DDR3 v DDR2

Cunny-Funt

Hi.

I've got a Gigabyte P35C-DS3R mobo which can take both DDR2 and DDR3.

I've currently got 2gb ddr2 in it but I'm thinking of slapping another 2 gb in there.

I was wondering if I should splash out and get 4gb DDR 3 instead? Will it give my computer a massive boost over it only being 4gb DDR 2?

Btw it says on my mobo:

DDRII 800/1066(OC)

DDRIII 1066/1333(OC) so I guess that means I'm limited to 1066 speed DDR3. I'm assuming?

Rest of my specs: GPU=9800GTX, CPU=Q6600.

Anti

with your current cpu there is no point going ddr3.Another 2gb of ddr2 will do just fine.

Cunny-Funt

So it wouldn't make any difference then?

Anti

none at all as yoru cpu's fsb is only 1066 there is no advantage of going to ddr3.

Cunny-Funt

You mean my mobo right? Anyway fair enough I'll stick with the DDR2.

Another question. I know you need a 64bit OS for 4gbs to fully register. But I heard that the computer still makes use of it when its gaming and such. Is this true?

PogMoThoin

Cunny-Funt wrote: »

Another question. I know you need a 64bit OS for 4gbs to fully register. But I heard that the computer still makes use of it when its gaming and such. Is this true?

No, a 32bit OS will see it (service pack 3 for XP fixed this, before it didn't even see it) but can't use it.

Max of 32bit is 2 to the power of 32 which is 4,294,967,295. The range of integer values that can be stored in 32 bits is 0 through 4,294,967,295. Hence, a processor with 32-bit memory addresses can directly access 4GB of byte-addressable memory. Deduct what your gpu and other devices use up gives You the ~3.5GB figure

Cunny-Funt

Yeah thats fair enough. Still more then 3gb so I may as well slap the 4gb in considering the price anyway.

Can't see myself upgrading to winxp 64 or vista 64 anytime soon though.

Out of interest, whats the story with "windows 7" Is it going to be 64bit as standard?

Cheers btw lads.

Blazer

Nope..it's gonna be available in 32bit and 64bit flavours.
How come you haven't gone to 64bit Vista yet? or are you still using XP?

Cunny-Funt

64bit xp is dodgy enough never mind 64bit Vista.

I don't want the hassle.

That fact that windows 7 STILL has a 32bit option leads me to think that 64bit is still a bug fest for that too.

I'm currently using XP 32 yeah. I've vista biz on my lappy though.

AlmightyCushion

I imagine the 32 bit support in windows 7 will be for netbooks. They used one of these to show off how quick it was on a relatively low powered device.

Anti

Cunny-Funt wrote: »

You mean my mobo right? Anyway fair enough I'll stick with the DDR2.

Nope, i mean your cpu. Its fsb is 1066mhz, your mobo does however support 1666mhz fsb, but without a cpu with that fsb it would be pointless.

astrofool

MS have to release a 32bit version of windows 7 for legacy reasons more than anything else, 16 bit code, for example, won't run on 64bit windows (but will on 32bit). If anything, Vista 64 has been more stable than 32, and now there is no problem in getting drivers, the 64bit drivers are generally higher quality (they had to be rewritten for 64 bit support, so a lot of bugs have been fixed).

Cunny-Funt

Manties wrote: »

Nope, i mean your cpu. Its fsb is 1066mhz, your mobo does however support 1666mhz fsb, but without a cpu with that fsb it would be pointless.

Huh? But how come it says "DDRIII 1066" on it then? (I'm not arguing I'm just confused - I'm decent enough with PC hardware, I've built a few rigs at this stage but theres still a lot I don't get. Like FSB and over clocking etc)

astrofool wrote: »

MS have to release a 32bit version of windows 7 for legacy reasons more than anything else, 16 bit code, for example, won't run on 64bit windows (but will on 32bit). If anything, Vista 64 has been more stable than 32, and now there is no problem in getting drivers, the 64bit drivers are generally higher quality (they had to be rewritten for 64 bit support, so a lot of bugs have been fixed).

What about XP64? Also whats so good about any 64bit windows over 32 apart from being able to support more ram?

