Is Four gigs worth the money?

Ram is getting cheaper by the minute and I was wondering if I should mump on the cheap Ram train before it is too late. I have a couple of questions...

1. i know that PC6400 is DDR2-800. I know that santa rosa supports it but does not necessarily utilize all the speed. Should I wait for this ram to become more common and cheap and buy it?

2. Should I buy the 4 gigs now (how much would the previous 2 gigs net me?).

 

laptops can only run 667 mhz ram now, so its a waste to go higher. and getting ram is up do you everyone is different. 512 is fine for some, so how do we know if 4 gbs is worth it for you...we dont know your or know what you use your computer for or how power hungry you are.

 

512MB is not fine at all, unless maybe you're running XP.
With 4GB you will not have any worries for a few years.

 

32-bit Windows can use only 3GB. All the PC-6400 RAM I have seen data for is CL5 @ 667MHz so it will run no faster than current RAM with the Santa Rosa chipset. If you want more than 2GB then consider getting one 2GB module and running 3GB. The loss in memory bandwidth from not having true dual channel with two identical modules is insignificant. See the dual channel RAM thread in the hardware forum.

John

 

I don't know if it's worth the money, as I didn't pay for it. DELL upgraded my RAM from 2 GB to 4GB for their super-duper delays. But I can tell you, it's wonderful to have, though I canonly see 3.5 GB due to the 32-bit OS.

 

I called XPS support regarding this and they explained that although 32-bit Vista sees less RAM, the whole 4GB is recognized by BIOS and actually fully utilized.

Are they telling the truth?

 

approx. how much hotter would four gigs be? i know it'd b hotter, but I don't want it to be too hot to put on my lap and such.

 

I'm using 4Gbs now and I don't regret my decision. More memory to run applications simultaneously and less page file thrashing during games is something I've grown to love.

 

Really? Where did you hear/read that? Intel states the 965 Chipset' System Memory Support for 533/667 only ("official" support, of course). None the less, I've always bought faster-rated RAM (if the price was right) for my PCs to facilitate overclocking. To do so, you need an OC-friendly BIOS that allows you to not only adjust the speed, but sometimes even the voltage of the RAM.

I'm relatively new in the Notebook scene, but I don't know of any bootleg / underground BIOS versions for our Notebooks. Remember, it's the BIOS that dictates the Memory-Bus speed, which is usually some ratio of the FSB, regardless of the RAM's actual max speed rating. "Standard" for Santa Rosa is 533/667MHz. So DDR2@667 implies 333MHz bus which is comes out to ~5:3 of the base FSB (200MHz), if I'm not mistaken. Changing the ratio to 2:1 will get you a memory-bus speed equal to FSB.

Depends on the price, I'd say. Dell EU wanted like over €400 difference between the 2 & 4GB options so of course I avoided it like the plague. If you can get it (elsewhere) dirt-cheap then I'd say it will eventually be of benefit to you, particularly if you decide to upgrade to a 64bit OS.

On the other hand, I have 2GB on my XPS M1330 (w/32bit VISTA) and when I want to play a 3D game or run benchmarks, I stop all other apps and a few unecessary tasks. I then run a memory-recovery app that recovers allocated memory no longer in use. This is because many apps do not release the memory area they use prior to terminating.

Long story-short, I have approx. 1700/2048MB free memory. Thus the core VISTA OS and a few extraneous tasks only require 348MB to run (meaning started processes which are idle, of course). I guarantee you that there are no standard apps or games that require more than 1700MB...!

Of course, apps like Photoshop will take up "as much as you've got", but 1700 should still be enough for all but pro Digital imaging / 3D animation / Video editors etc - in which case, you should working off a desktop or a desktop-replacement Notebook.

Last but not least, sorry for rambling on like that...

 

I believe you meant PC2-5300. PC2-6400 is rated at 800MHz, not that I could find any for sale in the NB format... .

Kingston has some 2GB modules that would run me ~ €100 (per module, "unmatched"). Same latencies as the modules (using Qimonda chips) that were delivered with my M1330; 5-5-5-15.

 

There have been many reviews on the net and most of them all agree that 2gb is the sweet spot for Vista and Ram. Going higher doesn't increase your performance enough to justify the additional cost.

 

That's strange, because I've read that 2 GB is minimum required to run Vista smoothly, no matter what MS says.

 

The whole 4 GB is recognized by the BIOS, but it is not utilized by 32-bit Vista in any way, shape, or fashion. Think about this: If Vista only SEES 3 GB of RAM, how can it USE 4 GB?

 

the system kan use the remaining 768mb for shared video.
This means that you can allocate 800Mbyte for a videocard, without sacrificing main memory.

So yes: 3328mb to the OS and 768 to shared video means u are utlizing the whole 4 Gigs

 

Is that true? Is the dynamic memory allocation handled by the BIOS or the OS? I would think that the driver controls access to memory, and if it is running in a 32-bit OS it would only be able to see what the OS sees(?)

