Jump to content

3 Gig Or 4 Gig In Xp


Recommended Posts

I have 2x1gb PC9600 and need a little more.

 

Since XP can't address a full 4GB,

 

will going with 2x512Kb make a difference vs. 2x1Gb

 

This is on a Gigabyte X48-DS4 with Q9300 & 2GB Patriot PC9600 (slight over clock)

 

 

CPU_Cooker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have 2x1gb PC9600 and need a little more.

 

Since XP can't address a full 4GB,

 

will going with 2x512Kb make a difference vs. 2x1Gb

 

This is on a Gigabyte X48-DS4 with Q9300 & 2GB Patriot PC9600 (slight over clock)

 

CPU_Cooker

 

I dont either think will difference ,XP does'ent need that much ram. Now if you were using Vista I would say 2gig min. ,I added 2 more gig giving me 4 after I installed Vista. It's a memory hog.

Edited by sdy284

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4x1 will be easier to run than the mismatch of timings (and maybe voltages) you will have with 2x1 + 2x512

 

DDR2 is cheap enough to "waste" 0.75GB or more in XP... mine only shows 2.25GB mostly because of my 8800GTS 640 SLI

 

I also run Vista x64 though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4x1 will be easier to run than the mismatch of timings (and maybe voltages) you will have with 2x1 + 2x512

 

DDR2 is cheap enough to "waste" 0.75GB or more in XP... mine only shows 2.25GB mostly because of my 8800GTS 640 SLI

 

I also run Vista x64 though

 

Yes totaly agree, 4x1 is the way to go if you "must" have 4gig on xp and you want to add to your current memory, and DDR2 is so cheap at the moment that the wasted 0.75Gb dont really matter, xp dosnt really need 4Gb though, Vista does, its a complete memory hog, mine sits at about 30% usage at just the desktop with 2Gb, so i think 4Gb is the way to go with vista

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, isn't 3x1 running in single channel, effectively cutting your bandwidth in half? I've never run single channel on 775, so I don't know, but single channel on 939 really dropped my performance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, isn't 3x1 running in single channel, effectively cutting your bandwidth in half? I've never run single channel on 775, so I don't know, but single channel on 939 really dropped my performance

 

 

In real time you would not find the difference, afcourse its in single channel. The difference can be found only when you are benchmarking them. So its of the same performance gain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man... I installed an old 7800GT 256MB... before XP recognised 2.25GB of the 4GB of RAM (8800GTS 640 SLI + more addressing)

 

and now it reads 2GB! :lol:

 

I think this is coming close to the last straw for me lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

with XP... why?

 

When working, I run Bloomberg (Stock quote service)

2 or 3 instances of Excel + Outlook,

FireFox, Maybe a little rahopsody,

Adobe Bridge, & Adobe InDesign, plus Illustrator for brief moments. I usually have something open in Acrobat,

Plus a load of "crap" in the system tray, 3 x messengers, Hyper-snap, Ghost,

 

 

I often check and find my commit Charge at 2,500,000. I hit start and it takes 3-4 seconds to come up.

 

That is why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When working, I run Bloomberg (Stock quote service)

2 or 3 instances of Excel + Outlook,

FireFox, Maybe a little rahopsody,

Adobe Bridge, & Adobe InDesign, plus Illustrator for brief moments. I usually have something open in Acrobat,

Plus a load of "crap" in the system tray, 3 x messengers, Hyper-snap, Ghost,

 

 

I often check and find my commit Charge at 2,500,000. I hit start and it takes 3-4 seconds to come up.

 

That is why.

 

 

very well...but sadly XP won't use much more than the 2gb........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...