2Gb or 3Gb ramz

[mrmez]

Using XP pro, i see a lot of games/apps are using close to 100% of my 2x1Gb
sticks. Im hoping i can get some more performance with a little more ramz.

Since 32bit can only address 4Gb ram total...

A.) Just get another 2x1Gb sticks
B.) Get 1x1Gb stick
C.) Shaddup and p!$$ off :lol:

Also with 3x1Gb, will that affect dual channel (duh) and will this mess up any gains i would have seen

Cheers
M

 

[Track]

It wouldnt affect dual-channel, but the bandwidth of the 3rd stick would obviously be lower.

If u really are using the full 2048MB of ur memory AND all of the virtual memory, then maybe u should just get another 2048MB of RAM and a 64-bit OS - if ur apps are that demanding, maybe u sould consider a 64-bit OS anyway.

 

[nvalhalla]

It wouldnt affect dual-channel, but the bandwidth of the 3rd stick would obviously be lower.

Really? I was always under the impression that you need 2 or 4 sticks to run dual channel. I thought a 3rd stick would disable it.

If you want to keep your OS and not have to worry about 3 sticks, get 512x2, It's not too much more than 1GB sticks are. Then you get the increased capacity and keep the speed.

$40.00 after MIR
http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=80061-31

or get 2 GB and let windows address whatever it can. The extra will just be ignored.

$90.00
http://shop2.outpost.com/product/5283387

 

[dengamle]

Really? I was always under the impression that you need 2 or 4 sticks to run dual channel. I thought a 3rd stick would disable it.

It depends on the memory controller. I might run dual channel of the first two, and single on the last.

If you have 2GB+1GB+1GB, it might see the two last ones and one big 2GB, and run dual channel over all 4GB

 

[darkstar782]

Most memory controllers have 3 modes.

Single channel:

1 DIMM, or 2 DIMMs in one channel. Memory addresses are mapped sequentially and there is no speed boost.

Dual Channel Interleaved:

2 DIMMs or 4 DIMMs, 1 or 2 per channel. Same total memory amount per channel. Memory addresses are mapped alternately between the modules, theoretically a sustained sequential read can be performed twice as fast.

Dual Channel Asynchronous:

3 DIMMs, or different amounts of memory on each channel (a 512mb DIMM and a 1GB DIMM for example) Channel A is mapped sequentially, and then Channel B is mapped on the end of that. There is no interleaving, and the only performance boost would be if an application was trying to read/write to completely different memory areas at the same time.


In short, I'd recommend 4GB if you want the performance boost of Dual Channel.

However, I ran 3*1GB sticks for a while, the performance drop was minimal, and not even noticeable in normal operation.

 

[darious00777]

If you have four memory slots, there is the option of having two 1,024 megabyte sticks, and two 512 megabyte sticks. You keep dual channel, and get three gigabytes.

 

[Track]

However, I ran 3*1GB sticks for a while, the performance drop was minimal, and not even noticeable in normal operation.

I agree, I did not notice the performance difference at all.

Must be because Windows XP does not need much bandwidth.

 

[Mondoman]

...

It depends on the memory controller. I might run dual channel of the first two, and single on the last....

Exactly! Fortunately, you have a recent Intel chipset, so it'll run the first 2GB (1 per channel) in dual-channel interleaved mode, and the last 1GB in single-channel mode.

 

[biohazard420420]

I second this as a matter of fact it am running the current setup right now. 2gb as 2x1gb sticks and 1gb as @x 512mb sticks. Keeps dual channel for all memory and gives you the additional 1gb or ram you seek.

 

[bc4]

This may be a little off topic but not by much--- is there a way to measure this? I recently upgraded from 1 dimm 1gb to 2 dimm 2 x 1gb (higher speed) and did not notice any difference.

Is there a program that will rate the memory read/write speeds (does memtest do this --- haven't tried in a while)

I'm running vista ultimate and read everywhere what a gain of 2 gigs of memory was, but I didn't see much difference... just a thought, sorry if i'm stealing the thread but i thought it might be helpful for the OP too 😳

ps. I've tried all three sticks and see no difference at all. Oh yeah, vista sidebar memory reader showed 60% usage with 1 gb and 50% usage with 2 gb... doesn't seem right unless it has a built in memory controller which is far beyond my knowledge so i'll stop here

 

[uberman]

Depends what apps you are running but the first thing I look at is spyware or unnecessary processes or background apps with ram usage like that.

 

[darious00777]

I second this as a matter of fact it am running the current setup right now. 2gb as 2x1gb sticks and 1gb as @x 512mb sticks. Keeps dual channel for all memory and gives you the additional 1gb or ram you seek.

Someone with a Boondock Saints screenshot as an avatar agrees with me. Works just fine with me.



bc,

Try looking up Sandra Soft. Never used it, but it keeps getting referenced in a bunch of benchmark articles.

On a side note, Vista loves RAM. Going from 60% to 50% means there's abit more Vista is using in it's superfetching technology. Which is supposed to make things load up faster, but sometimes, just doesn't work too well.



uberman,

For me it would help when I Alt+tab out of a game. Or at least, that's my hope when I upgrade from 2 to 3 gigs of RAM.