Which is better, if this can be generalized so widely.
2 GB DDR PC3200 running Dual Channel or 3 GB DDR PC3200, not dual channel.
2 GB DDR PC3200 running Dual Channel or 3 GB DDR PC3200, not dual channel.
Computer Guys!
- Thread starter Justin
- Start date
Depends on the application. Dual channel has faster access, but most of the time it's the AMOUNT of RAM, not the SPEED.
I went from 512MB (2 x 256) to 1.5Gig (2 x 256, 1 x 1gig) and it's MUCH faster in everything I do... But, I think it's still using Dual Channel on the 256 sticks, as it shows it's functioning in BIOS...
I went from 512MB (2 x 256) to 1.5Gig (2 x 256, 1 x 1gig) and it's MUCH faster in everything I do... But, I think it's still using Dual Channel on the 256 sticks, as it shows it's functioning in BIOS...
So would I be able to run two sticks of 1GB in dual channel form and a single stick of 1gb in single channel?
I have two gb right now and want to know if I should throw in this additional 1gb that I have available or not
I have two gb right now and want to know if I should throw in this additional 1gb that I have available or not
I'm stepping up from XP to Vista. The biggest thing I run is COD4 
Mainly internet and messin around.
Mainly internet and messin around.
For Vista, you want more memory. Probably more than that. I wouldn't give someone Vista without at least 4G of memory.
Vista is bloatware...
It's really simple, pull the side of the case off, pop the RAM stick in, and then see if the game is faster...
It's really simple, pull the side of the case off, pop the RAM stick in, and then see if the game is faster...
terror;1134454 said:
Vista, while more demanding, is far more stable. We run 8GB of ECC mem on our workstation with it. We do some very intensive CAD designing software though.
Dont forget, XP support will be DICONTINUED SOON. Vista will have a REPLACEMENT already next year supposedly. Keep this in mind. My source of this info in the head tech of the engineering dept. at WVU
no, you either have DC enabled or not.Justin;1134378 said:
Justin;1134378 said:
If you tend to run one or two single apps at a time then run DC, if you like to have several apps open at once and switch around alot, go for more ram in single channel.
If you are going to run vista, just run single channel with as much RAM as you can load. XP (32bit) cant access more than 3GB ram anyway so if you are running XP and more than 4GB you are wasting your money.
IwantMKIII;1134559 said:
Vista more stable? In what alternate dimension are you living. And who gives a rip about support when you have a functioning system? I service both systems and I still say, FOR NOW, xp is still the better OS for MOST people. Get Vista if you like eye candy and the apps you run are mainstream and up to date.
Facime;1134572 said:
32 bit OS systems can access 4GB of memory. Video memory takes priority then system memory. This is why i love 64bit capabilites, 16TB of memory access is pretty crazy, lots of growing room. Our workstation's MB can take 24GB which is insane enough, i can't even imagine what kind of programs could utilize 16TB in the future
I live on earth. While PROGRAMS may not be as stable on vista, Vista itself is far more stable than XP. Vista has NEVER froze on me or blue screened me for any reason, anything but the case for XP
IwantMKIII;1134606 said:
Been discussed in 100 or 1000's of threads. This seems pretty definitive:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-vista/compare-editions/64-bit.aspx
you bios will see it but the OS will not.
Facime;1134609 said:
yes, its a microsoft article, still fails to tell me why only 3GB is usable. 32 bit still has the ability for 4GB
IwantMKIII;1134612 said:
I figured since Microsoft says their own OS will not use more than 3GB thats would be enough proof. I have personally seen machines with 4GB only show 3GB in system properties. Its an OS limitation Microsoft admits...If you require more I suggest you look for yourself.
From what I understand anything over 3GB will overrun to the rest of the RAM instead of be actively placed and controlled like normal...
You're both wrong, XP and Vista are both unstable
You're both wrong, XP and Vista are both unstable
Poodles;1134627 said:From what I understand anything over 3GB will overrun to the rest of the RAM instead of be actively placed and controlled like normal...
You're both wrong, XP and Vista are both unstable
I'll take the lean unstable than bloated one, lol
I made the blanket statement of the 3GB barrier because its the simplest answer to give without going into WAY TOO MUCH detail. I think this guys will do that for me so if you are curious how it works read away:
http://www.dansdata.com/askdan00015.htm
As for the OP, if I were you...I would run the 1.5gb and run XP pro. In another year or so you are gonna want a new machine with 2x that and you can run vista then.
XP Pro is actually MORE bloated than normal XP...
I run server OS's because I don't feel like wasting my processing power on stupid crap that doesn't need to be running, and I don't feel like having the OS bitching cause I turned something off.
In my lean boot mode I've gotten down to 7 services (then start a game and quit explorer) meaning the computer is almost 100% devoted to what I want it to do.
Presently running 19 services including Avant, utorrent, and cFosSpeed compared to the 30+ on an average XP system...
Oh, and did I mention that because the kernel is different, most of the nasty crap on the internet doesn't effect me?
I run server OS's because I don't feel like wasting my processing power on stupid crap that doesn't need to be running, and I don't feel like having the OS bitching cause I turned something off.
In my lean boot mode I've gotten down to 7 services (then start a game and quit explorer) meaning the computer is almost 100% devoted to what I want it to do.
Presently running 19 services including Avant, utorrent, and cFosSpeed compared to the 30+ on an average XP system...
Oh, and did I mention that because the kernel is different, most of the nasty crap on the internet doesn't effect me?