Please register or login. There are 0 registered and 189 anonymous users currently online. Current bandwidth usage: 326.30 kbit/s March 01 - 10:41am EST 
Hardware Analysis
      
Forums Product Prices
  Contents 
 
 

  Latest Topics 
 

More >>
 

    
 
 

  You Are Here: 
 
/ Forums / Memory /
 

  Faster or More 
 
 Author 
 Date Written 
 Tools 
Continue Reading on Page: 1, 2, Next >>
john dabrowski Nov 19, 2009, 06:31pm EST Report Abuse
Would it be better to run 4x4gb ddr2 800 or 4x2gb ddr2 1066. I'm currently running 2x2gb ddr2 800 gskill chips. What would be the pros and cons to both, and would I ever need 16gb of ram.

Thanks,
John


Asus P5q-se plus
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 @3.4ghz
64gb Crucial SSD
2x2gb G.Skill DDR2 800
Seagate 1tb sata II
Ati All-In-Wonder HD
22" ViewSonic LCD TV as monitor
Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit
Want to enjoy fewer advertisements and more features? Click here to become a Hardware Analysis registered user.
Bungle Nov 19, 2009, 06:48pm EST Report Abuse
>> Re: Faster or More
I would rather have the 8GB of 1066 than the 16GB of 800... The reason being that with current software 8GB is already overkill, once you reach a certain point (when the system is no longer memory starved) speed matters more than quantity.

I would say that in any case where you have more than 4GB of memory speed should be the primary concearn.

Core i7 4770K @ 4.4GHz | Corsair H110 | Gigabyte GA-Z87X-UD5H | 32GB 1866MHz Corsair Vengeance
2x EVGA GTX 780 SLI | 256GB OCZ Vector SSD | 4TB Hitachi 7K4000
Corsair AX1200 PSU | Corsair 650D | Windows 7 Ultimate x64
mothow Nov 19, 2009, 08:03pm EST Report Abuse
>> Re: Faster or More
Id go with 8gb's of DDR2 1066 over 16gbs of DDR2 800.But your at the sweet spot now.Just OC that ram a little and you will be fine and save some money

ASRock Z97 Extreme 4 / i7 4790K / Corsair H80i / 4x4GB Crucial Ballistix Smart Tracer DDR3 1600 / 1TB Western Digital Caviar Black / 240GB Mushkin Chronos Deluxe SSD / 2x Evga GTX 670 FTW 2GB in SLI / Sound Blaster Recon3D Fatal1ty / Corsair HX1000w
~Vel Nov 19, 2009, 08:52pm EST Report Abuse
>> Re: Faster or More
MrBungle said:
I would rather have the 8GB of 1066 than the 16GB of 800... The reason being that with current software 8GB is already overkill, once you reach a certain point (when the system is no longer memory starved) speed matters more than quantity.

I would say that in any case where you have more than 4GB of memory speed should be the primary concearn.


Agreed. Go for a speedy 8gb kit. Remember to go for a low latency so it's worth it.

john dabrowski Nov 19, 2009, 09:04pm EST Report Abuse
>> Re: Faster or More
OK so 1066 or 1200

Asus P5q-se plus
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 @3.4ghz
64gb Crucial SSD
2x2gb G.Skill DDR2 800
Seagate 1tb sata II
Ati All-In-Wonder HD
22" ViewSonic LCD TV as monitor
Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit
Nov 19, 2009, 09:26pm EST Report Abuse
>> Re: Faster or More
If it was 4GB vs. 8GB, I'd go with the 8GB (for me) just for the sake of my VM's. But unless you have a specific need for it, 16GB is overkill, go with the faster 8GB kit.

BoT Nov 20, 2009, 01:09pm EST Report Abuse
>> Re: Faster or More
mo speed, mo better

You can either be part of the problem or be part of the solution.
Codisha - http://www.codisha.com
Reviews - http://www.codisha.com/reviews/reviews.htm
Meats_Of_Evil Nov 20, 2009, 02:20pm EST Report Abuse
>> Re: Faster or More
I have 6gb and I feel like i'll never utilize it, bu I like it sitting there so no harm done.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everything I write is Sarcasm.
kOrny Nov 20, 2009, 02:22pm EST Report Abuse
>> Re: Faster or More
Meats_Of_Evil said:
I have 6gb and I feel like i'll never utilize it, bu I like it sitting there so no harm done.

haha i feel the same way, but I only have 4GB (well... 3.25 usable). i dont see why anyone would need anymore unless they're video editing while playing a video game.

Meats_Of_Evil Nov 20, 2009, 03:02pm EST Report Abuse
>> Re: Faster or More
what sucks is that I imagined my PC would be at least 3 times better but all it has helped so far is not slowing down apps that much and when I use alt+tab in a game it loads it a lot faster now. But really I think what would help a Pc the most is a super fast hard drive .

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everything I write is Sarcasm.
kOrny Nov 20, 2009, 03:19pm EST Report Abuse
>> Re: Faster or More
yup. i bet even our sata ii hd's are limiting us most. im curious to see how much faster sata iii drives will be.

Bungle Nov 20, 2009, 04:25pm EST Report Abuse
>> Re: Faster or More
A faster interface will not help mechanical drives go any faster... Even todays fastest (mechanical) drives cannot saturate a SATA 1 interface. If they can't peg out a 150MB/s link why would going to a 600MB/s link do any good.

We will see dramatic increases in HD performance in the next couple years when SSD's reach a more reasonable GB/$ ratio, and we can afford to jump on that bandwagon.

Core i7 4770K @ 4.4GHz | Corsair H110 | Gigabyte GA-Z87X-UD5H | 32GB 1866MHz Corsair Vengeance
2x EVGA GTX 780 SLI | 256GB OCZ Vector SSD | 4TB Hitachi 7K4000
Corsair AX1200 PSU | Corsair 650D | Windows 7 Ultimate x64
~Vel Nov 20, 2009, 04:32pm EST Report Abuse
>> Re: Faster or More
After looking at your configuration, I would think your money would be better off saved for a new computer since you're running a single core Pentium 4. To get more DDR2 RAM than what you already have for that dated of a CPU would be overkill in my opinion.

Nov 20, 2009, 04:34pm EST Report Abuse
>> Re: Faster or More
Wow Vel, didn't see that ... yeah, I'd rather have a multi-core with 2GB than a single-core P4 and 4GB. :-\

Meats_Of_Evil Nov 20, 2009, 05:01pm EST Report Abuse
>> Re: Faster or More
it will do you good to save the money since DDR2 is pretty much going obsolete these days and the prices have increased so much that imo it's not worth it. You should save and be patient and your next upgrade will be in the quad core and DDR3 kingdom without a doubt.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everything I write is Sarcasm.
kOrny Nov 20, 2009, 05:27pm EST Report Abuse
>> Re: Faster or More
MrBungle said:
A faster interface will not help mechanical drives go any faster... Even todays fastest (mechanical) drives cannot saturate a SATA 1 interface. If they can't peg out a 150MB/s link why would going to a 600MB/s link do any good.

We will see dramatic increases in HD performance in the next couple years when SSD's reach a more reasonable GB/$ ratio, and we can afford to jump on that bandwagon.

I guess ure right. Seems like drives have been 7200rpm for so long. I know there are 10,000 rpm, etc, that are out now, but they're still so expensive. When will the faster speeds become mainstream?

john dabrowski Nov 20, 2009, 05:37pm EST Report Abuse
>> Re: Faster or More
My q9550 is on the way. I have been putting off that purchase for way to long. I do plan on spending some more money on my current rig before buying something new. I've been looking a lot into ssd and maybe even ssd in raid 0. Haven't decided yet, but I always could use the ssd's in my new rig when I build that.

Asus P5q-se plus
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 @3.4ghz
64gb Crucial SSD
2x2gb G.Skill DDR2 800
Seagate 1tb sata II
Ati All-In-Wonder HD
22" ViewSonic LCD TV as monitor
Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit
~Vel Nov 20, 2009, 08:23pm EST Report Abuse
>> Re: Faster or More
john dabrowski said:
My q9550 is on the way. I have been putting off that purchase for way to long. I do plan on spending some more money on my current rig before buying something new. I've been looking a lot into ssd and maybe even ssd in raid 0. Haven't decided yet, but I always could use the ssd's in my new rig when I build that.


I wasn't going to step out and get the idea going, but if you were already looking into it I would jump on two or more SSDs (64gb drives being ideal) to put into RAID 0. As you probably know, that would be beneficial to nearly any system. Just keep in mind that you can have a separate hard drive for media files so you don't have to overdo it with the SSDs. Also, I suggest having some sort of backup system going, but that's just my paranoia. Perhaps 3 SSDs in RAID 5 would be a good idea.

Nov 20, 2009, 08:28pm EST Report Abuse
>> Re: Faster or More
~Vel (69519) said on Nov 20, 2009 at 05:23pm PST:
Also, I suggest having some sort of backup system going, but that's just my paranoia. Perhaps 3 SSDs in RAID 5 would be a good idea.

Indeed it would. I don't trust SSD's as it is -- putting them in RAID 0 only decreases my confidence in them. Would be fast as hell, though. :D

john dabrowski Nov 20, 2009, 08:43pm EST Report Abuse
>> Re: Faster or More
Does anyone know of a good raid card that's reasonable. I don't know much about raid setup's but I am going for speed and my understanding is that a hardware card with two ssd's in raid 0 would be screaming fast.

Asus P5q-se plus
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 @3.4ghz
64gb Crucial SSD
2x2gb G.Skill DDR2 800
Seagate 1tb sata II
Ati All-In-Wonder HD
22" ViewSonic LCD TV as monitor
Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit
Meats_Of_Evil Nov 21, 2009, 01:52am EST Report Abuse
>> Re: Faster or More

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everything I write is Sarcasm.

Continue Reading on Page: 1, 2, Next >>

 

    
 
 

  Topic Tools 
 
RSS UpdatesRSS Updates
 

  Related Articles 
 
 

  Newsletter 
 
A weekly newsletter featuring an editorial and a roundup of the latest articles, news and other interesting topics.

Please enter your email address below and click Subscribe.