1gig RAM vs. 512MB

[Frost_Bite]

I know this may come across as completely dumb, but I want to ask anyway.

A couple of months ago guys were buying only 512MB of RAM, and saying you'll get better OC'ing results if you do. It was dealing with A64s, but it puzzled me then.

Now...I have m S939y FX-53 and I ordered 512MB (2x256) of PC3700EB b/c the 1gig was so expensive ($400+) at the time. I've heard alot of guys say that 1gig is the way to go now.

Will my FX-53 be hampered by only 512MB of RAM? Will its OC potential be decreased? Does ram quanity ever effect OC?

Thanks and sorry for the dumbness.

[-=TriX=-]

Generally, smaller RAM modules do overclock slightly better than larger (i.e. 256 compared to 512). But with the demand of today's software I wouldn't reccommend anything less than 1GB.

So the overclock potential on your RAM will actually increase compared to 2x512MB sticks. Your system will only be hampered if the software you are running demands more than 512MB RAM.

If you just bought your RAM and you'd still like to have 2x512 for dual channel and to be prepared for the new age of software, I would return the 2x256 and get a single stick of 512 and when you have the money saved, go for another 512 stick. I believe the OCZ PC3700 EB is about $330 USD now.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...threadid=39670

No dumb questions here m8

[drunkenmaster]

for benching really 256 is good on some platforms, and some mobo's , especially it seemed some earlier nf3 150 boards, had some issues running 2 double sided sticks of ram.

THe other side of the argument is , for instance, on canterwood/springdale 2x double sided sticks offered 2/3% performance increase over single sided sticks.

Basically, if you "like" benching, but its really a rig that will be pushed far but then scaled down a little for 24/7 use, but 2x512, there are so many games, apps , etc, that need more than 512mb ram to run effectively. Games since around mid last year have benefitted from a gig of ram.

If you're getting a benching rig, its worth finding out what offers best performance, p4 at the mo, 512 sticks are probo best, amd, more for compatibliliy 256mb sticks. I've not really seen any indepth testing of single vs double sided on ath 64 setups.

[TheWizzard]

I bought a Mushkin PC3500 Level 2 Dual Channel Kit 1GB (winbond BH-5). I'm wondering what that will do on my DFI LanParty NF2 Ultra Rev. B.

[avicenna]

Wwell you´ll have to test and tell us won´t ya?

Impossible for us to say exactly how they will perform/OC in your particular system

[StormPC]

The truth is that very few games benefit from more than 512MB. Those few that do are very poorly written. Since the things that make a good benching machine are different than what makes a good gaming machine you have to decide what's more important to you. If both are you can always build a separate benching machine. That's what I have. You should probably get a gig later and just use your 512MB to bench and to get you by right now (which they will).

With a machine like yours it is unlikely you will have problems running anything because it is top notch. A slower machine might see more benefit with 1GB than your machine would on certain games. Like I said, there are only a very small number of games that are so badly programmed that they won't run properly without a gig of RAM.

[Tilmitt]

It's not about being badly programmed, 512MB just plain isn't enough anymore. I think it's the biggest waste to blow money on 256MB sticks today. On any game that's come out in the past year you'll notice a significant difference between 512MB and 1GB. And even on older games too. You're deluding yourself if you think 512MB doesn't incur a performance hit.

[pelikan]

Games I play that perform way better with 1GB:
Far Cry
Doom 3
UT2004
It seems like just about all newer games benefit.

[STEvil]

StormPC: VIS vs. FOV. It is not bad programming when talking Far Cry, Doom 3, or UTx. BF'42 is debateable, though.

[-=TriX=-]

Originally posted by Tilmitt
It's not about being badly programmed, 512MB just plain isn't enough anymore. I think it's the biggest waste to blow money on 256MB sticks today. On any game that's come out in the past year you'll notice a significant difference between 512MB and 1GB. And even on older games too. You're deluding yourself if you think 512MB doesn't incur a performance hit.

:yeah:

new games have larger, more detailed levels, charachters, etc. All this equates to using more system RAM.

I only have 512 in my system and there is disk swapping in UT w/ highest level of detail. Viewing the task manager with UT loaded shows me that UT is consumimg a ton of RAM.

[Walrusbonzo]

Originally posted by StormPC
The truth is that very few games benefit from more than 512MB. Those few that do are very poorly written.

I guess you've seen the source code huh? Thought not!!!

You do realise that in a lot of real world scenarios it's faster to store something in RAM than to keep having to regenerate it on the fly to conserve RAM. I.E. tables, maps, textures, and so on.

Could be a case of making good use of RAM available to make the software faster.

More and more often I'm seeing you making some completely stupid and uninformed comments.

Time to shut up dude.

[Mariachi]

which other stupid omments did he posted?
He said completely truth on the S754 CH > 939 NC issue..

[quicksilverXP]

HAHA... what the hell Storm? Bad programming.....? If Far Cry and Doom 3 are examples of games that require more than 512MB of ram and... are indicative of bad programming..... I hope all games in the future are a result of bad programming since Far Cry and Doom 3 are perhpas the only games that can warrant a new videocard purchase.