Tech Support Guy banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
329 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
HellouuuIII

I'm buying this new system you know, yeah, and I'm giong to have 4 gb of RAM you know, yeah, but the thing is really that, yeah, I don't know which of these that is the fastest, yeah, 4x1gb at 1066mhz or 2x2gb at 1066mhz

That's kind of it, yeah.


=)


thanks 2 ya (yeah) =)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,765 Posts
They're both the same speed, however I would go with 2x2GB for a couple reasons. The first reason is that you can easily throw another 2x2GB in later if you want and you won't have to swap out all the sticks. The second reason is that in general it is slightly more stable to just have 2 RAM slots occupied. You probably won't need to worry about the second reason, that is mainly for overclocking.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
329 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
That took some time =)

But thanks anyway, I hope I'll be able to change it to 2x2, I happened to overlook that small thing when my seller came with the "ending product to order".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,765 Posts
It's not really a big deal if you ordered the 4 sticks instead of 2, especially if you don't plan on upgrading to 8GB anytime soon.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
307 Posts
4 does make the heat more, but if one of them doesn't work, you don't have to sacrifice 2g at a time...

Generally a bit better in the way of looking out for hardware problems, but otherwise, I'd advise 2x2, since 2g sticks are getting cheaper... 1g sticks don't have much more to get in terms of bang for the buck... And anyway, vista allows for huuge amounts of RAM... If you've got vista, go for it...

If you're sticking with XP, then stick with 4 sticks, as XP only allows for 4g.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
329 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
I don't want to go through this -bit thingy again, so just ignore it oO...

Anyways I'm going to have xp pro 32-bit dual with vista ultimate 64-bit

I'll see what I can do, I'm aiming at 2x2.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,765 Posts
4 does make the heat more, but if one of them doesn't work, you don't have to sacrifice 2g at a time...

Generally a bit better in the way of looking out for hardware problems, but otherwise, I'd advise 2x2, since 2g sticks are getting cheaper... 1g sticks don't have much more to get in terms of bang for the buck... And anyway, vista allows for huuge amounts of RAM... If you've got vista, go for it...

If you're sticking with XP, then stick with 4 sticks, as XP only allows for 4g.
Vista itself doesn't allow for more RAM, it's 64-bit Vista that allows for more RAM. There's a 64-bit XP that allows for the same amount of RAM as in 64-bit Vista. Likewise, the RAM available to 32-bit XP and 32-bit Vista is the same as well.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
827 Posts
1. cuz it's cheap and good
2. I don't know what you're talking about.
You're asking for DDR2-1066, correct? Why are you wanting that fast of memory? It increases price considerably and doesn't increase performance to any degree you'd notice by running it faster than 1:1 FSB to memory ratio. If you run a Core 2 Duo with 1066FSB then the fastest you need is DDR2-533. A Core 2 Duo with 1333FSB needs DDR2-667. Are you seeing the picture?

Cheaper? 4GB (2x2) of DDR2-1066 is $170 and 4GB (2x2) of DDR2-667 is $80. That's a 100% price premium for maybe 2% performance difference?

Care to explain what you're talking about?
See above.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,765 Posts
I see what you're saying, I've just never seen it phrased like that. I've always seen the ratio expressed in terms of the FSB before the multiplier and half the DDR speed of the memory, but what you're saying is the same.