 

I understood it dynamicly allocated directly at BIOS level, not at driver level
that's why some bios already allow you to predefine the memory size

 

Help guys. I'm getting a new Vostro 1500 + 4GB ram G-skill. I wonder if the core 2 duo T5270 (1.4GHz/800Mhz FSB/2MB cache) is suitable with 4GB? I mean thaz balance between CPU and RAM? or should I get a higher CPU (like T7250 or uppers)?

 

I have 4gb and I would tell anyone to get as much ram as their system can hold. Think about it like this...

You get your notebook from dell, it comes with all stuff already running in the background dell put on there.

Then you install mouse softwqare. Then anti-virus software. Then bittorrent. Then some sidebar crap. Then you want to listen to some music and install something (iphone/ipod crap)..

Now that all this stuff is running, what if you want to play a game, which most now use at least 1GB of memory... Do something in Office, with word and excel going..

That last gigabyte will be used up fast.

2GB is not the sweet spot. It's the bare miniumum. 4GB is the sweet spot

 

As your RAM degrades, wouldn't those spare sectors on a 4GB setup then be recognised and utilised?

That would justify a 4GB system for me if true.

Horsepower with a spare stable.

 

That last gigabyte won't be used AT ALL unless you're running a 64-bit OS. If the system can't address that memory, it can't use it.

 

Actually it's only 512MB Vista 32 won't see.

But I was talking about the last gig of the 2gb that gets used fast.

 

Wrong. 32-Bit Windows can address up to 4 GB, though some of that address space is used for GPU RAM and other reservations.

On a Santa-Rosa laptop, you should see 3.5 GB. On a pre-Santa Rosa laptop, depending on the configuration, you should between 3 and 3.25 GB of RAM.

It's cheap enough that, if needed, I would buy 4 GB, and I did buy 4 GB when it was close to double what it is now.

I do some light HD video-editing, so, especially with vista, I need 4 GB. If you are just doing word/outlook/solitaire, 2 GB is plenty.

 

its both...
ever heard of turbocache? (nvidia technology. The card has some low amount of memory, usually 32 or 64MB. (this would be allocated by the BIOS if intergrated graphics). More memory is allocated by the driver dynamically).

on the dell optiplexes at my school, they have GMA 950's. The bios only allows max 8MB allocation...that's 2D graphics area. However, the driver can allocate up to 224MB. ( i think...)

the new nvidias and X3100 can allocate more memory....

also, if the registers are taken up and no more memory can be addressed on 32-bit, how the heck would the driver magically come up with more registers to count the memory the OS can't see?

 

I don't disagree with you, but that's an amusing statement. The irony of the "640k ought to be enough for anyone," comment by Gates. What a sad state of affairs when it takes 2GB of memory to type a document, write an email, and play solitaire.

IMHO, Vista is "ok" with 1GB. It's a whole lot better with 2GB and absolutely, positively worth the $50-$100 price for the upgrade (aftermarket). I've seen this first hand with my 1520 and an HP dv9000. I agree, 2GB is what should be 'standard' for Vista.

I've not experienced Vista with 3.5/4GB, so I can't say for sure if an additional 2GB has the same bang-for-the-buck factor as the 1 to 2 upgrade. I do know that I've never seen my memory usage exceed 75%, my 1520 seems quite snappy, and am perfectly content with 2GB for standard tasks + iTunes + a few games like Civ IV, Supreme Commander, etc.

 

Check the Hot Ram Deals thread, and get the best deal on 4 gigs you can find.

 

I've read on Microsoft page thaz we can upgrade Vista base into 64bit? So it'll release all power of 4 gigs?

 

edited..see next post.

 

OCZ DDRII SDRAM PC2-6400 / 800MHz / 4GB SO-DIMM 200pin is available from Dell.com for 85$.
Does this work with XPS M1330, My proc is T7500/2.4GHZ/800MHZ FSB/4MB L2 Cache.

Dell product advisor says it does not work with XPS M1330 due to dual-channel. they cut me off before i asked them if i can remove the existing memory and keep this 4GB pC2-6400 stick alone.

Did anyone try?

 

The current bandwidth limit of DDR2 RAM on laptops is 667 MHz. Don't get 800 MHz as it will just be underclocked to 667.

 

I can vouch for 4 gigs. It's not as big as an increase as when you upgrade from 1 to 2 but things are just a split second faster when you have 2 or more applications open.

It's also a nice feature when I'm surfing, chatting, typing a document and all of a sudden decide I want to play a game - I don't have to shut down all my apps to get the most performance out of my system.

I would say it's a very nice luxury but not a necessity at this point unless you are working in environments that benefit from the maximum amount of memory.

 

No. They're clueless. The 4 GiB is recognised by the BIOS, that much is true, but it's entirely invisible to the operating system: Windows just can't get at it.

On a Santa Rosa machine, expect to see about 3.5 GiB in 32-bit Windows. On other machines you'll "lose" more.