment I am using Win XP x64 Pro, but I have a copy of Vista x64 Ultimate waiting for Gretag-Macbeth to get their corporate finger out and release some Vista x64 compatible drivers so that I can profile my monitor. I am a pro photographer and need a profiled monitor to fit into my colour managed workflow.

Well Splattered · 30 May 2007 at 16:05

Save yourself some money and go for the looser timings (cheaper memory). I do not think you will see a difference unless your heavily benchmarking and those few extra benchmarks numbers matter!

supernova9 · 30 May 2007 at 16:11

Minimal performance increases at best, not worth the extra cash if you ask me.

Yellowbeard · 4 Jun 2007 at 17:01

This is a late response as I just found this thread.

In all the testing I have ever done, programs like Photoshop, Quark, AVID, et al do not benefit from lower latencies nor do they suffer from higher latencies. They do benefit from MORE RAM. Since your raw files are in the GB sizes, you should see some benefit from more RAM. The slower memory you listed is fine.

Carol Steele · 5 Jun 2007 at 10:32

Thanks Yellowbeard, this seems to be the general consensus from folks whose opinions I trust.

FreeStream · 5 Jun 2007 at 10:33

What mobo?

Some mobos have problems with 4Gb let alone 8

BigBANGtheory · 5 Jun 2007 at 11:19

Carol I use 8GB myself on Vista 64 and for the right application it is a very worth while investment you can see how much my system uses (and no thats not Vista using 4GB+ of cache)

A strong word of caution though as mentioned by the last poster... An awful lot of motherboards are real fussy about 8GB I hope you have an Intel chipset...

Some if I remember correctly do not work with 4 x Corsair 2GB modules, I would do some research if I were you before buying anything.

PhillyDee · 5 Jun 2007 at 11:45

Carol Steele said:
Thanks Yellowbeard, this seems to be the general consensus from folks whose opinions I trust.

You trust this lot in here? You musnt read the General Discussion forum then, with their "Spec me a girlfriend thread" and "Oh Gnoes, i burnt my toast what shall i use to scrape it" threads.

DasFruitMachine · 5 Jun 2007 at 21:49

That's a lot of gigs.

Reality|Bites · 5 Jun 2007 at 22:29

Confused question here.

When Vista first came out a lot of people bought 4GB of memory and were complaining that Vista was only seeing 3.25GB of the 4GB.

Was this only for Vista 32bit?

Can Vista 64bit see the full 8GB of memory then?

BigBANGtheory · 5 Jun 2007 at 23:06

Reality|Bites said:
Can Vista 64bit see the full 8GB of memory then?

yes Vista 64 see's the full 8GB if your hardware supports it, look at my task manager screen shot above...

robg1701 · 5 Jun 2007 at 23:27

Reality|Bites said:
Confused question here.

When Vista first came out a lot of people bought 4GB of memory and were complaining that Vista was only seeing 3.25GB of the 4GB.

Was this only for Vista 32bit?

Can Vista 64bit see the full 8GB of memory then?

Thats due to hardware limitations of some older chipsets which 'support 4GB' but cant map I/O related stuff beyond the real memory space.

Yellowbeard · 6 Jun 2007 at 04:45

robg1701 said:
Thats due to hardware limitations of some older chipsets which 'support 4GB' but cant map I/O related stuff beyond the real memory space.

Actually, most cases were that users could see 4gb in the bios yet the OS could not utilize it all for applications. This is a limit of any 32bit OS, Linux, MAC, Windows, etc.

jellybeard999 · 6 Jun 2007 at 04:59

I know nothing about photography, so may be talking nonsense... but here goes

Carol, have you tried one of those Calibrators, to get the colours correct on your monitor, as from my understanding, that would allow you to use the standard profile, and get the colours spot on...

May i reitterate, i know nothing about photography, so dont shoot me