2GB RAM v 4GB RAM

Hey guys, I was wondering whether it is worth purchasing 4GB of RAM when I buy the SAGER 2090 or just stay with a 2GB and upgrade later? Thanks.

 

Well, if you're planning on upgrading later anyway, might as well just do it now unless money is tight. If you aren't sure and just want to keep your options open, it should be fine so long as you make sure you get 2 GiB in 1 dimm.

 

If it's a 32bit OS, don't bother. You'll be wasting a min 1 gb.

If it's a 64bit OS, maybe go ahead.

Ram will always be cheaper later.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605

 

Well, if you're concerned about gaming, 3gb seems to produce noticeably better results than 2gb, so I'd say go for at least 3gb if you can afford it.

 

Buy what you need. If you're hitting swap with 2GB, time to upgrade. 4GB kits are MUCH cheaper to buy yourself than from a system builder. HP for example wanted $575 for a 4GB upgrade. I just bought 4GB from Crucial for $258.

 

Go to RAM Deals thread for best prices on memory.

 

yeah for reals, I'd go so far as to say, get the minumum config for ram, and buy an upgrade then do it yourself. You'll save hundreds.

 

since when? i didn't even notice an increase in fps going from 1gb to 2gb. and how can you get 3gb with dual channel anyways, well other than 4gb and OS not recognizing 1gb.

 

If your using vista then get 4 GB

 

Dual channel doesn't help very much at all. 3gb running in asynchronous dual channel will always be faster than 2gb running in perfect dual channel. Also, read:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=125246
Post number 378 or so. The 8m cards (at least the 8600GS and the 8600GT) use quite a bit of turbocache, and seeing how Vista is such a memory hog they benefit quite a bit from 3gb. The 8600GS with 3gb managed to outperform the 8600GT with 2gb in gaming tests.

 

Question.

32bit OS only see 3.25GB but The 8m cards use ram above 3.25GB for Turbo cache or take from OS(part of 3.25GB).

 

The turbocache that the GPU uses is taken from what the OS can allocate, so if the OS was seeing 3.25 GB and the GPU turbocached 256mb, then there would be 3gb left for the OS to use.

 

That's too bad.
I may have to go to 64bit Vista.

Thanks odin243

 

I never understood that.

Linux uses intel PAE, so even with a 32 bit OS, it can address up to 64 GB of RAM. I'm using 32 bit Linux with 4 GB and I see all 4 GB. Windows Server 32 bit also uses PAE for the same reason.

Why don't the 32 bit Windows desktop OS's offer PAE support??

 

What about if I'm planning to get a 7950GTX with Vista. Would I benefit more from 3gb or do you think 2 will be okay?

EDIT: Also, how easy would it be to install in a Sager 5790?

 

Windows does support PAE, officially.

But when you try to make it work, it doesn't happen.

I asked MS techs about it, and they had me read the same document repeatedly, while I'd pull out their own documents which said the opposite. Very frustrating, but what you gonna do?

 

I heard that the 256 Version of the 8600mGS had faster clock speeds than the 512 version of the GT. So is it possible that the faster clock speeds + the ability to delve into the extra ram for turbo cache without really interfering with the other 2 gb's make it plain out faster?

I may be completely wrong, but thought I'd mention it.

 

I don't know if this is the case, but if that 8600GS had GDDR3 memory it is possible that it would show an increase in speed in some very rare circumstances over the GDDR2 8600GT. Still, the 8600GS only has half of the stream processors (16), compared to the 8600GT (32). In almost every case, that pure processing power will outdo the increased memory speeds on the 8600GS. In some strange, low resolution, high texture situation it MIGHT be possible for the GS to outperform the GT. Its really doubtful though.

 

If you're building based on having the ability to have future expansion, get 2GB on 1 DIMM...

 

Yeah, that's pretty much never going to be true. The 8600mGS has only half the stream processors of the 8600GT, so even a 128mb DDR2 8600GT would be able to beat a 512mb DDR3 8600GS.

 

thats pretty strange, when i upgraded from 1gb to 2gb my game FPS increased by 0. FEAR was 55fps at max before, was 55fps after. COH was 33fps at max, was 33fps at max after.

 

The 8600GT and 8600GS are both a little memory starved, so I think they would benefit more from the extra RAM than other GPUs.

 

isn't 8600M GT 256mb? thats plenty for 1280*800

 

However the memory bandwith is only 128-bit, as opposed to the 256-bit bandwith on similarly powerful cards such as the 7900GS and the x1800. My speculation is that the bandwith limitation has something to do with the great performance increase gained by TurboCache. I've no idea what the connection is, that's just speculation on my part.

 

well desktop's 8600 GT (also 256mb) without turbocache didn't experience any performance increase going from 1gb to 2gb.

also isn't system memory alot slower than the dedicated ram?

 

It's not necessarily slower, but since it's not dedicated to the graphics card it doesn't (usually) perform as well. Also I think that Turbocache in general helps mobile GPUs more than desktop GPUs.

 

I was thinking of getting a 2gb stick from newegg for around 100 bucks and then just leaving a 512 in the other slot for now then put another 1gb stick in the other slot later on to make the total 3gb. I heard since I use vista premium if I put 4gb it will use the other 1gb for system stuff even if it didn't show it as being there is that true or do you just loose it entirely. ???

 

I chose 4 gigs for my sager
the more the merrier
+4 for 4 gigs

 

oh and on this matter my computer uses shared memory with the video card up to 287mb, I know it is slower to use system memory but I have no choice this was a gift gotta deal with it. So i was thinking since the computer stops seeing memory after it hits 3gb but right now I have 1gb and I can only use 900mb or so since the rest are used by the video card., Wouldn't it be if i get 4gb that my video would use the rest and i will be able to use 3. something gb of ram???????

 

Havent read all replies, but here's the deal...

NP2090 does support 4GB, good start!
32Bit OS supports up to 2.8GB, so unless u go with a 64bit OS (Win XP 64 or Vista 64), you'll waste money with 4GB.

In my opinion, 3GB is the current "sweet spot"... but if you want to get 4GB, let me suggest that you shop around for RAM upgrades, because laptops retailer often charge too much for RAM... that is unless ure unable to add ram in a laptop by yourself.

Also, sager NP2090 is cheaper at shops like xoticpc.com and others than it is at sagernotebooks.com

 

PAE is just a feature of the hardware. No different than MMX or ACPI or Hyperthreading. You just need to enable support for it in the OS. I wonder why Windows doesn't by default? What happens if you need 4GB in a Windows desktop - do you have to load Windows Server to make it work? Or is there some driver or registry setting you can set to enable the PAE? Just wondering out loud here.

Do you have some document that states Windows desktop is supposed to support PAE? I'd be interested in a link if you have one.

Use Linux?