2 GB or 4 GB of RAM for gaming?

I am currently running a Dell XPS 1710 with a T7600G proc, 2 GB of RAM and Vista Home Prem. My questions are:

Is 4 GB of RAM significantly better than 2 GB for gaming?

I remember seeing somewhere that 32 bit Vista and XP max out at around 3GB of RAM and if you wanted to be able to use all 4 GB, one would have to use a 64 bit OS. Is this correct?

Lastly, can a 64-bit OS be loaded onto a notebook with a Core 2 duo or do I need a 64 bit AMD proc?

 

you cannot load 64 bit operating systems on a 32 bit cpu, but the core 2 duo is a 64 bit processor.

you do not need an amd processor to run 64 bit operating systems. both amd and intel have 64 bit cpus available. the core 2 duo is by far the best.

2 GB of ram is fine in xp. sometimes a little more is needed for vista. 4 GB of ram will certainly help for the ram intensive games in xp.

 

Well, you will see an improvement I believe in Vista with more then 2GB of RAM if you GPU can utilize Vista turbocache. Yes, 32-bit Vista won't recognize all of 4GB, but it will recognize 3GB, give or take a few hundred MB (seen it go to 3.3GB depending on the box). You should see definite improvement with additional RAM from what I've seen.

You can install Vista 64-bit on a Core 2 Duo. The problem is going to be drivers, no matter the chip. I think video card drivers (hardware drivers in general) are not as mature in 64-bit and some software may not work properly. So you may see worse performance.

That said, I haven't run 64-bit Vista, and I have run multiple instances of 64-bit Server 2003 with no issues (of course no consumer level drivers on those boxes).

 

Buy 1 stick of 2gb Ram, take 1 stick of 1 gb out of the laptop and stuck the 2gb in. U ll have the optimal amount of ram in ur notebook then.

 

That depends on the games you're playing.
2GB should be enough for most games that you can fire up on your Dell.
Sure, 4GB would improve loading times but not that much.
But hey, if you can get some cheap ram, go for it. You can't have enough of that stuff. : )

Yep, that's right.

"In any 32-bit operating system, the virtual address space is limited, by definition, to the size of a 32-bit value"
That results in only 3,454MB being usable.

No, that would NOT be optimal.
You should always use ram sticks of the same size if possible.
That way the system can make use of the dual channel feature.

That can result in a speedboost of up to 20% compared to having RAM sticks of different capacity running in 64bit mode.

 

Thanks for the quick replies.

Does the RAM I add have to be 'matched' to work best in my notebook? I remember that older CPUs/Chipsets would yield the best performance/reliability with two same size (and preferably same brand) RAM modules. Is this still the case?

 

That's the dual channel feature I described above.
Two sticks of the same size and speed and you enable the 128bit data bus.

edit: Gotta correct myself. They don't have to have the same speed, only the same size.
If the speeds don't match, they will still run in dual channel mode, but both modules will only run as fast as the slowest one you have installed.

 

I'm using 4GB G Skills with Vista 64. So far no probs with steam games, C&C3, and warcraft 3. The only annoying thing is having to constantly right click and install/run with administrative status for some things...

 

Here's how I would approach this.

Are you having any performance issues with the games you play, specifically RAM-related problems? Check your hard drive activity light while gaming. If it is on constantly then you have a RAM problem most likely. If possible, check the Task Manager while you are playing a game and note the RAM usage.

4GB of RAM will provide a performance increase if you're using more than what you have now (2GB). However if you are not using more than you have now then it won't make a difference one way or another. It's like saying "My car seats five people but only three are occupied at most. Should I get more seats?" Doesn't make any sense to get more.

RAM is cheap, and it is only going to get cheaper. Wait until you actually do need the RAM to get it.

 

More Rams > Dual Channel... Dual Channel benefits are really small nowadays.. I did read tru the whole forum about it thou and what type of problem u ll be having when u have 4gb (not big problems but some that u ll regret of buying that expensive 2gb stick)

 

I have to disagree with you. Won't the dual channel work by using only 1GB from each stick and spare the rest for system memory?

EDIT: http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=127050

 

I dont think its really that big of a deal anyways. If you use huge Photoshop files and large games that have long load times and lots of background apps, you will get more of a benefit from 3 gigs of RAM than from running 2 gigs in DDR mode.
Anyways, most people report only about a 5-7% increase in performance in real world performance with DDR enabled.

 

how bad is the Vista 64-bit compared to vista/XP 32-bit?

 

That sucks that Vista only recognises 3 gig of ram. A total waste of the other gig. Notice how companies like Dell & Alienware only offer either 1 gig, 2 gig or 4 gig but no option to specify 3 gig. Sounds like a total rip off to me.

 

Vista 32 bit only uses around 3 gig
Vista 64 bit can use much more

 

Dell and Alienware are the same company

 

More RAM > Dual Channel, well that depends.
In regular applications I totally agree with you, Photoshop for example would benefit better from more RAM than DualChannel because the same big ass file stays in the RAM while you're working on it.
Most games on the other hand don't use much more than 2GB but they change the content of the RAM much faster than photoshop, so here speed is more of an issue than size.

