4gb ram worth it?

[napoleon1769]

Right now I'm using Vista 32 bit and have 2 1gb sticks. Is it worth it to upgrade to 2 2gb sticks?

[goofball]

I would go to 3GB. 4GB might get you only around 3.2-3.5GB usable, depending on your video card and other I/O devices that need memory addresses. I have 4GB installed and it only shows 3318MB available (BIOS and Windows).

[Silver Bullet]

Also depends what you're doing, if you just gaming, probably not worth it. If you're doing ram intensive stuff (photoshop, video editing) then 3-4GB might be worth it.

[terrybear]

yeah if your a mega tasker & like to leave stuff open all over the place on your desktop then 4 gigs is what ya want then for shure :)

[bubble.tea]

I was told only 64bit can even READ beyond 2gb.

confirmation pls?

[Evil Baby]

I was told only 64bit can even READ beyond 2gb.

confirmation pls?

you mean beyond 4gb?

Check this link out to see what Vista 64 can handle (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/64bit.mspx)

[carmaster]

Get the extra ram. The prices are so cheap it doesn't hurt to add another 2GB.

[weedb0y]

I was told only 64bit can even READ beyond 2gb.

confirmation pls?

32bit can only read upto 3gb. Anything higher and you are just wasting it.

[bubble.tea]

you mean beyond 4gb?

Check this link out to see what Vista 64 can handle (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/64bit.mspx)

I'd like the same style of link for XP and XP pro etc...please?

[terrybear]

32bit can only read upto 3gb. Anything higher and you are just wasting it.

corrections 3.25 - 3.5 of the full 4 gigs is seen under the 32 bit os's

& with a 64 bit ya can go up to 32 gigs I beleive but I also read that with it your program chunks also become larger as well cause of the 64 bit data.

[TenzoR]

I'd like the same style of link for XP and XP pro etc...please?

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/facts/top10.mspx

not as pretty but same idea

[hades]

I'd like the same style of link for XP and XP pro etc...please?

The limit is is not because of Vista/XP. It is because of the 32bit code. 2^32=4,294,967,296bytes or 4gigs. XP has the same limits.

hades

[Amourek]

Simple way to determine how much RAM you need. Fire up the most intensive task(s) that you do, open up the task manager and check your PF usage. If it exceeds the amount of RAM you have, then more will help. If not, then you'd be throwing your money away.

[hytong]

http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6284524

[movieman]

The limit is is not because of Vista/XP. It is because of the 32bit code. 2^32=4,294,967,296bytes or 4gigs. XP has the same limits.

Per-application, yes. A single application only has a 32-bit address space so it's limited to 4GB (unless they do nasty things with segments).

However, recent 32-bit x86 chips can handle up to, I think, 32GB of physical memory. I think it was primarily a hack for 32-bit servers, so only the server versions of XP support it (not sure about Vista).

Edit: OK, it's 64GB: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension

[jumran]

With Vista 32-bit SP1 my system shows the full amount (4GB) of ram. Before SP1 RTM update, it would only show 3.4GB. With Vista, I think it is worth spending the little extra cash and gettting 4 GB of Ram. Widows XP is fine with 2 GB.

[phucyall]

Per-application, yes. A single application only has a 32-bit address space so it's limited to 4GB (unless they do nasty things with segments).

However, recent 32-bit x86 chips can handle up to, I think, 32GB of physical memory. I think it was primarily a hack for 32-bit servers, so only the server versions of XP support it (not sure about Vista).

Edit: OK, it's 64GB: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension
Thank you. First person to speak a word of reason

Windows NT 4.0 Advanced Server supports up to 8GB of RAM (or was it 16GB). XP can do 4GB without any problems. Seeing only 3.5GB of ram out of 4 is a problem with BIOS settings. Google and you shall find your answer.

There is a physical address space and a virtual address space and even the physical is no longer limited to 4GB with 32bit addressing as movieman mentioned.

[goofball]

With Vista 32-bit SP1 my system shows the full amount (4GB) of ram. Before SP1 RTM update, it would only show 3.4GB. With Vista, I think it is worth spending the little extra cash and gettting 4 GB of Ram. Widows XP is fine with 2 GB.

It shows but it still can't use more than 3.2-3.5GB for actual program usage and even less depending on your other components in the system and their need for MMIO addresses.

[DarthVain]

Unless you are running a 64 bit OS (which you are not) or you are using integrated video (I don't know) as it uses shared memory and the memory in your video card doesn't get counted against it then no.

Vista 32 can handle 3.5 MAX memory. Minus your Video card memory, minus any other memory you might have. So if you have 4gb installed, OS reads 3.5. If you have a video card with 512mb memory, your os will read 3. Minus all the ROM and whatever else you have on there.

So you are pretty much wasting a 1gb stick depending on setup.

Going 3gb has problems as well. With dual data rate memory most are set to run fastest in pairs now. So depending on what you are doing (does your operations need many fast accesses to memory, or large deep grabs of memory) it will vary. Gaming I would think would be better with just a pair rather than 3. Doing some massive calculations for scientific or perhaps for some video editing might benefit from the extra gig. Of course you would probably be better off in 64 bit land as well for that exact same reason.

Only other reason I could see would be if you plan on upgrading somewhat soon to a 64 bit os. I don't think it will hurt your performance to have an extra gig of memory wasting away doing nothing, just your pocketbook. However if you upgrade, presto you have 4gb to use. Compatibility and pricing may be an issue down the road would be the argument for doing it. Memory is dirt cheep right now and the difference between 1gb single and 2gb pairs is pretty small anyway.

[DarthVain]

It shows but it still can't use more than 3.2-3.5GB for actual program usage and even less depending on your other components in the system and their need for MMIO addresses.

There is a difference in SHOWING 4GB and USING 4GB. With some tinkering I am sure they could show you a 1000GB, but it might not mean much. ohhh alliteration!

[NuclearBlast]

Going 3gb has problems as well. With dual data rate memory most are set to run fastest in pairs now. So depending on what you are doing (does your operations need many fast accesses to memory, or large deep grabs of memory) it will vary. Gaming I would think would be better with just a pair rather than 3.
Well, I have 3GB and it IS paired :razz: How come?




Answer: 4 slots, 2 x 512MB + 2 x 1GB = 3GB total

[jadoocian]

Well, I have 3GB and it IS paired :razz: How come?




Answer: 4 slots, 2 x 512MB + 2 x 1GB = 3GB total

thats what im thinking of doing.


I just think its brutal that we can't have more than 3.5 gb of ram recognized by the system.

[BaconMunch]

Well, I have 3GB and it IS paired :razz: How come?

Answer: 4 slots, 2 x 512MB + 2 x 1GB = 3GB total

Thank you, I haven't done my own comparisons, but I think it almost makes no sense that people are arguing the benefits of running dual channel way out of context.

Of course if you're going to run two/four sticks, it is in your best interest to get matching pairs and get the benefits of running dual channel (10% boost in performance?) but since when does 3 gigs of ram in 3DIMMs give you worse performance than 2 gigs of ram running dual channel?
I'm sure I might get owned but I'd love to see some tests that prove this and prove that this is beneficial for people would benefit from the RAM.

In any case I am currently running 2x1gig + 2x 512mb.

[goofball]

There is a difference in SHOWING 4GB and USING 4GB. With some tinkering I am sure they could show you a 1000GB, but it might not mean much. ohhh alliteration!

I know there is a difference, I thought I was pretty clear in what I stated about how it shows it but still can't use it all? :confused: