RAM question

Bartacus

Bartacus

BartWatch
Joined
October 19, 2006
Messages
1,539
Location
Belgium - Flanders - Antwerp
Since I'm looking to buy a new pc, I have a question about RAM too. I know you should watch the clockspeed, but what I don't understand is that there are those 'twin' models. Are they really better and if they are why?

example:
'twin'
Kingston 4096 Mb (2x2048) DDR 2 800 Mhz CL 5 Hyper X €285,00
G.E.I.L. 4096 Ddr2 800 Value Dual Channel Kit (2 x 2048 Mb) €99,00
'one latch'
Apacer 2048 Mb DDR2 800 Mhz Pc 6400 CL 5 Passive Cooling €59,00
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
1,539
Location
Belgium - Flanders - Antwerp
my opinion is to look at the speed...

personally i would go for the ones at 99 euro... i mean they are "twin" models as you said so they could be better in a way....

i know kingston is teh win but looking at the prices.....

anyway gogo on getting a new PC ;)
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
383
"Twin" packs are a pair of RAM modules that's been tested together. It only really matters if you intend to (massively) overclock your system.

I've always gone with "value" RAM from respected brands (Kingston, Buffalo, Corsair) and have never had any problems. I only buy from stores that have a no-questions-asked return policy on RAM, though, so in case there is a problem I can swap. (FWIW I have overclocked my system by about 20%.)

IOW, in my opinion the high-end RAM is not worth the price.

Oh, and... you do know that you'll need to run the 64-bit version of your operating system to make use of 4 GB RAM?
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
8,540
Yeah, I do know that I should run the 64bit version -> After all, I am a system admin. :)

PJ, what do you think about Apacer? Since I most likely do not overclock my system, it's not really needed to go for a twin pack. About G.E.I.L I know that they don't have a very good reputation, but I don't know that from first or second hand.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
1,539
Location
Belgium - Flanders - Antwerp
Prime Junta said:
"Twin" packs are a pair of RAM modules that's been tested together. It only really matters if you intend to (massively) overclock your system.

I've always gone with "value" RAM from respected brands (Kingston, Buffalo, Corsair) and have never had any problems. I only buy from stores that have a no-questions-asked return policy on RAM, though, so in case there is a problem I can swap. (FWIW I have overclocked my system by about 20%.)

IOW, in my opinion the high-end RAM is not worth the price.

Oh, and... you do know that you'll need to run the 64-bit version of your operating system to make use of 4 GB RAM?
Click to expand...
100% my opinion. Buy solid brand value RAM. The price difference is better invested in a bigger graphics card.
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
7,830
I think I've got those GEIL's you are talking about, goat.

1000mhz is out now btw but I'm not aware of any MB's taking advanatge of it yet.

PJ, do you know what all the 5-5-5-15 and 4-4-4-12 stuff is all about? I know its a speed rating but I'm not certain what for. Its defitely a selling point on these things.

Also, dittos on the 32 bit 4gb problem. I learned this the hard way. I had heard there was a "fix" but it does not exist. My own MB which was supposed to be Vista compatible would not allow me to load it. That's when I found out it needed a BIOS upgrade to take 4gb. I managed to finally load Vista when I took it down to 2gb then I upgraded the BIOS and it took the 4gb.

MS was saying last year at this time that 4gb is the "sweet spot" for Vista but that just sounds like more buzz words. I'll put in 16gb to test if it does any worse.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
5,215
Location
The Uncanny Valley
Joined
Nov 18, 2006
Messages
525
Location
Sweden
thanks Kaz

Still on-topic has anyone else noticed the resurgence of RAMBUS? I actually saw an in program ad for it during a power play for Sharks vs Canucks.

A buddy of mine at the University was also running it on his Dell (Intel) Quad machine.

Is the same or new architecture as 8 years ago or is it just a name brand now?

RAMBUS was notoriously expensive and Intel made a huge mistake in the past committing to it. They turned off DDR compatibility on their chipset to become more proprietary and to try to force standards away from AMD.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
5,215
Location
The Uncanny Valley
Yes, I know Rambus. They're re-emering, seem to have a new concept or poduct or so.
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
21,962
Location
Old Europe
Your system would have to be awfully bleeding edge to bother worrying about RAM speed. If you're willing to spend the extra money, you might be better off investing in a second hard drive. That makes it more convenient to reformat and reinstall your operating software (and a healthy OS will have a greater effect on system speed).
 
Joined
Nov 11, 2006
Messages
1,807
Location
Orange County, California
Squeek said:
Your system would have to be awfully bleeding edge to bother worrying about RAM speed. If you're willing to spend the extra money, you might be better off investing in a second hard drive. That makes it more convenient to reformat and reinstall your operating software (and a healthy OS will have a greater effect on system speed).
Click to expand...
Why spend money on hard drives when you can partition to achieve the same effect?
 
Joined
Nov 18, 2006
Messages
525
Location
Sweden
Mmmmmmmmm. That's a good point. After three hard-drive crashes, I guess I just like the idea of having a second hard drive with an OS on it.
 
Joined
Nov 11, 2006
Messages
1,807
Location
Orange County, California
Squeek said:
Mmmmmmmmm. That's a good point. After three hard-drive crashes, I guess I just like the idea of having a second hard drive with an OS on it.
Click to expand...

Are you talkig about RAID 1 configuration or really another OS? I don't know if I should go for that: I never had a HD failure. The reason why I want to go for a second HD is that I want one fast (10k) and one large (+500GB)
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
1,539
Location
Belgium - Flanders - Antwerp
Sorry, I overlooked this.

I'm talking about a second installation of your operating software on a second drive that you can boot to whenever you want, like when you want to format the other drive (to perform a fresh install of your OS).

Partitioning achieves that too but doesn't help you in the event of a hard drive crash.

There are three basic considerations for system speed: The speed of the processor (and to a lesser extent the speed of the graphics processor), the speed of the operating software (Windows XP or whatever), and the speed that data moves across the system.

RAM speed figures into that last consideration but so does keeping your OS healthy. In other words healthy operating software will go further to improve overall system speed than having fancy RAM.
 
Joined
Nov 11, 2006
Messages
1,807
Location
Orange County, California
Exactly. And, ironically, the single biggest bottleneck in PC's nowadays is the one that gets forgotten most often: disk I/O.

If you want to make your system more responsive, the cheapest and most effective thing you can do is almost certainly to replace your system and program disk with a pair of (fast) disks in striped RAID configuration.

If you do so, though, be aware that it doubles the risk of system failure due to one of the disks dying; in other words, keep backups of any critical data you keep on them. But then you should be doing that anyway. Alternatives that eliminate this risk, and almost eliminate the risk of data loss due to disk failure, are three disks in RAID-5 configuration, or four in RAID-10.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
8,540
Dittos on RAID. I was quote pleased to find out that RAID 5 uses the memory of two disks. RAID 0 and RAID 1 don't do this.

Like Squeek I've decided to do Dual Boot but XP is having a hard time finding my RAID configuration. I don't want to have add a floppy drive to my system so I hope it can find the RAID driver on my CD.

Since its going to be XP 32 does anyone know if there's any harm to running 4gb's? I know it only recognizes 3.25gb. I'm concerned XP 32 could damage the rest.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
5,215
Location
The Uncanny Valley
Lucky Day said:
Dittos on RAID. I was quote pleased to find out that RAID 5 uses the memory of two disks. RAID 0 and RAID 1 don't do this.

Like Squeek I've decided to do Dual Boot but XP is having a hard time finding my RAID configuration. I don't want to have add a floppy drive to my system so I hope it can find the RAID driver on my CD.

Since its going to be XP 32 does anyone know if there's any harm to running 4gb's? I know it only recognizes 3.25gb. I'm concerned XP 32 could damage the rest.
Click to expand...

Actually, RAID 0 does give you the full capacity of the two disks: two 500GB disks in RAID-0 configuration will deliver you 1TB. The problem is that if one of them fails, you lose all the data.

There's no danger in running XP32 with 4 GB RAM; you just don't get the benefit of the extra memory.

If you want to install XP on a RAID array, you do (probably) need a floppy drive, even temporarily; the installation media is unlikely to have the driver for the controller. Vista installation DVD's have drivers for a wider variety of controllers, and failing that, they have a driver for a USB drive, so you can install the driver from a USB stick or memory card.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
8,540
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom