Memory: is more always better?

Good article, I was planing on skipping right past the 1gb and jumping straight up to 2. I havent got my fed tax return yet but thats one of the first purchases.

Quick question: would pc4000 overclock better than pc 3200? Im assuming so, I am running on a pc3200 speeds at stock clocks.

 

It's fairly likely - although they frequently use the same chips, the PC4000 versions are guaranteed to run at 250MHz. This will usually mean that they'll do higher with fewer problems. While the PC3200 sticks might still do 250MHz, they're not warranted for anything above DDR400 and are likely to have been binned at 250MHz...

 

Agreed. The gaming benefits aren't really here yet as far as framerate (though with hitching, most definately so), but general computer use is VASTLY improved.

/edit - meh, crap, forgot to check the quote box. It was roto's post on p1.

 

One of the biggest improvements I noticed on my friends computer is the decrease of load times. When xp takes up about 200mb of memory to start with its a good idea to just go with 2 gb, and I am probably going to go with pc4000. Thanks

 

Good article, I'm about to upgrade myself, probably going for the 2gb kit that Pookey keeps raving about.

From what I know and have picked up (and I'm no expert), higher speeds > tighter timings, because you get more bandwidth.
And for overclocking, I think that the best out of that set would be the PC4000 sets.

 

Do you mean to say that if the speed is higher, then the timings are tighter?
- If so, then that's untrue.

 

He meant that higher speeds are better than (>) tighter timings rather than higher speeds = lower timings

 

I think he actually meant that an increase in speed (MHz) will give you better performance than tighter timings. Of course it works in reverse too - if you've got RAM that can run really tight timings at PC3200, you can probably loosen it up to run it at a faster MHz speed. Or maybe that's what you're (hitman) saying too and you just left out a comma that I needed to read it right.

 

i thoguht the 2T problem was solved with the E3 revision AMD?

anywho

does that mean no matter what sizes of ram, if i want to do 4 sticks ill have to 2T

 

Nice article, but ram still seems like a pretty complex portion of a computer. Obviously tighter timings and faster bus speeds is better, but understanding exactly what tRAS, CAS, and the rest of the nomenclature means is pretty tough. Maybe I need another read through...heh.

One thing I hoped this article would have addressed was load times in games. My number one reason for installing ram isn't to eek out 1 more fps, but rather to help speed up the sometimes unbearable load times between games (even 30 seconds is killer...). FPSs like DOD:Source and BF2 make the benefit of having small load times huge, especially when rounds can last only 15 minutes.

Other than that, excellent article. It's nice to see something informational AND useful at the same time...

 

If you ran 4 sticks pre-venice they would run at PC2700 not PC3200, but now they still suffer from 2T. You can force 1T on some boards but it isnt guranteed to be stable.

 

That's correct

 

Be that as it may, 520MHz is a significant amount faster than 400MHZ. So the argument is null.

 

It was my understanding that in dual channel mode 2GB (1GB in each channel) would only operate as 1GB total.... that if you wanted 2GB in total you had to use single channel... am I drunk?

 

No, you still recieve the full capacity - the theoretical bandwidth is just doubled.

 

LOAD TIMES!!! I can personally say that if you play BF2 having 2gbs of ram is well worth it. After upgrading to 2gb I'm always one of the first people in a level, first in means more points, choice of vehicles, etc... My load times (verifying client data)went from about 1 minute down to 15-20 secs

The days of 1gb being enough are gone....

 

Great article. It made me wonder though...

What happened to Ram Disks?

It seems to me that if you had a large amount of memory (4gig), you could run your application from ram instead of from a hard drive, and that you might see dramatic improvements in performance.

Is anybody using large amounts of ram to make a game run entirely from ram instead of from a hard drive?

 

Clarification plz

"If you're willing to take a bit of a gamble (dependant on whether you'll be able to sell your current memory or not), we'd recommend swapping out your current memory for 2GB - it's just a case of whether you choose to buy the cheaper modules with looser timings, or whether you opt for memory capable of reasonably tight timings at DDR400. That'll ulimately come down to whether you're planning to overclock or not. "

I'm sorry but I'm having difficulty following this final paragraph. Cheaper modules will probably not provide tight timmings or assist in a good overclock. Are you saying that cheap modules are okay if one isn't going to overclock? Or are you saying that it's okay to overclock with loose timings. Actually, I'm having difficulty following the entire long sentence/paragraph in general. Please clarify...thanks.

 

Well, it's basically stating that if you are not interested in overclocking, then you're probably good with just getting another two 512MB sticks. Where as if you're going to kick your PC in it's ass and up everything, you will be far better off going for some high quality 1gig sticks with tight timings (at stock speeds).

As it says in the article: tight at stock = good overclock (because you can slack the timings a little as you up the MHz without loosing too much performance). Loose at stock = no overclock (as you'll notice a huge drop in performance due to even slacker timings and a pitiful jump in MHz).

 

Hi there,

If you're looking to overclock, you're most-likely going to need modules that have a little more headroom in them. The likes of Corsair's Value Select operates at 3.0-4-4-8 at DDR400, meaning that there is generally very little overhead in the modules. If you purchase something with a little more overhead (either tighter timings or rated at a higher memory speed), you're more likely to have the overhead to overclock.

Basically, if you're looking to overclock, the general concensus is to buy better modules.