TheBigC

Ok, here is one for all you memory gurus out there:

Which should I put into my system and run- 2 gig of Corsair Dominator TWIN2X2048-9136C5D (Running 1142MHz stock) or 4 gig Corsair TWIN2X2048-6400C4PRO (Running 800MHz stock).

Which is more advantageous for a Vista 64 system? Which will better serve me for performance the larger ram or the less of, but faster ram?

BTW, I already have both but I am looking at using one or the other.

Thanks...

__________________

The Meek shall inherit the earth..... after we're through with it!

The Wounded Warrior Project, help support my friends

draeh

As of yet, I haven't seen much improvement in the performance of the faster clocked DDR2s over the headaches of getting them to function properly.

Not having a setup as such, I can only go by what I read.

__________________
Ikariam (Alpha)
Toruos[44:84]>Non Sequitur(c)-Sulfur :: Nyyos[44:85]>Obesa Cantavit-Wine
Tiaayos[43:84]>Stercus Accidit-Marble :: Emytia[45:85]>Vacca Foeda-Crystal

Bamboo

Without a doubt, the 4 gigs with vista 64 is better. Vista is a lot better at managing memory than XP, and even though it appears to use more, it gives it up a lot easier when it needs to, like with gaming.

For instance I am running at 1796mb of usage right now, with just firefox open (haven't closed it in a few hours). That sounds like a lot, but right now I could click on just about any shortcut and it would start up before I could blink. That is because Vista is keeping stuff in memory.

If you only run with 2 gigs, it won't be able to do that as well.

Also, I have had Crysis put me up near 3 gigs of memory usage, but it meant that Vista didn't have to empty any of the prefetch out to make room, so as soon as Crysis is quit, I can instantly start up any other program.

BF2 and ARMA both defiantly like having more than 2 gigs as well, and I have run both with only 2 gigs.

The speed difference will only give you maybe an extra 5% FPS in game if you did a 2 gig to 2 gig test comparison, but that would not be worth the overall pluses of the 4 gigs.

Also, that doesn't even take into account your FSB. Unless you are really overclocking your CPU, it will never be able to take advantage of that extra memory speed. The only way to use the speed would be lower your multiplier on the CPU and crank your FSB WAY WAY up, probably taking a loss on the CPU horsepower to get it up high enough to be running at 1:1.

__________________

LINKS
10th Tactical Guard
Server Rules and SOP * Kicked? Banned? READ THIS FIRST!*
Contact an Admin * Nominate your teammates for a ribbon

Stoop and you'll be stepped on; stand tall and you'll be shot at.

-Carlos A. Urbizo-

kin3

Here is my system and I haven't had problem except when I loaded had to use half of the memory to get Vista loaded. Then patched and no probllems since.

Motherboard: EVGA 780i
Graphic Card: EVGA NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS 512
Monitor: Dell 2407WFP-HC
DVD: Philips SPD6104P SCSI DVD
Sound: Creative X-FI Audio
Power Supply: Corsair TX750W
CPU: E8400
Memory: Patriot 4G 2Gx2
Hard Drive: 500G
Case: Antec P182
OS: Windows Vista Home Preium 64

__________________
The Old Guy
kin3

Long Bow

Bamboo exlpained it well. Vista 64 will shine with the 4gb. Where as 2gb with a vista system might bottleneck slightly under certain circumstances due to the higher memory overhead of the OS, regardless of the ram speed.

__________________

ChopStick

More memory is always better than slightly faster memory.

SharinganTH1422

Low latency and high capacity is better than higher clock speeds apparently.

I've heard of guys underclocking their RAM speeds to get a lower latency, as that's better apparently...

__________________
Anger is a gift - Malcolm X

...If you can dream--and not make dreams your master,
If you can think--and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same...