2 GB Dual Channel or 2.5 GB's of RAM

Hey guys, I recently purchased 1 GB of Corsair Value Select, PC5300, 200-sodimm memory ($39.99) for my incoming Dell 1520. Now when I bought the Dell, I chose for them to put in only 1 GB of RAM in there, and I initially thought that there would only be 1 slot being taken up (dumb). I thought that I made the wrong decision when buying this 1 GB Corsair RAM, because I would only have enough for 1.5 GB's of RAM, and I would like to have at least 2 GB's in my notebook (mainly b/c of Vista, gaming, etc.). So then, I decided I would just ship the product back to newegg for a refund. Then I bought a 2 GB stick of RAM of OCZ (89.99) for my laptop. Now, I obviously did not think this one over at all, because now I'm wondering, should I buy another 1 GB stick of Corsair Value Select and have dual-channel (which I've been researching about online and I like the idea a lot) and then ship back the OCZ 2 GB stick, OR just install the 2GB stick and have a total of 2.5 GB but NO dual-channel.

Now also, I liked the idea of only having to open the back compartment to install the 2 GB stick and not having to mess around with the keyboard in order to get the other RAM slot, but I'm sure I could do it, it would just be a hassle. BOTH sticks of RAM are currently at my home, I'm just staring at them until I made a decision and until my 1520 comes.

Now what do you guys think I should do?

 

2.5 GB is a lot of RAM.. I would just stick with that..

 

You can use software such as SiSoftware Sandra to benchmark your memory in different configurations. There may be a small speed benefit in having two modules the same (I recently measured 2 x 1GB running about 5% faster than 1GB + 512MB in the same computer). However, I think that the extra 512MB in your 2.5GB configuration will give more of a boost to overall performance.

John

 

I asked myself the same question when i originally was in the market for ram. From what i've researched, there is little difference between running 2gb's in symmetric dual channel and running 2.5gb's in asymmetric dual channel (2gb dimm and 512mb dimm). I liked the idea of being able to upgrade the density of my ram in the future if my ram needs go up. Because of that, i went with a 2gb 1 dimm stick and installed it with the 512mb stick that came with the notebook.

 

I think a lot of people are wondering this, myself included. I am really scared of opening my keyboard so I think i will get the 2gig stick.

 

Alright guys, I think I've made the decision of just keeping the 2 GB stick. Like hypertrophy said, I like the idea of having the ability to upgrade to 4 GB's in the future.

Anybody disagree, agree?

 

More RAM = better. There's nothing wrong with a lot of RAM.

 

I am in the same situation, somewhat. I have what seems like an outdated laptop. It's the one in my sig. I was just wondering if it is worth upgrading to 2GB or 2.5GB at this late date or should I just wait till my next laptop purchase.

 

Its hardly an outdated laptop, as the one I just bought new is less advanced than yours. I would put 2GB of ram in it while the prices are cheap, it would be the best upgrade you could give it.

 

You can only go up to 2gb in your notebook

 

That is possible, but HP stated vehemently that the dv6000 series had a 2GB max up until a week ago (when they suddenly offered a 4GB ram option on it and changed no hardware). Maybe Dell is underplaying this as well?

 

Hmm, 4 gigs would be nice , 2gb is enough but for the future, I would love to have 4gb.

 

well, I've read in various places that WinXP can only support ~3GB of RAM and that the Ram Capacity it partially limited by the number of slots provided. So, if I read correctly and the info was valid then I could possibly go to 2.5GB. Though if 2 GB is the max I could upgrade to, would it be worth looking into dual channel or should I just get the single stick of 2GB.

 

a 64-bit OS might solve the problem.
A 4GB RAM (2 x 2GB 667MHz dual channel) on a laptop is a dream come true

 

Not to hijack your thread larson, but i was wondering if anyone knows a definite answer to this question: If you ran 4gbs of ram (2gb in each dimm) on a santa rosa based platform using a 32-bit version of Vista, whether the the two ram dimms would run in symmetrical dual channel since the OS has limited user access to only 3gbs?

 

Good question. Since the DIMMs are matching I would assume that it is full dual-channel. I have 4GB of RAM in my ThinkPad under Vista 32-bit and it shows 3062MB in dual-channel mode. See attached.

 

Interesting. So it would appear that dual-channel functionality is fully hardware based and has no impact on what Windows sees......

 

Awesome. That just gives me even more incentive to purchase another 2gb stick. Thanks for posting that up.

Edit:
Chaz, does the software tell you if it's running in symmetrical or asymmetrical dual channel?

 

Any idea why it only shows 3062MB when Vista is said to handle 4GB

So this should be the same in XP in not seeing the 4 but still dual channel. Does anyone have experience of dual channel in XP with 2x4GB?

Normally I would not consider 4GB because all that memory would kill the OC ability of the controller. But in planning a laptop (no or low OC) and considering an eventual move to Vista. It may make sense to do 4GB right away.

 

I forget the exact reason but I can look it up.

 

Chaz, i dont know if i can post this link here, but it does a great job at explaining why a 32-bit version of vista sees a 3gb ceiling. Please feel free to delete if you feel it is against board rules.

 

You can post links to other forums no problem. Here at NotebookReview.com we're not that restrictive. The sites we don't want links to are ones that have inappropriate content (use your imagination).

Thanks for that link - there is a lot of useful information in there and I will dig through it sometime tonight I hope.

 

That link has some mis-information. He is right that it is the "holes" in the upper 1G that is the reason why there cannot be full 4G system in 32 bit OS(not sure about how PAE solve it). But in a 64-bit OS, that upper 1G would be moved to a range no one would care(the last 1G in the 64 bit addressing) and why 64 bit can be considered "unlimited" in terms of RAM size(as we would encounter problems of other sort like how to power and dissipate the heat of say 2^64 - 1G RAM). Not that many file systems have addressing beyond 64 bit, Sun's ZFS is the exception.