2 x 2 gig or 4 x 1 gig RAM?

[Morgoth]

So, I'm gonna get me a new PC on Monday, and I already have every component in place and reserved, except I still don't know about the RAM....

With an ASUS P5K/intel P35 chipset, what RAM configuration would you propose? I don't do any overclocking. I used to buy Kingston or Samsung with no occuring problems whatsoever, but I heard Corsair is good too? And is there any reason not to get 2 x 2048 modules? Are there any disadvantages over 1 gig modules? Thanks.

Edited March 29, 2008 by Morgoth

[Walsingham]

I'm also interested.

[WITHTEETH]

I heard rumors of certain outcomes but will sustain. It was word of mouth and I also would like to know.

[Morgoth]

I just found out that Vista 32bit isn't able to address wholly 4 gig of RAM. Gah, why haven't I thought of that earlier? I'll take a Twin-Kit Corsair XMS2 PC-800 (2x1024MB) to be on the sure side. I can always upgrade to 4 gig later. I don't need more right now anyway.

[Bokishi]

There's no fear in going 64-bit

[WITHTEETH]

There's no fear in going 64-bit

But whats the advantage of going 64bit besides future proofing for the far future? By then Ill have a different computer. Al software I own right now plus games would just run on emulation mode on 64bit right?

 

What are the advantages?

[Bokishi]

Getting to make actual use of 4-gigs of RAM is an advantage.

 

Crysis 64 having better mountain textures is an advantage

 

This mod I've been playing for HL2 requires 64-bit and 4-gigs of RAM, but it's freakin amazing http://halflife2.filefront.com/file/Fakefa...0_Part_16;88111

 

32-bit programs and games run just as good, when I compare to running them in 32-bit XP, since 64-bit CPU is backward compatible with x86, I don't think any emulation is involved

[Morgoth]

So, I decided to get 2 x 2 Gig Corsair RAM anyway. There's no sense in upgrading memory later because it's never recommendable to use different chip vendors. Anyway, my Core 2 Quad now runs World of Warcraft with 350 fps!

[Gfted1]

^Would that be more of a result of your video card or the processor? IIRC, I have a 9600 in my old rig and Ive got every possible WoW setting maxed and still get nice FPS. Nowhere near 350, I want to say around 100 +/- 25, but that leads me to believe WoW isnt really much of a hog.

[Morgoth]

I've a 8800 GT. It's not state-of-the-art, but still fast as hell, and more importantly, the card only cost 170

[taks]

I just found out that Vista 32bit isn't able to address wholly 4 gig of RAM. Gah, why haven't I thought of that earlier? I'll take a Twin-Kit Corsair XMS2 PC-800 (2x1024MB) to be on the sure side. I can always upgrade to 4 gig later. I don't need more right now anyway.

there's another thread in which this is discussed. 32-bit OSes will see somewhere between 3 and 3.5 GB, depending upon your configuration. it is unknown whether winders actually uses this and what is listed is only what is available to the user, not the total being recognized. technically a 32-bit OS is capable of addressing all of 4 GB, it just doesn't find it or recognize it for whatever reason.

 

What are the advantages?

well, aside from the ability to see all of your memory, not many at the moment. mostly detriments, actually. driver support sucks, emulation mode for 32-bit programs is slower than running in native 32-bit, and most programs aren't ready for 64-bit prime-time anyway. there's probably also a lot of compatibility issues though i cannot say from experience (have not upgraded yet), nor have i heard from anyone that has actually made the switch. i'm sure there are plenty of apps that will benefit from a 64-bit OS, though given that we're all gamers, most of what we care about is the performance of games, and we don't stand to gain, IMO.

 

this will change soon, though i don't know how soon...

 

taks

[Gfted1]

Maybe I said the wrong part number. My video card is 3 years old like the rest of my PC so maybe its a 6900?

 

I was just wondering, regarding WoW, which is more important, GPU horsepower or CPU horsepower as the game doesnt seem to task my old rig too hard even on max settings.

[taks]

32-bit programs and games run just as good, when I compare to running them in 32-bit XP, since 64-bit CPU is backward compatible with x86, I don't think any emulation is involved

that'll be app dependent. however, there is some sort of "emulation" because the OS has to deal with the fact that the code was written in a native 32-bit OS. emulation is probably a misnomer since, as you note, the CPU itself is already 64-bit and x86 compatible.

 

the numerical values in all the code are already all 64-bit most likely (some 128-bit) because the processors have been for some time, but compilers had to deal with that up-front to get the 64-bit values working in a 32-bit OS. i would guess that most programs that do suffer would probably be OK simply recompiling under the 64-bit OS (and some debug to remove the problems that creates).

 

taks

[Morgoth]

Maybe I said the wrong part number. My video card is 3 years old like the rest of my PC so maybe its a 6900?

 

I was just wondering, regarding WoW, which is more important, GPU horsepower or CPU horsepower as the game doesnt seem to task my old rig too hard even on max settings.

You know, my 350 fps-allegation was kinda a joke. WOW even runs on a 800Mhz computer.

 

As for 32bit vs 64 bit. I've Vista 32 + SP1 installed. It shows me 4 Gb installed, but only 3300 MB in the dxdiag. I actually have a Vista 64 from my Uni, but alas crappy driver support and whatever "suprises" are defnitely not on my "must have" list.

Edited April 2, 2008 by Morgoth

[taks]

As for 32bit vs 64 bit. I've Vista 32 + SP1 installed. It shows me 4 Gb installed, but only 3300 MB in the dxdiag.

almost exactly the same for me with 32-bit XP... that's just over 3 GB or so.

 

taks