Having faster memory will increase the overclockability (if that's a word) of the system. Having RAM that is rated at such high speeds will allow you to overclock your processor more without having to overclock the RAM. For example, my system right now is capped at 3.2GHz, when I know I could push it further. However, since my RAM is only rated at 400MHz and my RAM is cheap, I can't push it anymore because I would have to overclock the RAM and it can't take it. But yeah, go for the lower speeds if you aren't overclocking.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,487 Posts
This question was in my previous post, see
http://forums.techguy.org/hardware/676475-4x1-2x2-memory.html
I got the 2 gig sticks, and did a few tests with 4x1 and 2x2, and the 2x2 came out very very slightly faster (3DMark06 gave it another 140 points on average). However, it will depend on the timings, if you can get tighter mem settings performance will increase slightly, although not really much (asgain, minimal increase). You also have to consider CPU speed, o/c ing, and just about everything else you have.
And lests put the "1066 isnt faster " to bed once and for all. I now use 1066 mem as opposed to 800. The 1066 consistently comes in faster. I have benchmarked with more apps than I care to think of, and done manual timings on various games and apps, after changing mem. I used 2x1gb sticks of 1066 and 800 on identical mem settings, to avoid the timings issue, and kept the CPU at the same speed (stock). In video tests ( and we are talking a few hours of these, not a quivk 10 second test), encoding, games, the 1066 gives a faster result. This varies between aroundabout 4 and 15%, although I would discount hghr olwer results. Mean wise, I got 8%, median wise it was 7%. As for price, 1066 is about £5-10 more, which is next to nothing.

I will stand by my statements, because I have actually tested it myself, not relied on 3rd party results. So yes, get the 1066 if you want that slight boost :)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
827 Posts
This question was in my previous post, see
http://forums.techguy.org/hardware/676475-4x1-2x2-memory.html
I got the 2 gig sticks, and did a few tests with 4x1 and 2x2, and the 2x2 came out very very slightly faster (3DMark06 gave it another 140 points on average). However, it will depend on the timings, if you can get tighter mem settings performance will increase slightly, although not really much (asgain, minimal increase). You also have to consider CPU speed, o/c ing, and just about everything else you have.
And lests put the "1066 isnt faster " to bed once and for all. I now use 1066 mem as opposed to 800. The 1066 consistently comes in faster. I have benchmarked with more apps than I care to think of, and done manual timings on various games and apps, after changing mem. I used 2x1gb sticks of 1066 and 800 on identical mem settings, to avoid the timings issue, and kept the CPU at the same speed (stock). In video tests ( and we are talking a few hours of these, not a quivk 10 second test), encoding, games, the 1066 gives a faster result. This varies between aroundabout 4 and 15%, although I would discount hghr olwer results. Mean wise, I got 8%, median wise it was 7%. As for price, 1066 is about £5-10 more, which is next to nothing.

I will stand by my statements, because I have actually tested it myself, not relied on 3rd party results. So yes, get the 1066 if you want that slight boost :)
Relied on 3rd party results? Sorry but AnandTech is one of the best resources that anyone can use. Are you saying that they are wrong?

Again, no real performance difference: http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=2863&p=4

Cheapest DDR2-1066 4GB (2x2GB) is $170: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231166

Cheapest DDR2-667 4GB (2x2GB) is $80: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820161241

I have to repeat myself that it's 100% of the price premium but do you get 100% performance increase? He can get 8GB of DDR2-667 for the same price he'd be paying for a negligible performance boost that he'll never visually see. :rolleyes:

It's all basic math really.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,487 Posts
3rd party means someone else did it, not yourself, thats a basic definition. I ran my own tests, on the same rig, and got a performance increase. As for price, I hate to think where you shop! I paid £65 for my 800, and £72 for my 1066. Hardly a 100% increase?
And lets not forget the question, as to which is faster, 2x2 or 4x1. I gave an answer to that, as opposed to changing topic. This again was based on benchmarks I carried out, as opposed to 3rd party results.
To summarise, I get a 7 to 12% increase in performance for an 11% price increase. Personally, I would say its worth it.
As for saying Anadtech are wrong, I wouldnt know, I dont use them. I have other sources I prefer to use. But again, I would rate my results over anyone elses for obvious reasons, :)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
827 Posts
3rd party means someone else did it, not yourself, thats a basic definition...As for saying Anadtech are wrong, I wouldnt know, I dont use them. I have other sources I prefer to use. But again, I would rate my results over anyone elses for obvious reasons
You wouldn't know? They are the best hardware review website for a very good reason: reliability and integrity.

That's why I always use them to reference my resources of why I say the things I say. If you want to refute their benchmarks then please state so.

I ran my own tests, on the same rig, and got a performance increase. As for price, I hate to think where you shop! I paid £65 for my 800, and £72 for my 1066. Hardly a 100% increase?
And lets not forget the question, as to which is faster, 2x2 or 4x1. I gave an answer to that, as opposed to changing topic. This again was based on benchmarks I carried out, as opposed to 3rd party results.
To summarise, I get a 7 to 12% increase in performance for an 11% price increase. Personally, I would say its worth it.
I'm using American prices based upon the #1 reseller in the United States. You keep saying that you paid whatever but give no proof. Your specs state that you have 2GB OCZ DDR2 yet your signature says different? £72 is $143 USD and £65 is $129 USD. You paid how much for your DDR2-800 and yet here in America it is $75 for 4GB (2x2GB): http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820141337

Do you have some sort of UK reseller to reference your prices to at all?

In regards to your increase in performance, do you have any proof?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,765 Posts
I'm gonna have to back Gulo on the fact that I trust results that I obtain myself over those that one of the review sites obtain. While nothing is wrong with Anandtech, I find it a little stupid to swear by one site for reviews. When I research things I use many reviews site, which do include Anandtech, but I do not swear by one. It's important to get the whole picture. I'm not saying you don't know what you're talking about, you sound very intelligent, I'm just stating my opinion.

As for the memory cost issue, 1066 is twice as expensive as 667 and 800, which means that DDR2 800 and DDR2667 cost the same. Having said that, why would anyone pay the same price for something slower (DDR2 667) when they can get something faster (DDR2 800).

Might as well get the DDR2 800 and underclock it to 667, just in case you decide to overclock your processor later. But I still stand by my previous statement that DDR2 1066 isn't really worth it unless you're doing some major overclocking.

While there is a slight gain in performance when going to DDR2 1066, most users will not even notice it. Hell, I don't think I would even notice it unless I was compiling a video or doing some CAD work. Even gaming won't let you realize the increase when upgrading to 1066. I know benchmarks show it, but benchmarks don't mean everything, and they mean practically nothing to the average user.

There's no need to bash people or get defensive.

List of DDR2 667 prices:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...1052315794+1052408745&name=DDR2+667+(PC2+5300)

List of DDR2 800 prices:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...1052315794+1052416064&name=DDR2+800+(PC2+6400)
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
123,571 Posts
jonmcc33,

You've already been warned about turning these threads into debates by an administrator. Posters come here for assistance, advice and guidance. Obviously not everyone is going to agree on what's bigger, better and faster. We expect people to give advice based on their own personal experiences and/or other resources to the best of their knowledge and then it's up to the original poster to decide how they are going to proceed using the information gathered. Unless something is posted that is obviously a mistake or incorrect, we need to take their postings at face value and in good faith and not challenge everything which only serves to create a hostile environment, something you've been doing a lot of lately. There will be no more warnings.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
827 Posts
jonmcc33,

You've already been warned about turning these threads into debates by an administrator. Posters come here for assistance, advice and guidance. Obviously not everyone is going to agree on what's bigger, better and faster. We expect people to give advice based on their own personal experiences and/or other resources to the best of their knowledge and then it's up to the original poster to decide how they are going to proceed using the information gathered. Unless something is posted that is obviously a mistake or incorrect, we need to take their postings at face value and in good faith and not challenge everything which only serves to create a hostile environment, something you've been doing a lot of lately. There will be no more warnings.
You could have sent this message via PM since it was completely unrelated to the topic. Unsure of why you make rules that you don't even follow. :confused:

I am in fact helping someone by pointing out facts that getting faster memory at more than 2X the price will not help their performance at all. I deeply and sincerely apologize if you do not want me to help someone where it counts the most...their pocketbook. :up:

In the future if you have anything off topic to say please use the PM system. Thank you and have a great day! :)
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top