4gb, 6gb, or 8gb for vista x64

[scottc19]

So I am finally thinking about moving back to vista x64, I used it when it first came out for about 6 months, then got fed up with all the problems and sli problems and problems with my 8800gt and problems in general ;) But now it seems to have matured and I think dx10 is ready to be used again. So now my question is how much memory should I get. First off let me say that I hate having a paging file, it seems to cause me a lot of problems, I know its efficiency is improved in vista 64 at least I think it has, but lets say I turn the paging file off. Now what would be optimal where I wouldn't run out of memory and crash my system. I end up having a lot of browers windows open most of the time... like around 15ish and each one has a few tabs open, its a bad habit, but its a habit none-the-less. I also will be playing a fair amount of games. COD5, COD4, left for dead, ect... My cpu is c2d @4.5ghz and video card will be upgraded to most likely a wc volt modded 285gtx. Motherboard is dfi-p35-t2r. I currently have 1gb x 4 1066 ram sticks that I will get rid of if I decide to upgrade to more. The ram will be ddr2 either way. So what do you guys think? Also how is overclocking 8gb vs 6gb, will 4 or 3 memory sticks stress the memory controller more? Also any thoughts on 4gb sticks vs 2gb sticks....

Sorry for the long post :)

[Sunfire]

I think 4 GB is enough for you, most of the games doesn't use that much. I don't recommend to turn the page file off. Not because Windows needs it, some program does. And if a program like this doesnt'nt find the pagefile, it will crash. Set the pagefile size about 1 GB, and you're done. And keep those Patriots :)

[crazy1323]

What is good is how Vista 64 handles extra memory. Over time it learns what files and programs you use most and leaves them cached in the memory and so the more memory you have the faster Vista 64 is. I have 12GB installed on my system and it is FAST.

[HuffPCair]

Ummm go with how ever much you can get. But I am on four right now and it works great.

[Speederlander]

I wouldn't go 8GB unless its ECC.

[sjg0]

I wouldn't go 8GB unless its ECC.

Why?

Geeze... 8Gb ECC sound like an INSANE amount of $$$

[jcool]

4gb, 6gb, or 8gb for vista x64

If you're on i7, easy.. 12! You can never have enough ram, and you can run a BCLK of 200 fine with 12Gb at 1600Mhz without using voltages beyond spec (I run a GA-EX58 Extreme with 12GB CSX DDR3-1600 at 1,35V VTT and 1,60V Vdimm rockstable).

[saint-francis]

I have the LP P35 too and I can tell you from experience that using 4 dims instead of just 2 necessitates more NB voltage. I have my NB under water so it doesn't matter that much but it is something you need to take into consideration. Also Since installing a hardware RAID card the NB needs even more juice to keep stable with 4 dimms. Do you need 8 GB? 4 seems to be fine for me but admittedly I use a page file. I just keep it on a separate drive.Also in my experience the difference with superfetch between 4 GB and more is pretty slim. Superfetch seems to use proportionately less RAM the more you install.

[Speederlander]

Why?

Geeze... 8Gb ECC sound like an INSANE amount of $$$

2GB sticks of vanilla ECC RAM go for under $30.

More RAM = more bit errors. If you don't value the integrity of your data and you can live with data corruption, then no, you don't need ECC RAM.

As far as RAM bit errors, the original Corsair rule is: 1 bit error occurs in 256MB of ram every month.
4GB = 15 bit errors/month
8GB = 31 bit errors/month
16GB = 62 bit errors/month
32GB = 125 bit errors/month

However, other more recent sources maintain 1 bit error per gigabyte per month, so that cuts those numbers by a factor of 4, i.e.:
4GB = 4 bit errors/month
8GB = 8 bit errors/month
16GB = 15 bit errors/month
32GB = 31 bit errors/month

Which is more correct? My guess is that it's somewhere in between, governed by the quality of the RAM, amount of overclock beyond stated specs, the luck of the draw, and a host of other issues.

So the next time you open some picture in your overclocked RAM, it might not be quite the same picture when you save it back to disk. Same goes for anything that you pull in to RAM and save back to disk.

[Nanometer]

speeder, you do realize those kinds of errors are like prime 95 errors, they seriously dont mean anything for the home user. ECC is well, inappropriate for the home user even with 8 gigs of ram. You can get errors all the time and have a stable computer for YEARS. Bit errors are nothing to worry about

[Speederlander]

speeder, you do realize those kinds of errors are like prime 95 errors, they seriously dont mean anything for the home user. ECC is well, inappropriate for the home user even with 8 gigs of ram. You can get errors all the time and have a stable computer for YEARS. Bit errors are nothing to worry about

I only care about data integrity, I'm not talking about random computer crashes. If you have a file in memory and bits get flipped and you save the file, changes have been made you didn't want. If you move a file from drive A to drive B, it will go through memory. Bits can flip. The numbers are the numbers. People are free to do as they will.

[jcool]

2GB sticks of vanilla ECC RAM go for under $30.

More RAM = more bit errors. If you don't value the integrity of your data and you can live with data corruption, then no, you don't need ECC RAM.

As far as RAM bit errors, the original Corsair rule is: 1 bit error occurs in 256MB of ram every month.
4GB = 15 bit errors/month
8GB = 31 bit errors/month
16GB = 62 bit errors/month
32GB = 125 bit errors/month

However, other more recent sources maintain 1 bit error per gigabyte per month, so that cuts those numbers by a factor of 4, i.e.:
4GB = 4 bit errors/month
8GB = 8 bit errors/month
16GB = 15 bit errors/month
32GB = 31 bit errors/month

Which is more correct? My guess is that it's somewhere in between, governed by the quality of the RAM, amount of overclock beyond stated specs, the luck of the draw, and a host of other issues.

So the next time you open some picture in your overclocked RAM, it might not be quite the same picture when you save it back to disk. Same goes for anything that you pull in to RAM and save back to disk.

That is why I run linpack for a few hours on max mem if I want a REALLY stable rig. Any mem instabilities will show there.

For example, this 12GB rig definitely doesn't compromise any data stored in its ram ;)

http://database.he-computer.de/Bilder/temp/linxb.jpg

Of course that is a customer's rig, I don't care that much for extreme stability myself.

[Speederlander]

That is why I run linpack for a few hours on max mem if I want a REALLY stable rig. Any mem instabilities will show there.

For example, this 12GB rig definitely doesn't compromise any data stored in its ram ;)

http://database.he-computer.de/Bilder/temp/linxb.jpg

Of course that is a customer's rig, I don't care that much for extreme stability myself.

Baseline bit flipping though isn't a "stability" issue insofar as it's not something you can force by stressing the system. It's a property of memory and when it happens, it's infrequent and random. A certain number of errors will happen. When you overclock, the frequency of these errors likely increases, but the base line stable system (what I am talking about) has a steady stream of errors. Most people just never notice, until a file gets corrupted, etc. Everyone who has spent a lot of time on a computer has had the occasional unexplained corrupt file. Lots of things can cause it. Bit flipping in system memory is one of them. Even ECC isn't total protection. It doesn't reduce the frequency of these errors, it just tries to correct for them when they happen.

Let me say again, the numbers I gave above have nothing to do with overclocking stability. They are a property of the random access memory of the system and you can't make them go away.

[halo112358]

4gb or 8gb, depending on how many memory intensive apps you run at once.

Also - if you go for 4gb, tweak superfetch & prefetching in the registry from 3 to 1, that will stop windows from filling 50-60% of available ram with prefetched garbage.

[jcool]

A certain number of errors will happen. When you overclock, the frequency of these errors likely increases, but the base line stable system (what I am talking about) has a steady stream of errors.

Fine with me - if I can't to anything about the baseline failure rate, I can at least make damn sure I don't increase that rate by overclocking. Which I undoubtedly proved with the above screenshot, I dare say :D

[Speederlander]

Fine with me - if I can't to anything about the baseline failure rate, I can at least make damn sure I don't increase that rate by overclocking. Which I undoubtedly proved with the above screenshot, I dare say :D

Can't reduce the rate, but you can mitigate the impact of those errors with ECC. That was my only point.

[jcool]

So I guess I am as well protected as it gets.. all my important stuff lies on the Dual Harpertown system (8GB ECC FBdimms) on a Raid 5 array which is controlled by a hardware controller with ECC cache :up:

[reberto]

Can't reduce the rate, but you can mitigate the impact of those errors with ECC. That was my only point.

And 1 stick of 2GB DDR2-800 ECC ram starts at $50, so thats $200 for 8GB. Not to mention ECC ram doesn't overclock well at all. 8GB of non-ECC ram will be just fine :cool:

[zanzabar]

ddr2 ecc ram is cheap but its slow, $200 for 8GB is overpriced u should beable to get some that dose 800mhz cas5 for about $35 a 2GB stick. but i dont find it necessary unless im using the comp as a file server, and then thats 1GB of ram and thats overkill

and 4GB is perfect IMO, 8GB needs 4 sticks of 2GB sticks and the powerchips dont clock well in 4x2. if u went ddr3 im not sure

[ewitte]

I'm thinking of going 8GB because I will soon replace the OS drive with SSD.

http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=47212

Also I like to run Virtual Machines a lot.

[RealTelstar]

I don't recommend to turn the page file off. Not because Windows needs it, some program does.

Vista DOES need it.
Turn it of and then check the logs.

[scottc19]

vista 64 doesn't give me any noticable errors with it turned off, what kind of error are in the log? Warnings? Mine seems to run just fine.

Thanks for the tips everyone, I decided to try it out with 4 gigs and it works great.

[Speederlander]

vista 64 doesn't give me any noticable errors with it turned off, what kind of error are in the log? Warnings? Mine seems to run just fine.

Thanks for the tips everyone, I decided to try it out with 4 gigs and it works great.

Why turn it off? When you really DO fill your 4 gigs you're performance is tanked, plus it really is needed because as of the moment (not sure about 7) Windows opperating systems expect it to be there. Even if they aren't paging. Will it always do bad things to have it off? No. Will it occassionally cause issues? By most knowledgeable accounts, yes. There is no good reason to turn it off.

[ewitte]

I've never seen missing data or things like that unless something was bad. My guess is both the OS and Motherboard knows that errors will occurs and takes action to make sure nothing serious happens.

[ewitte]

Why turn it off? When you really DO fill your 4 gigs you're performance is tanked, plus it really is needed because as of the moment (not sure about 7) Windows opperating systems expect it to be there. Even if they aren't paging. Will it always do bad things to have it off? No. Will it occassionally cause issues? By most knowledgeable accounts, yes. There is no good reason to turn it off.

Not wanting a pagefile on a SSD Drive of you don't have a normal hard drive? I just redirected mine to another drive but maybe in a laptop someone wouldn't have that option. Also there are other tweaks that minimize pagefile usage without completely turning it off. You can also get quite a bit of free memory back disabling prefetch and superfetch.