Donald-Duck

Cunny-Funt wrote: »

Huh? But how come it says "DDRIII 1066" on it then? (I'm not arguing I'm just confused - I'm decent enough with PC hardware, I've built a few rigs at this stage but theres still a lot I don't get. Like FSB and over clocking etc)



What about XP64? Also whats so good about any 64bit windows over 32 apart from being able to support more ram?

You remember Windows ME? XP64 is that bad.

astrofool

XP 64 was based on windows server 2003 sp1 build of Windows, and was really only a proof of concept to pave the way for Windows Vista x64. Windows Server 2003 x64 is used extensively in data centers.

Vista x64 has had very few security issues compared to 32bit, very few viruses exist. They can also take advantage of the expanded instruction sets of x64 cpu's (more/wider on chip registers, NX by default, improved floating point performance). Memory management has greatly improved, with each process getting it's own memory allocation (rather than shared with a 2GB maximum on 32bit), which keeps misbehaving programs from taking down a system, while also allowing programs to access more resources. From day to day use, on the same system, x64 is snappier to use, and more stable, I've had 0 blue screens for instance in using Vista x64 since release and playing games (e.g. crysis, hl ep2), running SQL Server, IE, Visual Studio, Itunes etc.

If you want a very safe browsing environment, use IE7 x64.

I've also got 8GB RAM in my machine (and probably going to 12GB at some stage with i7).

Tyrant^

Vista 64 aint bad at all. Dont know why people fuss over it. The only problem I have with it is that it takes ages to startup ! So ive started using stand-by allot more than shut down.

Cunny-Funt

Donald-Duck wrote: »

You remember Windows ME? XP64 is that bad.

lol

astrofool wrote: »

XP 64 was based on windows server 2003 sp1 build of Windows, and was really only a proof of concept to pave the way for Windows Vista x64. Windows Server 2003 x64 is used extensively in data centers.

Vista x64 has had very few security issues compared to 32bit, very few viruses exist. They can also take advantage of the expanded instruction sets of x64 cpu's (more/wider on chip registers, NX by default, improved floating point performance). Memory management has greatly improved, with each process getting it's own memory allocation (rather than shared with a 2GB maximum on 32bit), which keeps misbehaving programs from taking down a system, while also allowing programs to access more resources. From day to day use, on the same system, x64 is snappier to use, and more stable, I've had 0 blue screens for instance in using Vista x64 since release and playing games (e.g. crysis, hl ep2), running SQL Server, IE, Visual Studio, Itunes etc.

If you want a very safe browsing environment, use IE7 x64.

I've also got 8GB RAM in my machine (and probably going to 12GB at some stage with i7).

Cheers lads, interesting. I may just look into 64bit Vista after all...

Is there any point now though with Windows 7 coming out? Also would a 40gb partition be fine for vista64 yeah? (would just be used for the OS)

astrofool

That partition size would be fine if it's OS only.

Down to you on Windows 7

leninbenjamin

Cunny-Funt wrote: »

Is there any point now though with Windows 7 coming out?

probably. It could be out by late next year, but as with all microsoft OSs it will come with a hell of a lotta bugs and the usual poor driver compatability for a while (I know MS are actively trying to reduce this prior to the launch, but i don't believe they'll be fully able to pull it off, old habits die hard and all). I'd say it will be late 2010 before anyone should consider moving to 7...

Donald-Duck

leninbenjamin wrote: »

probably. It could be out by late next year, but as with all microsoft OSs it will come with a hell of a lotta bugs and the usual poor driver compatability for a while (I know MS are actively trying to reduce this prior to the launch, but i don't believe they'll be fully able to pull it off, old habits die hard and all). I'd say it will be late 2010 before anyone should consider moving to 7...

What I've heard about the leaked builds suggests otherwise, it is suppose to be very stable

Spiritine

Cunny-Funt wrote: »

64bit xp is dodgy enough never mind 64bit Vista.

I don't want the hassle.

running vista 64.... i dont find a problem with it

leninbenjamin

Donald-Duck wrote: »

What I've heard about the leaked builds suggests otherwise, it is suppose to be very stable

I guess, i've heard similar... i guess i just remain perennially sceptical when it comes to all things Microsoft.

AlmightyCushion

I thought windows 7 was using the same drivers as vista to stop the same problem vista had at launch.

RealistSpy

ok people back to topic!

I think DDr3 is the future but the question boiles down to personal taste of latency or Speed!

Me I like speed.