And RAM isn't that expensive nowadays. I can get 2x2GB for around 170€.
That way I'd have DualChannel and full 4GB when I switch to Vista 64bit.

As for the threadstarter, you can do what Lunatek said, use 2+1GB
and exchange the 1GB module for another 2GB and a 64bit OS later when you have some spare money lying around, to fully utilize the capabilities of your system.

You mean if you're using ram sticks of different size?
No, not as far as I know.
Maybe they've changed something in how DualChannel is utilized but after some googling yesterday all I've read is what I already knew:
The sticks can be of different speed (settling for the slowest), but NOT different size.

 

get a 2GB stick, swap your 1GB, youll have 3GB and stick with 32bit os, the 64bit ones rnt stable enough.

Forget about dual channel, you're better off with the extra GB. Dual channel doesnt do much anyway.

 

Sorry yes alienware & dell are the same company. My point is virtually every company be it dell/alienware, mesh, evesham, rockdirect etc. offer vista 32-bit and then only allow you to specify 1 gig, 2 gig or 4 gig ram and no option for 3. Moving from 2 to 4 gig can raise the cost by a few hundred but it is very poor if Vista only utilises 3 gigs - the 4th gig is doing nothing from the sounds of it. I personally tend to have lots of apps running at once and would prefer to have more than 2 gigs if for Vista Ultimate if I buy but I don't want to pay for 4 gigs of ram if only 3 of them will be doing anything.

 

Seconded. This is the most optimal configuration for gaming. Search around the notebooks specific forums for user testimony if you want the specifics. Then depending on whether you're running a DX9 or DX10 game stick with XP or Vista, respectively.

 

Interesting topic.

Sooooo....3GB or Dual channel for games????

 

ineedmoney, Nice pic , i'd go for dual channel

 

actually it completely depends on your setup.

dual channel might not do anything for you. if you have 667mhz ddr ram and a 667mhz bus, dual channel does nothing. if you have 667mhz ddr ram and an 800mhz bus, dual channel is helpful.

(catch me if im wrong, but i dont think so)

 

Clock speed is irrelevant here.

 

Also, stick with XP 32bit. 64bits OS are not stable, many apps dont have 64bit support. Vista isnt recommended if you game, maybe in a few months. So you'll still only have 3GB available.

 

Nope, it only affects the databus bandwith (64 vs 128bit) not the speed

 

Ok, my reply was a tad too short

thx for the add-on

 

Dual-channel doesn't provide much of a benefit for the Core series processors because they simply aren't ultra bandwidth dependent like the Pentium 4 was. You won't notice a difference between single-channel and dual-channel in regular usage. I ran on a single 2GB stick for about two weeks before I got my other 2GB stick back from RMA. I have not seen a difference since I installed it.

I don't know the exact percentage increase in performance you are going to get from dual-channel with a Core series processor. I can tell you that it's not more than a few percent. The performance of today's hardware is already so high that adding a few more percent doesn't do much.

As a general rule of thumb, more RAM = better. If you have Vista 32-bit, don't buy 4GB because as noted you're only going to see 3GB of a bit more. I have 4GB and I only see 3,062MB. The only reason I got 4GB is because I know Intel integrated GPUs like memory bandwidth and I've going to give mine all I can.

 

I thought that Vista recognizes 4 GB of ADDRESSABLE ram. For example, if a video card had 768 MB of ram, then the addressable system ram would be 3.25 GB.

If someone has a video card that can utilize system ram, there is no reason to not have 4 GB of ram. Even though the dedicated video cards have 256 MB of ram, that still leaves your system with 3.75 GB of ram. You can then dedicate 768 MB of that for shared video card ram, and then the other 3 GB will be used by the system.

 

Ouch.

I'm tempted to give a +1 just for that.

But I believe if your GPU can make use of the Turbocache feature, maybe getting 1gb of RAM then adding a 2gb stick will give you good performance in a 32bit OS like XP Pro or Vista 32.

Personally.. I ordered 2x 1gb SODIMMs so until I do feel like I need 3 gb or more I can take full advantage of Dual Channeling my 2 1gb sticks, no matter how small the performance would be. My card doesn't have turbocache though.

 

I have 4GB but my MBP only sees 2.98GB on windows. Anything wrong with that?

 

So, DDR2 ram needs to be dual slotted to get the best performancce.

And Vista 32-bit can only really benfit from around 3gb ram.

So if I put 3 gb RAM, using two 1gb chips and two 0.5 gb chips, I would get both the extra RAM and using the full dual capacity of DDR2 memories.

Correct?

 

does any one know where i can buy RAM express card thingys><

 

Desktop question? Yes if you have 4 slots and can configure for 3.5GB's sure sounds good to me.