Memory upgrade questions.

[ghostdog]

I currently have 2GB of Dual DDR2 at 800 MHz and a friend of mine game me two spare DDR2 ram sticks he had. They are 1GB each but he wasn't sure about their speed and their other specs.

I have 2 free slots in my motherboard but I'm not sure if it would be worth it. Is there a way to see the exact specifications of the memory in my system ? I'm guessing the new sticks are less than 800Hhz ( they probably run at around 600-700 mhz) and I assume that the "dual" function of my previous RAM would seize to work if I add more ram. Also I'm running winXP, can they fully recognize 4GB of RAM ?

So, I guess my first question is if it would be worth it to go from 2 GB dual DDR2 to 4 GB of ram that runs at a slower speed.

My second question is if it would be a good idea to buy and add to my current ram a new set of 2GB dual ddr2 with the same specs as my current ram. Also , can two pairs of dual ram work together and retain their "dual" function ? And should they be identical, or can I use ram from another manufacturer ?

 

[Turisas]

You won't get the full use out of 4GB RAM with a 32bit OS (don't recall the exact limitation, and if I were to toss some guess some besserwisser would correct me in about a second :D), but you could just stick them in and use some program like CPU-Z or BIOS to check their specs.

Just so you know that if you have sticks with varying speeds, all memory will run with the slowest one. Or they might be incompatible altogether, in which case you have to think of some other creative use for them.

 

[ghostdog]

Well, I just put them in and xp somewhat recognizes them as general system properties shows that I have 3,5 GB of ram.

I used CPU-id and it shows that they're running at 333 MHZ. Fuck. So, I guess I'd be better off with the 2GB at 800mhz, eh ?

 

[Turisas]

Yeah definitely.

 

[MetalCraze]

333 MHz = 667 MHz DDR2
So unless you feel that you are running out of RAM (which you shouldn't) ignore them.

 

[ghostdog]

Ok, thanks for the input. I'll see if I can use those sticks in my old rig.

 

[relootz]

Install them in your rig Ghostdog, lower ramspeed has a very very minimal influence on your systems performance. More ram is better.

 

[racofer]

Nothing worth using that requires more than 2gb anyway.

 

[Melcar]

More RAM > higher RAM frequency. This is specially true if you run an AMD system. The BIOS should automatically lower the RAM's frequency (and relax timings) to the lowest denominator between the sticks, and if you arrange the RAM in the correct configuration you should be able to keep your dual channel setup.

 

[Hobbit Lord of Mordor]

Similar problem.

Bought two extra 1GB RAM to add to my current (PC-5300, 667 Mhz). In BIOS shows up correctly as 4096 MB, in Windows system panel 3.0 GB, in Dxdiag 3072 MB.

Are the full extra 2 GB of RAM actually being used?

 

[Yeesh]

No, Windows only uses the RAM it says it can see. Usually 4GB in XP ends up being 3.5GB, which is no big loss. I'm not sure about other versions of Windows. But I don't think there's a damn thing you can do about it anyway

 

[relootz]

Not true exactly. 64 bit versions of Os's can use 4 gbram. Xp also has such a version.

Just upgrade to windows 7, its pretty good and you cant stay stuck with XP your entire life.

 

[Xor]

Specifically, a 32-bit operating system can only address 2^32 bytes of memory, which works out to 4 gigs. This includes the RAM, video memory, paged memory, and some stuff on the BIOS which is typically negligable if I'm remembering correctly. Windows will end up giving address space to your video card and then using the rest for RAM, usually. A 64-bit OS can address 2^64 bytes of memory max, but that will be limited by your motherboard and the design of the OS.

 

[Hobbit Lord of Mordor]

It's XP Pro ("MCE 2005"), and yes it's limited to 3.0 Gb.

I am quite surprised it isn't supported, I thought 4+ Gb was now common among gamers (it is the minimum to run bigger Civ4 mods well).

 

[Melcar]

It's due to the OS arch. Operating systems have a limit on how much memory they can access. Your OS is the old shit, so stop complaining.

 

[ghostdog]

Well, It showed up as 3.5 GB in my pc and it seems that the dual channels are working as they should. I'll leave it as it is to see if it's any better than before.

 

[Emotional Vampire]

Install them in your rig Ghostdog, lower ramspeed has a very very minimal influence on your systems performance.

Please die.

 

[TheWesDude]

Specifically, a 32-bit operating system can only address 2^32 bytes of memory, which works out to 4 gigs. This includes the RAM, video memory, paged memory, and some stuff on the BIOS which is typically negligable if I'm remembering correctly. Windows will end up giving address space to your video card and then using the rest for RAM, usually.

incorrect for any NT past 2k

win2k client used 32 bit addressing for ram, win2k server used 64 bit memory addressing

winme, and all flavors of 32 bit NT 5.x ( xp/vista/7 ) have used 48 bit memory addressing, although due to some unknown reason, they actually only use 42 bit memory addressing. thats why they can see somewhere between 3.0 to 3.5 gig of ram and never realize the full 4 gb

 

[Raghar]

Similar problem.

Bought two extra 1GB RAM to add to my current (PC-5300, 667 Mhz). In BIOS shows up correctly as 4096 MB, in Windows system panel 3.0 GB, in Dxdiag 3072 MB.

Are the full extra 2 GB of RAM actually being used?

3072 MB is 3 GB exactly.

32 bit system can use 2^32 bytes - GFX card RAM. There is also some space that is reserved for device drivers and mainboard.
For example 4GB - 512 MB = 3.5 GB (traditional)

XP 32 allows to use only 2 GB for a common program. They can be forced to allow 3 GB however they are doing a lot of paging afterward and some drivers can write into wrong places.

PAE can use much more, however each part is held as a page and must be copied into correct space. Which means massive slowdowns.

64 bit system can use much more memory so upgrade your XP into 64 bit edition. (AFAIK MS already stopped with that free upgrade from XP32 to XP64.)

 

[Raghar]

I'm guessing the new sticks are less than 800Hhz ( they probably run at around 600-700 mhz)

Look at them, there is a sticker, or it's printed on them. PC2-6400 - 800MHz.

 

[Melcar]

Install them in your rig Ghostdog, lower ramspeed has a very very minimal influence on your systems performance.

Please die.

No you die. Platforms with integrated memory controllers do not need high RAM frequencies. If you're using a FSB based platform (old, old shit Athlons and Intel chips up to i7) then yes it matters.

 

[Davaris]

Can someone tell me what are the differences with these? The Corsair's are quite a bit more expensive than the first two.

TRANSCEND 2GB 1333MHz(PC3-10600) DDR3 NON-ECC CL9 240pin LONG DIMM

ELIXIR 2GB 1333MHz 240-pin DDR3 RAM

Corsair TW3X4G1333C9A 4GB (2x XMS3 2GB) PC-10600 (1333MHz) XMP DDR3 RAM, 2x240-pin DIMMs, Non ECC Unbuffered, 9-9-9-24

Corsair TW3X4G1333C9DHX 4GB (2x XMS3 2GB) PC-10600 (1333MHz) XMP DDR3 RAM, 2x240-pin DIMMs, Non ECC Unbuffered, 9-9-9-24

 

[relootz]

those corsairs have better timings i guess. The last 4 figure.

 

[Melcar]

They probably have better timings, but with Corsair you're usually paying for the name as well.

 

[Raapys]

The Corsairs are 4GB(2x2GB) and the others are 2GB(2x1GB?) ?