This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for jpkustra
jpkustra

324

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 jpkustra
Member since 2003 • 324 Posts

Hey Gang.

I'd like to have some opinions and advice on if I should upgrade with another 2GB of RAM.

What are the practical reasons for having 4GB currently? Aside from future-proofing, I'm wondering if being a casual gamer will require another set of RAM vs. what I have right now.

See my sig for all my specs. Note: Will probably be getting the XFX 8800GTS 320MB before the year is out.

Thanks!

Avatar image for Deihmos
Deihmos

7819

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#2 Deihmos
Member since 2007 • 7819 Posts

You do not need 4GB of ram and for you to make use of it you will need a 64bit operating system. Tests have shown that over 2GB does not give any improvements. 2GB will be enough for a long time,at least until 6t4bit OS become popular which wouldn't be anytime soon.

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6167115/index.html?tag=result;title;3

Avatar image for Andrew0987
Andrew0987

7491

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 Andrew0987
Member since 2004 • 7491 Posts
If you are using vista I'd say go for it.
Avatar image for zenzen
zenzen

765

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 zenzen
Member since 2003 • 765 Posts
4gb is the max that will work with Vista 32-bit?

What is the max amount of RAM that will work with Vista 64-bit?
Avatar image for Deihmos
Deihmos

7819

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#5 Deihmos
Member since 2007 • 7819 Posts
Vista 32bit wouldn't use 4GB it will use 3-3.5GB. Vista 64bit can go a lot higher than 8GB.
Avatar image for kodex1717
kodex1717

5925

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 kodex1717
Member since 2005 • 5925 Posts

You do not need 2GB of ram and for you to make use of it you will need a 64bit operating system. Tests have shown that over 2GB does not give any improvements. 2GB will be enough for a long time,at least until 6t4bit OS become popular which wouldn't be anytime soon.

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6167115/index.html?tag=result;title;3

Deihmos
A few games, like BF2, make use of 2GB of RAM. Many people see stuttering in the game dissapear when they go from 1 to 2GB's of RAM.
Avatar image for jpkustra
jpkustra

324

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 jpkustra
Member since 2003 • 324 Posts

Vista 32bit wouldn't use 4GB it will use 3-3.5GB. Vista 64bit can go a lot higher than 8GB.Deihmos

So then if another 2GB of my RAM was the right price, which it is, having it wouldn't be a waste it seems. I typically don't shut down my messengers or web pages when I'm gaming. So even though the game might not be able to use more than 2GB, the other programs could benefit from it when using all of the programs together. That's the impression I'm getting from reading about 4GB at least.

Avatar image for SSJBen
SSJBen

7071

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 23

User Lists: 0

#8 SSJBen
Member since 2003 • 7071 Posts
2GB is about all you need for gaming. Unless you do alot video editing, 3D modeling, photoshopping and the sorts of stuff which eats up alot of RAM, 4GB really does nothing interms of gaming. Besides, you'll need a 64bit OS to make use of 4GB of RAM or more.
Avatar image for Deihmos
Deihmos

7819

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#9 Deihmos
Member since 2007 • 7819 Posts

[QUOTE="Deihmos"]Vista 32bit wouldn't use 4GB it will use 3-3.5GB. Vista 64bit can go a lot higher than 8GB.jpkustra

So then if another 2GB of my RAM was the right price, which it is, having it wouldn't be a waste it seems. I typically don't shut down my messengers or web pages when I'm gaming. So even though the game might not be able to use more than 2GB, the other programs could benefit from it when using all of the programs together. That's the impression I'm getting from reading about 4GB at least.

It will be a waste since it wouldn't do anything or improve anything. It's your money you can do as you like but you will need to switch to vista 64bit to make better use of it.

Avatar image for jrotc_redneck
jrotc_redneck

131

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 jrotc_redneck
Member since 2006 • 131 Posts
if u have the money and a x64 bit operating system (though depending on your motherboard, u made need the newest bios update also) then 4gb of ram isn't going to hurt...though it is true u wont see much improvement for most games out there....though u might get a good little boost for games like crysis....:)
Avatar image for jpkustra
jpkustra

324

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#11 jpkustra
Member since 2003 • 324 Posts

Right now with just some browswer windows and IM software, my system is running at 52% RAM used. I just booted up fear and minimized it and my ram usage is at 80%. No, it's not maxed out but it seems like with Crysis, I'm going to be pushing beyond my current 2gb. I'm not arguing, I'm just trying to put together the logic that anything more than 2GB is a waste. I know Vista 32 doesn't support more than 4GB but that doesn't mean there might not be a safety net in between 2 & 4GB.

I guess my reasoning is that if I only had the game open not everything else then 2GB would probably be fine. Since I don't feel like closing down a bunch of stuff to play, wouldn't the extra RAM help me with the multiple, open programs?

Avatar image for codezer0
codezer0

15898

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 44

User Lists: 0

#12 codezer0
Member since 2004 • 15898 Posts
If you can afford it, there's no reason not to go for 4GB's of RAM now. If you only intend on running a 32-bit OS, it means you won't have to worry about needing more, because that's the physical limit of what a 32-bit OS can address. More RAM always benefits somehow. The issue has just been how much improvement is there for the cost. Now that that cost is coming down, might as well get more if you can.
Vista 32bit wouldn't use 4GB it will use 3-3.5GB. Vista 64bit can go a lot higher than 8GB.Deihmos
Wrong. 32-bit OS's do use all of the address space for 4GB's of memory. What happens is that as a weakness of the x86 architecture, it reserves at least the last .5GB's for I/O addresses for connected devices, and optionally more for a cache of your video RAM. There are work-arounds to this if you have a CPU & chipset that support a higher-bit memory address space, by basically remapping all those I/O and other "reserved" data into the memory space above 4GB's, but all the hardware and software would have to support this. It's what the "Physical Address Extension" or PAE switch is about. And well, some drivers simply go ape **** the second they deal with a memory address greater than 0xFFFFFFFF (the highest possible address in a 32-bit memory space). As such, as a safeguard, if there's any link in the chain that can't do it, windows will default to not using PAE.
Avatar image for jpkustra
jpkustra

324

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#13 jpkustra
Member since 2003 • 324 Posts

If you can afford it, there's no reason not to go for 4GB's of RAM now. If you only intend on running a 32-bit OS, it means you won't have to worry about needing more, because that's the physical limit of what a 32-bit OS can address. More RAM always benefits somehow. The issue has just been how much improvement is there for the cost. Now that that cost is coming down, might as well get more if you can. [QUOTE="Deihmos"]Vista 32bit wouldn't use 4GB it will use 3-3.5GB. Vista 64bit can go a lot higher than 8GB.codezer0
Wrong. 32-bit OS's do use all of the address space for 4GB's of memory. What happens is that as a weakness of the x86 architecture, it reserves at least the last .5GB's for I/O addresses for connected devices, and optionally more for a cache of your video RAM. There are work-arounds to this if you have a CPU & chipset that support a higher-bit memory address space, by basically remapping all those I/O and other "reserved" data into the memory space above 4GB's, but all the hardware and software would have to support this. It's what the "Physical Address Extension" or PAE switch is about. And well, some drivers simply go ape **** the second they deal with a memory address greater than 0xFFFFFFFF (the highest possible address in a 32-bit memory space). As such, as a safeguard, if there's any link in the chain that can't do it, windows will default to not using PAE.

Nice! Thanks for bringing some techincal info into it.

Does that mean if I only have 2GB currently, then there is still .5GB's of that being reserved? If that is the case then i would definitely think that anything higher than 2GB would be a good safe guard.

My current RAM is only about $160 from Newegg(paid $350 or something earlier in the year). So I'm thinking to get another 2 sticks before Crysis or UT3 come out would actually be helpful even if it wont ever fully reach the 4GB limit.

Avatar image for Nitrous2O
Nitrous2O

1813

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#14 Nitrous2O
Member since 2004 • 1813 Posts

Nice! Thanks for bringing some techincal info into it. jpkustra

This is a very good article, complete with mathematical explanation for why life ends at 4GB for a 32-bit OS...http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000811.html

More advice when upgrading RAM...http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/may/31/guardianweeklytechnologysection.it

Avatar image for codezer0
codezer0

15898

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 44

User Lists: 0

#15 codezer0
Member since 2004 • 15898 Posts
[QUOTE="jpkustra"]Nice! Thanks for bringing some techincal info into it. Does that mean if I only have 2GB currently, then there is still .5GB's of that being reserved? If that is the case then i would definitely think that anything higher than 2GB would be a good safe guard. My current RAM is only about $160 from Newegg(paid $350 or something earlier in the year). So I'm thinking to get another 2 sticks before Crysis or UT3 come out would actually be helpful even if it wont ever fully reach the 4GB limit.

That ".5GB reserve" only applies to the VERY LAST .5GB of addressable space in a 32-bit memory address. Whereas system memory starts from the very first bits of addressable memory space. So with 2GB's of system RAM, you (as a user) can still use all 2GB's of memory, without worrying about hitting any of that reserved memory space, because they're allocated at opposing ends of the addressable memory space. And if your system (and software) can support PAE, then what that does is it allocates that "reserved I/O space" into the .5 or so GB AFTER the full 32-bit address space... in which case, that would mean you could use the full 4GB of memory addressable in a 32-bit OS, and the I/O addresses would still have their reserved space. However, having a system where the hardware, OS and drivers all support this feature is very difficult, if not nigh on impossible, because if any one part of the links does not support it, then it will kick back into that safeguard I'd mentioned.
Avatar image for kodex1717
kodex1717

5925

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#16 kodex1717
Member since 2005 • 5925 Posts
Damn. This thread makes me wish I'd gone for a board that actually worked with more than 2GB. Oh well, I suppose I can always clear my taskbar if I ever hit the roof.
Avatar image for codezer0
codezer0

15898

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 44

User Lists: 0

#17 codezer0
Member since 2004 • 15898 Posts
Damn. This thread makes me wish I'd gone for a board that actually worked with more than 2GB. Oh well, I suppose I can always clear my taskbar if I ever hit the roof.kodex1717
What are you talking about? the nForce2 already could accept 3 1GB sticks of RAM. And most 680i's can accept four 2GB sticks for a total of 8GB's of system RAM. At this point, it's more the OS's fault for not fully supporting all of that memory.
Avatar image for kodex1717
kodex1717

5925

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#18 kodex1717
Member since 2005 • 5925 Posts
[QUOTE="kodex1717"]Damn. This thread makes me wish I'd gone for a board that actually worked with more than 2GB. Oh well, I suppose I can always clear my taskbar if I ever hit the roof.codezer0
What are you talking about? the nForce2 already could accept 3 1GB sticks of RAM. And most 680i's can accept four 2GB sticks for a total of 8GB's of system RAM. At this point, it's more the OS's fault for not fully supporting all of that memory.

I bought an ECS AMD690GM-M2 with two DIMM slots. It works with 2 x 1GB but I have heard that it won't even POST if you put in 2x2GB. It claims to support up to 8GB, but apparently doesn't.
Avatar image for codezer0
codezer0

15898

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 44

User Lists: 0

#19 codezer0
Member since 2004 • 15898 Posts
I bought an ECS AMD690GM-M2 with two DIMM slots. It works with 2 x 1GB but I have heard that it won't even POST if you put in 2x2GB. It claims to support up to 8GB, but apparently doesn't.
kodex1717
Your fault for buying an ECS motherboard, then. :lol:
Avatar image for HowardB
HowardB

1689

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#20 HowardB
Member since 2002 • 1689 Posts

By default, 32-bit versions of Windows with 4GB of memory installed allocate 2GB to applications and 2GB to the kernel. This means applications only have access to 2GB of that 4GB of memory regardless of the amount that shows up after MMIO reservations. Many 32-bit applications won't use more than 2GB of memory even if it's available, such as when using the /3GB switch.

PAE isn't a work around for address space allocation. The idea behind PAE is to use the 36-bit address bus of the processor to map physical addresses above the 4GB limitation (up to 64GB). Even with PAE, though, you're still stuck with 32-bit addressing flags and rules, limiting the amount of memory each application can access to 4GB (2GB / 3GB to the application, 2GB / 1GB to the kernel). PAE only becomes useful when running multiple applications on multiple processors simultaneously.

If you really want to use more than 2GB - 3GB of memory, you have to move to a 64-bit operating system.

Avatar image for kodex1717
kodex1717

5925

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#21 kodex1717
Member since 2005 • 5925 Posts
Yep. I was lured in by the new 690G chipset and X1250 Xpress onboard video. I might end-up getting a new motherboard by the time I need 4GB, though.
Avatar image for littlehelp
littlehelp

1264

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#22 littlehelp
Member since 2004 • 1264 Posts
I had planned to buy 2GB(1gbx2) and 1GB(512mbx2) for a total of 3GB. Would this work out any better for Vista 32?
Avatar image for codezer0
codezer0

15898

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 44

User Lists: 0

#23 codezer0
Member since 2004 • 15898 Posts

By default, 32-bit versions of Windows with 4GB of memory installed allocate 2GB to applications and 2GB to the kernel. This means applications only have access to 2GB of that 4GB of memory regardless of the amount that shows up after MMIO reservations. Many 32-bit applications won't use more than 2GB of memory even if it's available, such as when using the /3GB switch.

PAE isn't a work around for address space allocation. The idea behind PAE is to use the 36-bit address bus of the processor to map physical addresses above the 4GB limitation (up to 64GB). Even with PAE, though, you're still stuck with 32-bit addressing flags and rules, limiting the amount of memory each application can access to 4GB (2GB / 3GB to the application, 2GB / 1GB to the kernel). PAE only becomes useful when running multiple applications on multiple processors simultaneously.

If you really want to use more than 2GB - 3GB of memory, you have to move to a 64-bit operating system.

HowardB
Wrong again. There is nothing in Windows that has it taking up 2GB's of system RAM by itself. If that were the case, people who had systems with less than 2GB's of RAM would have run out and had nothing left to run anything else.
Avatar image for b11051973
b11051973

7621

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#24 b11051973
Member since 2002 • 7621 Posts
Newegg.com had a rebate on 2 GB of ballistix memory. I bought it and now have 4 GB. Vista only sees 3 GB of it, but I figure I'll go 64 bit sooner than later.
Avatar image for HowardB
HowardB

1689

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#25 HowardB
Member since 2002 • 1689 Posts
[QUOTE="HowardB"]

By default, 32-bit versions of Windows with 4GB of memory installed allocate 2GB to applications and 2GB to the kernel. This means applications only have access to 2GB of that 4GB of memory regardless of the amount that shows up after MMIO reservations. Many 32-bit applications won't use more than 2GB of memory even if it's available, such as when using the /3GB switch.

PAE isn't a work around for address space allocation. The idea behind PAE is to use the 36-bit address bus of the processor to map physical addresses above the 4GB limitation (up to 64GB). Even with PAE, though, you're still stuck with 32-bit addressing flags and rules, limiting the amount of memory each application can access to 4GB (2GB / 3GB to the application, 2GB / 1GB to the kernel). PAE only becomes useful when running multiple applications on multiple processors simultaneously.

If you really want to use more than 2GB - 3GB of memory, you have to move to a 64-bit operating system.

codezer0

Wrong again. There is nothing in Windows that has it taking up 2GB's of system RAM by itself. If that were the case, people who had systems with less than 2GB's of RAM would have run out and had nothing left to run anything else.

I didn't say Windows uses 2GB of memory. I said WITH 4GB OF MEMORY INSTALLED, 32-BIT VERSIONS OF WINDOWS WILL ALLOCATE 2GB TO APPLICATIONS AND 2GB TO THE KERNEL. Allocate, as in allocate memory addresses, just the way MMIO addresses are reserved.

Applications running on a 32-bit version of Windows are limited to 2GB of address space. This address space includes both physical memory and page file, making the largest amount of physical memory a single application can address 2GB. Although, most applications will crash before using that much physical memory due to the page file exhausting the available addresses.

Here's an AnandTech article that discusses the problem.

Avatar image for Hung_Phat
Hung_Phat

469

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#26 Hung_Phat
Member since 2002 • 469 Posts
Save your $$$ and wait for DDR3 RAM instead. As has been said you don't need 4GB RAM. He11 you dont even need 3 GB
Avatar image for portujoel5
portujoel5

745

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#27 portujoel5
Member since 2003 • 745 Posts

kodex1717

A few games, like BF2, make use of 2GB of RAM. Many people see stuttering in the game dissapear when they go from 1 to 2GB's of RAM.

Thats exactly my story. Now I don't have any probs with Battlefield 2 since I did a cheap upgrade with +1gb.

Avatar image for BrooklynBomber
BrooklynBomber

1507

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28 BrooklynBomber
Member since 2007 • 1507 Posts
Sorry if this has been said already but use 2 gigs of fast ramIN A 32BIT os all benchmarks say 4 is slower. Now if you use a 64bit os like win xp/vista for video encoding/photoshop ectthen you will see a difference. Beware 64bit os's have driver issues AND VISTA 32BIT HAS A HUGE MEMORY LEAK !!
Avatar image for michael098
michael098

3441

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#29 michael098
Member since 2006 • 3441 Posts

Hey Gang.

I'd like to have some opinions and advice on if I should upgrade with another 2GB of RAM.

What are the practical reasons for having 4GB currently? Aside from future-proofing, I'm wondering if being a casual gamer will require another set of RAM vs. what I have right now.

See my sig for all my specs. Note: Will probably be getting the XFX 8800GTS 320MB before the year is out.

Thanks!

jpkustra

4gigs of ram for gaming is not really needed, and like people have said you will need a 64bit OS.