Shortcuts

What would you choose? Faster RAM or more RAM?

rated by 0 users
This post has 6 Replies | 4 Followers

Top 500 Contributor
Posts 250
Points 4,510
Joined: Jul 2008
Location: NJ
nECrO1967 Posted: Mon, Jul 28 2008 7:24 PM

I am starting this thread to stir up discussion. I already have my own opinions on this matter.

 

So if you had to choose from say 2 gigs of DDR2 1066 and 4 gigs of DDR2 800. What would you choose?

I used to carry a hammer in my computer tool kit. Just for fixing the packard Bells though.......

  • | Post Points: 35
Not Ranked
Posts 7
Points 220
Joined: Jul 2008
Location: San Diego, CA
3DtoHD replied on Mon, Jul 28 2008 7:47 PM

 I would choose the 2 Gigs of DDR2 1066 if runing xp, 4 gigs if on vista. (depends what your cpu and mobo is designed to run at)

DDR2 800 - Data Tranfer Per Second: 800 Mil - Peak Tranfer rate: 6400 mb/s

DDR2 1066 - Data Tranfer Per Second: 1066 Mil - Peak Tranfer Rate: 8533 mb/s

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 250
Points 4,510
Joined: Jul 2008
Location: NJ
nECrO1967 replied on Mon, Jul 28 2008 8:34 PM

My personal opinion on this is it would depend on usage. If building a box for a family member who only uses e-maill and office apps, I would go with more RAM as it would add longevity to the machine. On the other hand, any usage that even smells of performance and I would go with faster RAM.

In the scenario I quoted, I wouldn't really worry about Vista. More is certainly better, but Vista runs fine with 2gb.

 

I used to carry a hammer in my computer tool kit. Just for fixing the packard Bells though.......

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 4,796
Points 45,500
Joined: Feb 2008
Location: Kennesaw
rapid1 replied on Mon, Jul 28 2008 10:57 PM

I would'nt I would go with 4 gigs of 1066 period ram is one of the most important things from my point of view I think I'd ene drop my cpu a clock lvl for the 4 gigs and oc my cpu to make the difference I am still running my athlon x2 at 4800 as long as you have a decent cooler (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835106080) with w thunderblade 120mm for 50 bucks drop 100 of your cpu oc it to make up the diff then get the 4 gigs to split the difference in the ram price seems the best way to go to me

 Machine name: rapid1
 Operating System: Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit (6.1, Build 7600) 
 System Model: Gigabyte X58A-UD5
 Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU         930  @ 2.80GHz (8 CPUs), ~3.6GHz
 Memory: Kingston 6144MB RAM
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 91
Points 1,395
Joined: Feb 2008
Location: Oregon, United States

 I recently upgraded from 2GB to 4GB, but that was purely for my own reasons.  The 2GB runs fine, but I wanted 4GB so I could turn my page file off.  You won't see any performance differences between the 2GB and 4GB (except in Windows XP, or Vista 32-bit, where it's actually been documented you might see a slowdown running 4GB due to memory addressing problems).

ASUS Rampage Formula; Core 2 Quad Extreme QX9650 @5.13GHz; 4GB Buffalo Firestix PC2-9600 DDR2; Thermaltake Armor w/ Bigwater SE; XFX Geforce 9800 GTX 'Black Edition'; Corsair HX620 Power Supply 620W

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 250
Points 4,510
Joined: Jul 2008
Location: NJ
nECrO1967 replied on Tue, Jul 29 2008 11:14 AM

rapid1:

I would'nt I would go with 4 gigs of 1066 period ram is one of the most important things from my point of view I think I'd ene drop my cpu a clock lvl for the 4 gigs and oc my cpu to make the difference I am still running my athlon x2 at 4800 as long as you have a decent cooler (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835106080) with w thunderblade 120mm for 50 bucks drop 100 of your cpu oc it to make up the diff then get the 4 gigs to split the difference in the ram price seems the best way to go to me

For you yeah, but for a low performance home user, the added RAM speed wouldn't mean a thing. IF there is a difference in e-mail and MS Word between 1066 and 800 it would have to be nano seconds. The added RAM would extend the useful life of the machine. Just my take....

I used to carry a hammer in my computer tool kit. Just for fixing the packard Bells though.......

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 250
Points 4,510
Joined: Jul 2008
Location: NJ
nECrO1967 replied on Tue, Jul 29 2008 11:32 AM

1nteljunki3:

 I recently upgraded from 2GB to 4GB, but that was purely for my own reasons.  The 2GB runs fine, but I wanted 4GB so I could turn my page file off.  You won't see any performance differences between the 2GB and 4GB (except in Windows XP, or Vista 32-bit, where it's actually been documented you might see a slowdown running 4GB due to memory addressing problems).

You must be using Linux. Turning off the page file in any Windows is a bad idea for two reasons. First. software bugs and poorly written software can cause system crashes if it doesn't find a page file. Second. Turning it off prevents any unneeded data in RAM from being paged out and taking up space that could be used for disk cache hurting performance. This can be particularly true in games. Also, Many "good" programs reserve page file space and when they don't find it can crash or slow down. The benefits of turning off the page file are few and usually only single apps. When you start multi-tasking they often disapear.

 

There has been much debate on this subject. I base my own page file implementation on the advice of older and wiser people who have been around longer than me. (Although after 20 years, those guys are getting fewer and fewer)

 

 

I used to carry a hammer in my computer tool kit. Just for fixing the packard Bells though.......

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (7 items) | RSS