Will 3GB of RAM slow my computer down?

I've heard that vista 32 bit is optimized for 2x1gb of RAM. If I have 3gb will that slow my computer down?

 

Well, you've heard it incorrect.
3GB is the practical max for a 32-bit OS.
If you get 4GB instead, you'd be waisting your money.
If you refer to dual channel, (which requires running 2 modules of the same capacity) then the difference is too small to even bother.

 

More is better, especially for Vista.
3 GB > 2 GB
4 GB > 3 GB

 

Wooow you are blowing my mind this this freaky logic!

So 2 < 3 < 4? Where did this new math come from?

 

As I said, your OS won't be able to "see" full 4GB, no more than 3.2

 

Right, but I think he's referring to the potential performance loss that you'd get without dual-channel mode.

 

If you have a Santa Rosa chipset, then the 1GB stick and half of the 2GB stick will run in synchronized dual channel, with the extra half of the 2GB stick not running in dual channel. Thus there will be no performance loss from going up to 3GB ram.

 

That's awesome. Props to Intel for introducing this technology.

 

If the intentions are for more speed + more available memory & cost is not a deciding factor then hell yes:
2GB < 3GB < 4 GB of RAM

Although 32-bit Vista will not show all 4 GB it is actually utilizing a portion of the hidden memory for memory mapping peripherals. Still, 3.2GB is most certainly > 3.0GB, if only by a margin, and you'll have the bonus of dual channel with two identical SoDIMMs & the upper memory addresses being utilized for PCI hardware, et cetera.

Plus, when you do move to a 64-bit OS then additional memory becomes even more beneficial.

To reiterate, when we take cost out of the equation then there is no doubt that having 4GB > 3GB > 2GB > 1GB > 512MB > 256MB. Matching SoDIMMs for dual channel taking precedence if you want optimal performance.

Since the cost of RAM is dirt cheap these days there’s really no reason not to go with 4GB off the bat (not directly from Lenovo of course, but as an upgrade elsewhere).

 

However cheap memory is, it's still waste of money if you can't use the last GB you're paying for with 2x2GB.
There is no benefit to your system whatsoever.
A move to a 64-bit OS is a moot point, since the OP specifically mentioned 32-bit.
Besides it will take quite a bit of time before 64-bit goes mainstream.

 

It's also a waste of money now because when the 2GB stick might cost half as much after christmas, and half again by the following christmas.

 

I didn't realize that this thread was about the most economical amount of memory to install and I stressed that more memory is better when cost is not a factor. The T7600 is > T7200 yet no human will be able to physically detect the difference in speed. Still, the T7600 is inherently the optimal choice when cost is not factor, as is 4GB when compared to 2GB of RAM or 2GB compared to 1GB, especially when running Vista (even more so with Vista 64-bit).

Yes, yes, many will argue that the T7300 is all you need and that it is a waste of money to go with a T7700 because a few Christmases from now the price will be much lower. Of course, such processing power is absolute overkill at this point in time for most users and the best bang for the buck is the T7300. Just as 2GB is the sweet spot for memory. I also acknowledge that the price for technology will continue to fall every quarter, Christmas, decade, and so forth. However, if you believe that a T7300 with 2GB of RAM is the optimal setup while a T7700 w/ 4GB of RAM will slow your computer down, then so be it. I just happen to believe otherwise.