Question about RAM

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by tradetime, Oct 31, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. tradetime

    tradetime Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Posts:
    1,000
    Location:
    UK
    If choosing 4GB RAM, would there be any particular reason to choose 4x1GB verses 2x2GB, does the different configuration make any difference?
     
  2. Peter2150

    Peter2150 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Posts:
    17,060
    In theory yes, but can you actually measure it. I kinda doubt it. Also be aware the 32bit systems can only access about 2.85gb of it.

    Pete
     
  3. tradetime

    tradetime Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Posts:
    1,000
    Location:
    UK
    Thanx for the reply Peter, sort of guessed that might be the answer, but nice to be sure. Had no idea about the last bit though.
     
  4. ThunderZ

    ThunderZ Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2006
    Posts:
    2,459
    Location:
    North central Ohio, U.S.A.
    There have been several on going discussions about amounts of memory recognizable\usable by a 32 bit OS. My personal experience is that my Win 2k loaded tower recognized 3.5 out of 4 gigs of RAM. The same tower now loaded with XP 64 sees` all 4 GIGs.
    I have read several places that 2 GIGs seems to be a sweet spot for XP 32. The Mrs. runs 2 GIGs with an AMD Opteron @ 2.4 GHz. She multi-tasks like crazy, burns\downloads and surfs, lack of memory is never a problem.
     
  5. dja2k

    dja2k Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Posts:
    2,040
    Location:
    South Texas, USA
    Less ram modules is always better. Running 2x2GB is way better than running 4x1GB. Having less ram modules will provide more stability with your motherboard.

    dja2k
     
  6. tradetime

    tradetime Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Posts:
    1,000
    Location:
    UK
    Thanx ThunderZ, 4Gigs is really probably way overkill for me, I have 1 GB on this machine and while I can push it a bit have never run out, so based on what both you and Peter have said I will probably just go with 2GB, should be more than enough.
     
  7. dja2k

    dja2k Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Posts:
    2,040
    Location:
    South Texas, USA
    If you do buy more memory, try to buy the same brand. You will save the trouble in having future memory related issues. By the way I have 2GB and I can do everything I want. I am running a P4 3.0ghz @ 4.0ghz with 2GB PC4400 @ FSB 267.

    dja2k
     
  8. tradetime

    tradetime Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Posts:
    1,000
    Location:
    UK
    Thanx dja2k, it will be in a new machine so that won't be a prob, hopefully they'll take care of the compatabilities. I just have to decide what I want in it.
     
  9. aigle

    aigle Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Posts:
    11,047
    Location:
    Saudi Arabia/ Pakistan
    Any special reasons for that? I always thought both to be the same thing.
     
  10. tradetime

    tradetime Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Posts:
    1,000
    Location:
    UK
    Would a single graphics card be adequate to run 2 x 24" monitors or would 2 graphics cards be preferable.
    I currently run 3 x 17" monitors on this box 2 of them connected to one card.
     
  11. Bob D

    Bob D Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2005
    Posts:
    1,150
    Location:
    Mass., USA
    I would recommend a single card.
    Some of these cards can be inherently troublesome, multiple cards multiply chance of potential issues.
    You're lucky you haven't had issues with your two card setup.
    IF you do opt for multiple cards, there is a site that has a matrix of various cards/manufacturers and their compatability (or lack thereof).
    Maybe I can hunt it down again.
     
  12. tradetime

    tradetime Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Posts:
    1,000
    Location:
    UK
    thanx, that would be great, guess I may have been lucky with the setup I have been running, no troubles whatsoever and running a mixture to boot, an ATI and an Nvidia.
    The place I will likely buy this PC seem to put two cards in their builds quite commonly, obviously assuming the client wants it. That's why I was wondering if perhaps with the larger monitors it was necessary to have 2 cards. Obviously I will ask their opinion when ordering, but I do like a poll of unbiased opinion from the likes of here as well.
     
  13. Peter2150

    Peter2150 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Posts:
    17,060
    Hi Tradetime

    When I bought my AMD machine I was sure what I wanted to do so I put two Nvidia 7950's in it with 256mb on each. They are set up for SLI. I did this partly as I wasn't sure how many monitor's I wanted to run. Can go up to 4. Setup is perfectly stable, I've run both in and out of SLI mode, with no issues either way. Currently running non SLI so I have one monitor on each card. Given that when I bought the newer intel machine, I just put one GT8800 with 640mg ram on it, and run two 21in monitors just fine.

    Pete
     
  14. tradetime

    tradetime Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Posts:
    1,000
    Location:
    UK
    Ok, thanx Pete, sounds reasonable, possibly looking at a setup something like this then.

    CPU: (Sckt775)Intel® Core™ 2 Duo E6850 CPU @ 3.00GHz 1333FSB 4MB L2 Cache 64-bit
    Motherboard: (Quad-Core Supports) EVGA nForce 680i SLI Chipset LGA775 FSB1333 DDR2 Mainboard
    Memory: (Req.DDR2 MainBoard)2GB (2x1GB) PC6400 DDR2/800 Dual Channel Memory (Corsair XMS2 Xtreme Memory w/ Heat Spreader)
    Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS 640MB 16X PCI Express Video Card
    Hard Drive: Single Hard Drive (500GB SATA-II 3.0Gb/s 16MB Cache 7200RPM HDD)
    Data Hard Drive: 500GB SATA-II 3.0Gb/s 16M Cache 7200RPM Hard Drive
    Optical Drive: SONY DUAL FORMAT 18X DVD±R/±RW + CD-R/RW DRIVE DUAL LAYER
    Sound: HIGH DEFINITION ON-BOARD 7.1 AUDIO
     
  15. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,007
    how much will that cost you?
    lodore
     
  16. Peter2150

    Peter2150 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Posts:
    17,060
    If you are an audiofil fan, it would be worth an external upgrade on the sound card. I am sure glad I did.
     
  17. aigle

    aigle Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Posts:
    11,047
    Location:
    Saudi Arabia/ Pakistan
    I hope the OP will not mind about a bit OT Q from me.
    I have 512 MB ram( one module), the othet memory slot is empty. Can I add a 1 Gb module to it, to make a total of 1.5 GB or both modules must be of same capacity( 512 Mb)?

    Thanks
     
  18. WSFuser

    WSFuser Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Posts:
    10,632
    Yes you can add a 1gb module.
     
  19. tradetime

    tradetime Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Posts:
    1,000
    Location:
    UK
    About £1100, but bear in mind that does not include periferals such as monitors, keyboard, mouse etc, with 2 x 24" monitors and all the bits, likely come in around £1600-£1700
     
  20. tradetime

    tradetime Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Posts:
    1,000
    Location:
    UK
    Sounds like a good idea, thanx for the suggestion.
     
  21. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,007
    i would surgest the quad core 2.4 for future proofing.
    more and more software is being written for multiple cores e.g. games
    lodore
     
  22. Nubiatech

    Nubiatech Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2007
    Posts:
    50
    Location:
    IL, USA
    For the sake of completeness, dual-channel memory setup is faster, albeit very negligible.
    Ref: http://www.devhardware.com/c/a/Memory/Dual-Channel/3/
     
  23. aigle

    aigle Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Posts:
    11,047
    Location:
    Saudi Arabia/ Pakistan
    Thanka, WSFuser.
     
  24. tradetime

    tradetime Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Posts:
    1,000
    Location:
    UK
    He he, this is where it gets complicated, when the suggestions differ from what you think yourself :) but I did put this out there to see what suggetions would pop up, so I appreciate you, and others, taking the time to share. In my case I pretty much know the suggestions will differ from what I think because there isn't much knowledge behind my configuration, in case anyone is wondering.
    Quad core verses dual core. I did actually look at that option, but decided that the Core™ 2 Duo E6850 CPU @ 3.00GHz 1333FSB 4MB L2 Cache 64-bit was likely a better processor choice for me than the Core™ 2 Quad Q6600 @ 2.4GHz 1066FSB 8MB L2 Cache 64-bit.
    The PC will primarily be a work computer and for what I do frankly both processors are overkill, but I wanted the flexibility to do other things in another OS envoironment (courtesy of fdisr) such as a bit of video editing, a lot of photo editing, and a little gaming perhaps. With gaming very low on the priority list, and vidoe editing fairly low, as probably the only two things that would take advantage og a Quad-core, I figured it wasn't woth sacrificing the extra speed of the Dual-core. Whether that is a good point of view I don't know.
     
  25. Peter2150

    Peter2150 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Posts:
    17,060
    My decision to go faster dual core than slower quad was the same as yours for same reasons. No regrets

    Pete
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.