Is there really much of a difference. I know that if its 4GB of RAM all of the same kind then its in dual-channel (I think), but is it a major difference?
This would be on a notebook btw with 667MHz DDR2 RAM:)
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Is there really much of a difference. I know that if its 4GB of RAM all of the same kind then its in dual-channel (I think), but is it a major difference?
This would be on a notebook btw with 667MHz DDR2 RAM:)
In a 32-bit OS, a system with only 3GB of RAM installed is more likely to let you use all of that RAM before a system with 4GB of RAM could, thanks to restrictions built in the 32-bit x86 specification because they'd assumed we would have all migrated to 64-bit computing long before this. And while there are chipsets that support asynchronous dual-channel configurations to allow a 2GB stick and a 1GB stick to be in separate channels and still work at a dual-channel rate, it is still very much not ideal. If you want 3GB and true dual-channel, you'd have to do two 1GB sticks and two 512MB sticks... not fun. Honestly, you are much better off just buying 4GB of RAM nowadays for a couple of reasons: (1) it's cheap, (2) no need to worry about being in Async dual channel; you can have true dual channel then (if you do two 2GB sticks or four 1GB sticks), and (3) if you ever do move to a 64-bit OS, you'll see performance start to really improve.codezer0Well said.
Is there really much of a difference. I know that if its 4GB of RAM all of the same kind then its in dual-channel (I think), but is it a major difference?
This would be on a notebook btw with 667MHz DDR2 RAM:)
Arch_Angel_21
Personally I would go with the 2x 2gb sticks on a desktop simply because it is so cheap to buy nowadays. However, since you're talking about a notebook... it probably won't be nearly so. Honestly, 2gb of ram is plenty for most people.
I've got 2GBx2 and 32bit Vista registers as 3.5GB ram available.teddyrobThat's probably because the system uses some of your ram for video memory.
I wouldn't really expect any difference right now. Ganes really only use up 2GB of ramLuminouslightAnd if you'd stop thinking Wintendo all the time, you'd realize there are many more advantages to having 4GB of RAM than just [insert game here]. :| Seriously, many of us USE our computers for something OTHER THAN GAMES. Think about that, k?
I've got 2GBx2 and 32bit Vista registers as 3.5GB ram available.teddyrobThat's because (default) intel x86 32-bit specification calls for the last .5GB to be reserved for I/O addresses. Optionally, some boards reserve an additional amount in relation to how much video RAM you have, to have a locally accessible reference for vRAM. e.g. If you have a 512MB GPU installed on a system that does this, then you'll only have 3GB maximum that the system will let you use. In the case of me with my 640MB GTS, it only lets me use 2.75GB of the 4GB possible right now, because NVIDIA didn't implement MMIO remapping. And if you're wondering, MMIO remapping is basically a neat (parlor) trick that is supposed to work in cooperation with PAE on the CPU side. Basically, PAE was supposed to allow these reserved I/O bits to be done in the memory space beyond the initial 4GB. Any modern day CPU can do this; any 64-bit capable CPU would almost have to support this for 32-bit OS's. Problem is, that unless the motherboard allows and enables MMIO remapping, it having PAE means nothing, because the system will default to using the "safe" method that is compliant with intel's original spec.
I recently bought a laptop (Acer Aspire 6920G Gemstone Blue), it has a C2D T5750, NVIDIA GeForce 9500m GS TurboCache and 4Gb of RAM, Windows Vista Home Premium. I'm just wondering if my laptop will ever use the full 4Gb that came with it? Seeing as Vista only shows it having 3Gb.
I mean, why would my system come with 4Gb of RAM if it can never be used... would I need to get the 64bit version of Vista just to be able to use that extra 1Gb?
Youl could try and download cpu-z to make sure that all of your ram is ok and there is a place that you can click on each slot to make sure that the ram is working ok.
Codezer0 You sure do know your stuff. I may have to find you some time to see what you think about this pc that I plan to build.
Youl could try and download cpu-z to make sure that all of your ram is ok and there is a place that you can click on each slot to make sure that the ram is working ok.
Codezer0 You sure do know your stuff. I may have to find you some time to see what you think about this pc that I plan to build.
blackleather223
Can't you just check RAM with Task Manager?
"Can't you just check RAM with Task Manager?"
THAT'S what I was looking for. YES, iirc, but I had forgotten (the reason for my question). If I'm not mistaken, under the Preformance tab of the Task Manager (Ctrl-Alt-Del) should tell you how much of your 'available' RAM is actually being utilized...right? (I know that having 4 gigs of RAM will only show something like 3 gigs available in the best-case, for reasons I don't understand but believe.)
OK...this is making me nuts. I thought I'd post here rather than start another memory thread.
I have 4 gigs RAM (2x2 Corsair DDR2). I put one chip in (either one) and System Properties shows 2 gigs RAM, while Task Manager Physical Memory shows 2.095 gigs.
I put in the second chip (doesn't matter which slot). System Properties still shows 2 gigs, while Task Manager Physical Memory shows 2.096 gigs.
What's the deal? Am I looking in the right place for how much RAM my system has available?
Other specs:
evga nForce 680i SLI mobo
Q6600 @ 2.4ghz
8800gt 512mb
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment