Which RAM is a better choice / makes more sense

I am willing to upgrade my RAM a bit.

Current situation:

2 x 2GB DDR3-1066 CL7

I plan to exchange one of the pieces with a 4GB = 6GB total.

My dilemma:

4GB Kingston ValueRAM PC3-8500S CL7 (DDR3-1066) - the same speed and CAS latency as the original

or

4GB Kingston ValueRAM PC3-10667S CL9 (DDR3-1333)


Both have the same price.
I do know I can't get any use of the faster 1333 RAM as it will be stepped down to 1066, BUT would the CAS latency go up to CL7 when the RAM operates at 1066??

In other words - do I lose ANYTHING from buying the second RAM (maybe one day it will have more value if I decide to resell it)? Is there any reason to choose the first option?

Additionally - Kingston ValueRam or Transcend?

Thank you in advance!

 

Buy the cheapest you can, you won't notice a difference in performance unless you're running benchmarks and nothing else.

 

As written above, both are the same price (a few cents difference).

My main question is - do I lose anything buying the second one!?

 

just get the 1066,
your i5 cant use the 1333, it'd just downclock to the 1066 specs.

However if the prices are the same, then you may want to buy the 1333 if you ever plan on getting a sandy bridge notebook as its work in that

up to yuo, it doesnt realy matter

 

Loose anything? Yes, you need to loosen the screws on the panel to access the ram. You also don't lose anything by going with the 1333Mhz memory over the 1066Mhz memory.

 

LOL, same mistake twice thanks for correcting

Yes, that was my question - taking the identical price into account, is there a reason why I should buy the 1066 MHz one instead.

Will the 1333 one work with CL7 as 1066 though?

 

Yes i5s cannot utilize 1333 RAM so just buy 1066 RAM. Faster RAM is only beneficial for synthetic benchmarks, no benefits in real world use. More RAM > faster RAM.

The faster the RAM the higher CL.

 

I'm very aware of the above, but almost everyone seems to ignore my question and fails to give me a reason why NOT to buy the faster RAM, which will theoretically have more value in the future when it costs absolutely the same as the slower one!?

Or put otherwise - you say "just buy 1066 RAM" ----> Why would you buy the 1066 RAM if they both cost the same?

 

There is no reason. Just go ahead and buy the faster RAM. It will automatically downclock to 1066 and lower the CL.

 

That was the answer I was looking for, thanks

 

Your Intel i5 520M CPU only supports up to PC3-8500 DDR3, take a look at the link below (also includes new Sandy Bridge CPU models).

DDR3 memory support for Intel i5 CPU's (including Sandy Bridge models)

So, if you buy PC3-10600 it will just downclock to PC3-8500 speeds which means its frequency will be 1066MHz effective and also its CAS will also be CAS7.

Most people buy Kingston or Crucial, most due to the fact that both are very well known. Both are likely to work just fine compatibility wise. Kingston doesn't make its own memory, it buys it in from the likes of Micro (Crucial) or others and then just brands it as their own.

And finally, while it's not vital to do you're best sticking to dual channel. If you mix a 4GB and 2GB module you'll only get asymmetric dual channel mode. Your memory bandwidth will suffer once you go over using 4GB.

 

Thanks for the explanation LaptopUser247

I know perfectly well that my system supports RAM up to PC3-8500 and that I cannot benefit from the faster RAM.

On the other hand I could not think of any reason NOT to buy the faster one, taking into account that the price is the same and that it theoretically would have higher value if I decide to resell it one day.

That's why I asked
Thanks

 

Change to 2x4Gb .. the cheapest you can find. (it's about 100$)
Since dual channel don't know how 2gb+4gb stick would work out...

 

It will work the same way it works on the newer Vaio S that have 6GB by default Dual Channel will still work
Newer Intel Chipsets have the capability to run asymmetric dual channel. That means, if you have two sticks, one with 2gb and one with 4gb, the chipset addresses 2x2gb dual channel and the remaining 2gb single channel.

Even if it doesn't - I think I can live with the 5% speed loss... considering the XX% overall system speed increase by adding 2GB (which I hope for )

Not willing to invest another 40 euros yet... some day in the future.

 

most of the time dual channel only works with matched pairs of memory. afaik dual channel won't work...

 

please define "most of the time" ? Is it a function of the outside weather and temperature?

Please read about "asymmetric dual channel" if you are not familiar with it.

But anyway no need to argue - it will show I will report

 

Asymmetrical dual channel will work. I think Intel still calls it Flex Mode on the i series.

Basically it will widen the channel to the capacity that can be matched

 

The discussion of moving to 6GB of installed memory from 4GB is based on the premise that the OP has a 64-bit OS, yes?

 

Of course Otherwise I wouldn't be using 4 at the moment either

@flipfire: Exactly - the "Intel Flex Memory" Technology i definitely supported by the CPU, I assume/hope it is also supported by the MB (HM55 chipset).

 

Well, no, because some people would install 4GB of RAM in 32-bit OSes to take advantage of the ~3GB RAM limit.

 

You can indirectly use more then 3GB RAM on a 32 bit system as well

But anyway, that's not my case.

 

32 bit OS like XP will only see 3.5 GB max, minus VRAM.

32 bit Vista/7 will actually see 4 GB, but will in reality only utilize 3.5 GB again deducting VRAM.

I see you are in the EU, but RAM shouldn't be terribly more expensive than here in the US. You can get 8 GB RAM ~90 USD shipped.

 

The above is true. However there is an indirect way to make a 32bit OS utilize more then 3.5 GB

But I'm using Win 7 x64 anyway.

One piece of 4GB DDR3 RAM costs ~ 40 euros, so 2 would be 80 euros - appriximately the same as in the US

 

Speaking of RAM upgrades:

Has anyone of you upgraded from 4GB to 6 or 8? Does it really make a noticeable difference in Windows 7 (especially multitasking)?

I have been having huge lag problems for a while and really hope the upgrade will help:

My RAM usage is normally 50-65%, however as free are listed not more than 50MB, the rest is "Available", which if I understand right are things that can be moved to the page file if needed.

Whenever I don't use some windows for a while (say Firefox for example), when I maximize them they need from couple of ms to 2-3s to load, while the HDD is working hard.... I explain myself that with things being read out of the paging file!?

Same with skype - if I don't use it for 10-15 minutes and attempt to maximize from the taskbar, it takes a few ms to load the content and another few ms to load the pictures next to the contacts!

Any ideas or experience?

I am slightly shocked that I don't remember having such hard issues on my previous PC, which initially had only 512MB (later 1GB) RAM, running Win XP...

 

I just upgraded my dad's Dell Studio 1558 from 4 GB RAM to 8 GB RAM. I haven't seen a 9999% difference, but stuff does load quicker. Also RAM usage on start is 15%.

 

More RAM will help. There are a few programs that don't like this, for example, SC2 still always needs to take some time to load when I switch to it, but almost everything else just snaps to the forefront, regardless of how long ago I left it. Now if you are running a program or programs that are serious RAM hogs, that could be different, but for tons of little things that aren't each using up a whole lot of RAM, things are real good.

Bad memory (yours)? I've always experienced such things, until now that is. The most memory I've had besides 8GB though has been 3.25GB since I always ran a 32-bit OS.

 

I've checked it numerous times - no errors found. The HDD is one of the fastest 7200 RPMs available...

I really hope the RAM will help.

What strikes me though is that the RAM usage is normally around 50-60%, nevertheless Hard Faults do occur!?

Why is that? Or is the reason the small amount of "Free" memory (2GB are AVAILABLE, but only 20-50MB are FREE) !?

How many Free MB/GB do you have on a 6/8 GB system!?

 

I have 57MB free and 5.5GB cached out of 8GB right now. Your issue is that you are accessing the hard drive for all that stuff and not RAM. With more RAM you can cache way more stuff on there so having to access the hard drive for something you were previously working on should become very rare.

 

Let's hope you are right Will report!

It is killing me to have a 1000+ hardware which makes me wait 2-3 seconds until I can use my minimized skype!

How come 4GB is not enough for those everyday tasks in Win 7 and 2GB or less were enough in Win XP !??

Is the difference that big...!?

 

without knowing your usage pattern, it is hard to tell why 4GB is not enough.

Windows 7 does need about 1GB more comparing with XP, just for the base OS.

What you are describing 'wait 2,3 seconds from minimized skype' sounds like the thing I wanted to avoid in the first place that Windows wants to swap out minimized app to page file(at least that was the case in XP) even though it may not be necessary.

You can try to disable page file and superfetch and see if it is better(mine is much snappier), under the assumption that you really have enough RAM. Note this is against many people's believe(and for those who disagree, it is just a suggestion to try and no need to bring up the argument).

 

Have tried disabling the paging file - it seemed to halp, unfortunately I was not able to test it for very long as applications started to crash from the lack of memory.

I am looking forward to that additional 2GB and will report. I have an old single core notebook next to me, equipped with 2GB DDR2 and Win XP and I must say - by similar load everything runs much smoother than on my i5 + Win7 + 4GB DDR3 PC.... this shocks me!!

 

ok, that just mean your RAM is not enough for your typical working set. Would it be better to jump to 8GB if that is the case ?

As for XP vs Windows 7/Vista, I can make my Vista/Window 7 run as smooth as XP(provided that I give them the needed additional baseline RAM).

 

Let's hope that that's the reason...

Will see how it is with 6 and if it really makes a difference will consider going to 8...

 

For all having the same issue and dilemma:

2 additional GB RAM do make a huge difference!!!!! Upgrading from 4 to 6 GB resolved my problem! Windows and more specifically - multitasking is MUCH smoother, minimized web-pages are not swapped right away, everything is somehow faster and the HDD activity has dropped tremendously!

I feel a bit reserved about adding another 2GB yet as it seems to me the 6GB offer enough for my needs (what 4 definitely did not... I see it now), but whenever the prices drop a bit more, I might make them 8. Not in a hurry anymore

Regarding DualChannel mode, here's the proof:

 

You must have been using close to the previous 4GB you had installed if you feel a radical difference. Admit it, you're heavy on multitasking.

Out of interest go and compare (benchmark) memory bandwidth (read, write and copy) performance between symmetrical (synchronous) and asymmetrical (asynchronous) dual channel mode. I'm sure there's a difference there even if you can't feel it first hand.

 

@Gracy123

What ram did you buy?The one with 1333mhz?

Just curious, mind telling what is the subscore for ram in windows experience index?

I also have same dilemma as you, it's been long enough I consider upgrading ram.

 

My RAM in WEI was 5.9 upgraded to 6GB and it's 6.7 now. I don't consider WEI as a reliable test of performance but it feels good to have a high score lol.

 

Yes, bought DDR3-1333.

The subscore in WEI jumped from 5.9 (I think...) to 6.7.

It also took me months to take this decision, mainly because I wasn't sure that this is what's causing problems! I have never had such an issue with Win XP and 512MB-1024MB RAM !!! It never was that dramatical!

My "official" RAM usage with 4GB was around 50... max 60%. But obviously this is very misleading. My personal impression is that Win 7 LOVES to have free/available RAM and sweeps as much as possible to the HDD whenever RAM usage is above 50% !

At the moment the official info is 36% memory usage... however, a closer look shows the following:



The difference in reality is VERY noticeable in my case! I never really ran out of RAM (or in very rare cases)... but all minimized applications (e.g. web-browser windows) were being constantly transferred to the page file. It doesn't happen anymore unless I leave the PC on over the night...

 

More RAM can never hurt except if you have a 32 bit OS (just a waste). 4 GB RAM is pretty standard these days, 6 and 8 GB are being almost standard on mid range to high end notebooks.

 

I tend to believe that, what shocked me however was the fact that 1GB was OK for my usage on XP. 1.5GB gave me all the freedom I needed.

I never thought 1GB on XP = 4GB on Win7 I don't really understand it to be honest, considering the fact that my applications normally use less than 2GB as it can be seen, but these are the facts.

 

Right but you need to think when XP came out. Most people only had like 256 MB and 512 MB RAM. I ran XP for the longest time with 128 MB, painfully slow. Vista really needed 4 GB RAM, which most mainstream notebooks started coming with 2-3-4 GB RAM. Windows 7 runs fine with just 2 GB RAM, my Vostro 1500 ran beta, RC with 2 GB RAM. 4 GB made it more smooth. 8 GB in my E6410 is overkill but hey it was 80 bucks for 8 GB DDR3.

 

All your replies really make me wondering what ram actually do I have in my laptop.
WEI subscore in my laptop shows 6.9 and fyi, I just have 4GB(2x2GB).
I know WEI score is not really important, but anyone can clarify my doubt?

Btw, I forgot the brand of my ram.Will check it later.

 

Glad to hear it worked out. Told ya so!

I'm using almost exactly the same amount of RAM as you, 1.89GB (23%), and the cache is taking up 6.1GB. If you do decide to get another stick of RAM down the road, you can be sure it will be used.

 

Can you throw some light on what the Cache is???? I find it hard to determine what is being cached exactly as with the exact same programs and windows opened throughout the day (even the exact same webpages loaded), my cache goes from 2 to 4 GB and back!!? (My "free" RAM is in the range 0 - 2000 MB)

But I am in fact really happy it worked out... I was really worried there is something else wrong with my PC... either HDD or even HDD controller, as the HDD showed no errors and is 7200 RPM.

 

Windows cache your disk content. In your case, you are running superfetch which will always use up your free RAM.

BTW, why I keep on telling people to turn off page file, it gives you a quick info if you are short of RAM. It is insane nowadays(when people pay big bucks for the CPU/GPU etc.) to use HDD as slow RAM, given the RAM price.

 

Gracy123,

What you are not taking into account is the fact that XP is 32bit and Win7 (the version you and I use) is 64bit. Everything on the x64 bit O/S is bigger (in RAM) - even if it is a 32bit program. This is why 4GB was not enough for your usage patterns on Win7x64 (even though XP with the same/similar workload showed no issues).

Contrary to what chimpanzee is saying, disabling the pagefile makes your computer slower (if you use it to do actual work, that is).

How many partitions do you have on your computer? Is the pagefile 'System Managed, or have you set it to a set size?

I have been saying for a while (here, and to my clients) that with new systems with Win7x64 8GB RAM is the new 'baseline'.

If you want substantially more snap/performance from your system try the following:

1) First - I highly recommend 8GB of matched RAM modules over 6GB.

2) Second - PerfectDisk 11 Professional used with the SmartPlacement Performance Aggressive preset will also give your system a noticeable boost.

3) Third - how big is your O/S + Apps partition size? If it is a single partition (on any size HDD) then you are throwing away performance needlessly. I recommend moving off all your data (temporarily) to an external device/system and 'Shrinking' your partition to a size which leaves C: with about 10GB free space (after all your apps and O/S is fully installed, updated). With the remaining space, create a second partition and put all your data there. (I can give more detailed steps if you need me to). This little 'trick' will show you an additional boost in the responsiveness of your system.

4) Finally, getting back to the effect that the pagefile has on the performance of the system - instead of leaving your pagefile to be managed with the 'Automatically manage paging file size for all drives' setting at the top of the Virtual Memory dialogue box, instead, choose the 'System managed size' option - FOR EACH PARTITION you have available. The difference is that the checkbox at the top of the dialogue box will only set a pagefile for each physical HDD - whereas choosing to use the 'System managed size' for each partition will really let your system fly - especially if you have applied all the steps above too.


What you have experiences is exactly what I saw too which I shared with this post:

See:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/har...ades/441911-8gb-vs-4gb-ram-faster-system.html


Glad to see you so happy with the results of jumping to 6GB from 4GB on a 64bit system - I won't say you'll see the same dramatic jump going to 8GB (even with all the tweaks above), but let's just say that with the above methods (and a few others I've ommited here), I have retired my Inferno SSD for use as a big USB key (sure, it was a little faster, but at only 100GB, was almost useless for my needs in a portable system where speed and capacity are equally important).

One more note: although I'm using almost 32GB on my 500GB HDD for pagefile's on 4 partitions, the snap/performance is utterly worth it to me.

Good luck.

 

What do you mean by actual work ? I disabled that for the past 3 years or so on my work laptop which I constantly build visual studio projects and running SQL server/IIS as a local task as well.

I don't want to get into the debate of whether it is slower or faster again. It was suggested as a method to quickly find out if your machine is short of RAM. Read back and you would see that I can quickly concluded that she was as she said she cannot do it as a regular setup due to OOM.

 

chimpanzee,

sorry, let me clarify a little:

Using the machine well within the confines of it's physical limits is not pushing the system at all (the 'work' I meant in the quote above).

When we push the machine to a state where a pagefile is actually needed... that is what I consider making the system 'work' - not what you actually produce with your notebook (ie. 'your work').

I'll agree that the system may take a little longer (a few seconds?) to be in a 'ready' state to get work done by the user (shut down, boot up), but I don't usually let a system breathe too much when I'm actively working on one either. In that scenario, a pagefile (or multiple pagefiles as I suggested) not only makes each multitasked program more responsive to user input regardless of what the background programs are doing, but it also ensures that the system (or individual programs) don't crash either - at least not for RAM related issues (and that is exactly what the pagefile is there for.

Hope this clears it up for you? Again, sorry for not replying fully previously.

 

I would get RAM that runs at 1066MHz i5 supports and be sure CL is lower then 1333MHz.

 

First thank you very much for your time, explanation and tips!! Appreciate it!!

I actually did take this into account, but never thought the difference would be THAT huge. I imagined 2GB RAM could be a bit tight for Win 7 x64, but 4GB... hmm.

I have 3 Partitions. I recently limited the Pagefile to be max 512MB - I didn't want to disable it completely, but at the same time limit Windows to cache less and keep more in the RAM. It's been running without any problems so far...

It is somehow hard to believe, as 8GB is the absolute maximum a notebook can take nowadays... There is not much room.

Will do that one day, just waiting for the RAM prices to drop a bit more as they are about to. Not in such a hurry anymore. Being with 4GB was driving me insane, but 6 is giving me patience

Have been using it for over half an year now. Defragment once every 1-2 Weeks with the Performance preset. Isn't the Aggressive not a bit too "aggressive"?

I have been using a relatively small partition for System and 2 separate for all non-system and non-installed apps data ever since I use computers... Currently - C: is 120 GB, the rest (out of 500GB) is separated in 2 parts.

Are you sure that would make any difference and why? Isn't C: and the system part of it on the inner side of the HDD - hence the faster?

Will check it out in a minute, thanks.

I don't care about space at all - have plenty of. All I want to avoid is the thing I have never experienced with Win XP - that constant sweeping!! I have described it already, but with 4GB RAM (although only around 50% actually in use), Windows 7 would cache everything to the HDD almost the minute I minimize a window. It drove me crazy to maximize a web browser windows just 10 minutes after I last used it and wait up to 2-3 seconds until the HDD loads the content. Then go back to the previous window and guess what - it is no longer in the RAM either. Open skype from the taskbar - 1 second to load contacts, another 2-3 seconds to load the pictures next to them!!!! And that almost every time!!! And that on a 1000+ bucks machine Never ever did I experience this sh*t on my 4 years old XP machine!

Throwing 6GB at it solved all of the above, except when I copy/move a large folder to/from the HDD - seems all available RAM is used by the copying process (why it needs to take 4GB RAM I will never know) - then I notice caching to HDD is starting again but isn't that bad as with 4GB.

In this fashion I don't mind even 50GB page file, but shouldn't I actually keep it as small as possible (even off if this doesn't cause problems with software that necessarily needs page-file)? I will try enabling page files on D: and E: too but this is still the same physical drive... how is this improving performance?
Thank you once again