Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Best RAM config for Vista 32/64?

  • 21-01-2008 9:02am
    #1
    livEwirE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,449 ✭✭✭


    Hi all,

    Might be a strange question but here goes. Recently got a new rig E6750 Core 2 Duo on a Gigabyte P35C-DS3R board.

    I have some ram of different speeds and was wondering what is the best configuration to run, I have 4gb of RAM in total but it's different speeds.

    Ram is:
    2x 1gb Generic 667Mhz DDR2
    2x 1gb Corsair 800Mhz DDR2 with heat cooler thingys

    I would like to choose one of the following configurations of RAM and OS...


    Vista 64 with 4GB RAM (2x1gb DDR2 800MHz Ram + 2x1gb 667Mhz Ram)

    Or

    Vista 32 with 2GB RAM (2x1gb DDR2 800MHz Ram)

    Or

    Vista 32 with 3GB RAM (2x1gb DDR2 800MHz Ram + 1Xgb 667Mhz))

    Is it worth using the 667Mhz RAM, I understand that using it will drop the overall RAM speed to 667mhz:eek:, is this a bad idea? Should I just stick with Vista 32 with 2GB PC800?:confused:

    Cheers

    ~livEwirE~


Comments

  • #2
    SickBoy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,537 ✭✭✭SickBoy


    If you're going to go with Vista(32 or 64) then the 4GB will be better running at 667 than having 2GB @ 800.
    Option 3 is a bad idea as having only 3 banks populated will stop the RAM running in dual channel mode which will half your memory bandwidth..


  • #3
    sebastianlieken
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,778 ✭✭✭sebastianlieken


    if you go with option A, ul have 4gigs runnin at 667mhz, but realisticaly, when will you be peaking above 2gigs n usin the whole 4 gigs?. id go with option B, 2gigs of faster 800mhz ram is more than enough for most apps, and ul notice that it should perform faster than option A in most scenarios


  • #4
    livEwirE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,449 ✭✭✭livEwirE


    OK, I'm abandoning option C and sticking with A or B :D

    Still a bit confused on this one as both you, SickBoy and sebastianlieken have completely different answers, anyone else got feedback on this dilema please:confused:


  • #5
    SickBoy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,537 ✭✭✭SickBoy


    You might get a better response in the Windows forum...


  • #6
    Conar
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,634 ✭✭✭Conar


    sebastianlieken wrote: »
    if you go with option A, ul have 4gigs runnin at 667mhz, but realisticaly, when will you be peaking above 2gigs n usin the whole 4 gigs?. id go with option B, 2gigs of faster 800mhz ram is more than enough for most apps, and ul notice that it should perform faster than option A in most scenarios

    Vista handles memory mush differently than XP.
    Definitely go with 4GB, it caches commonly used programs/util's in memory so everything is MUCH more responsive.
    Check out my memory usage for 4GB in Vista Ultimate x64.


    memoryyl8.th.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    livEwirE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,449 ✭✭✭livEwirE


    Meethinks you have convinced me Conar :D


Advertisement