[Princess Garnet]

Well, recently, when I picked up two additional hard drives, I picked up another 4GB of RAM since it's so cheap, and prices on DDR2 RAM will likely only go up as time goes on and things transition to DDR3 RAM. I am aware 32-bit operating systems can't address the full 4GB I have now, let alone 8GB, and I was aware you'd need more voltage for the MCH (Northbridge), and possibly RAM, and I know it's overkill now, but it was for when I get Windows 7 64-bit more than anything. RAM has always been something you could never have too much of, well, maybe until now.

Here's my experience and conclusion. It's not worth 8GB right now except for a very few people.

First of all, I had to lower my overclock (I was pretty much aware I'd have to, but was hoping I wouldn't have to).

With 4GB, I am able to run my RAM at 900MHz at 5-5-5-18 and 2.0V, with the Northbridge at 1.39V. The CPU, therefore, runs at 4.5GHz. Besides the fact that the timings could be better, all was well.

With 8GB, I can't go higher than 800MHz, need the same 5-5-5-18 timings, but I need 2.1V on the RAM, and 1.45V on the Northbridge (am not willing to give it more since it's passively cooled and runs pretty warm as it is). The CPU, therefore, runs at 4.0GHz. Since I upgraded to this CPU for the extra speed, that would be a waste.

According to Corsair, to use 8GB, at least in a configuration of four modules of 2GB each, it's recommended to use 2.1V for the RAM, +.2V for the MCH (which would be the 1.45V I used, since it's 1.25V stock), and set the speed to 667MHz. 667MHz!? Well, wow, it's rated for 800MHz at 1.9V. Some RAM will do 800MHz with four modules like that (luckily, mine did), but too much higher or with better timings with 4x 2GB seems hard to do. I'm not even fully sure it was 100% stable (though it passed MemTest86+ and general use).

Not only that, but what needs 8GB? Even with a 64-bit operating system, most programs are still 32-bit.

Anyway, this is just my experience. You'll notice I'm back to 4GB in the signature. It's no loss. Even though the 32-bit operating system can only see ~3.25GB of it, since 64-bit software has a bigger footprint, there's no real waste using 4GB on a 32-bit operating system or real advantage switching to a 64-bit operating system with 4GB. You'd do that with 6GB or more.

Therefore, I think 4GB is the way to go now, and even 2GB is honestly probably fine enough for most people.

Anywho's that's my feedback. I pretty much knew all of this, but I was sort of hoping I'd be able to keep the 4.5GHz overclock with the 8GB if I added some voltage (since I had headroom), even if I had to loosten timings, but now that I have to choose between the overclock and the RAM, since the RAM gives far less extra anything, unless I do get both working together, I'll probably sell the extra RAM to my brother or something, since I know he's been saying he's been wanting to buy some. By time I need 8GB and the software world is more situated to make the gains show more across the board (read as, actually show at all), I'll probably be on a new system with DDR3 anyway. With them making Windows 7 available in 32-bit (why!? oh, because the Pentium 4 and Athlon XP are still mainstream enough probably), I only see the software transitioning to full and primarily 64-bit even slower.

For those looking at going with Core i7 with triple channel, you're overkill as it is with 6GB, so rest easy and don't even worry about 12GB. It's massive waste you'll never see. I'd probably go with 6GB over 3GB though, unless the price difference is large enough.

 

[Princess Garnet]

It's not so much the amount being overkill (overkill on RAM is almost always good) as it is the 32-bit limits making it completely useless anyway. That's precisely why there's so few programs that take advantage of it. Most programs don't even use over 2GB. Still, with cheaper prices of RAM, and Windows 7 coming (which should make for a larger 64-bit operating system user base), I think we'll, hopefully, see the start of programs putting more focus on 64-bit versions. It just looks like it may happen slowly.

 

[Princess Garnet]

Well, it'd likely be better for you, since 4GB of addresses is less space to keep track of than 8GB, but still, it does seem to hold up that two modules is always easier than four on both the MCH and even the RAM itself.

I'd also wager your chipset wouldn't run as hot or perhaps even need as much voltage.

Since that appears to be decent RAM you have, whether or not you ditch it for 4GB or just add 2GB more is really up to you. If it was cheaper stuff, it'd be easier to just be willing to replace it all, but if your CPU needs the FSB is has now for it's overclock, and/or you like those timings and RAM speed, you might not get guaranteed results with four modules though.

4GB is useful for some things, like Vista, Crysis (loading only) Photoshop, and heavy multi-tasking, but 2GB is still very sufficient for the majority of things.

 

[Princess Garnet]

aren't you limited to how much memory a 32-bit program can use, even if you are running it under a 64-bit operating system?

Yes, and as I mentioned, that's precisely the problem. Most programs can't see more than 2GB, and for the ones that can see more, they're still limited to about 3GB-3.5GB. Only 64 bit applications will be able to use more than 4GB of RAM.

I got 8Gigs cause it was on sale and pretty much dirt cheap.

Doesn't hurt to have 8GB. If a stick or two goes bad, no worries, you still have 4 or 6GB

But yeah, I've noticed no difference from 2 to 8GB. Then again, I only went 8 GB with Windows 7.

No question about it. All else being equal, yes, I'd opt for 8GB over 4GB as well, but since I'd have to lower my overclock, and the 8GB offers no real improvements over 4GB (it does over 2GB though), I see no need to go with it now. I hardly ever maximize my RAM use.

 

[Princess Garnet]

That's not entirely true, as I said in my first post. 4GB isn't a waste on a 32-bit OS, nor is it worth moving to a 64-bit OS with 4GB. There are exceptions, like if you're using a video card with alot of RAM, but most people typically see ~3.25GB. In that case, you'd gain 768MB by moving to a 64-bit OS, but the larger memory footprint almost negates it. You'll gain some, but it's not worth it to switch just for that. 6GB or 8GB is where it'll be worth it.

 

[Princess Garnet]

The thing is Zedeck, with Ram prices (especially DDR3) in a free fall, no one is going to take a look at under 4gb. Unless the ram itself is performance oriented (~1800+ mhz)

...And, that has what, exactly, to do with what was being said about the difference between 32-bit or 64-bit with using 4GB?

I don't mean this negatively to you, but it what is with everyone around this forum changing the subject or point amidst discussing another? It's annoying. Your point is true enough, but unrelated to what was being said.

 

[Princess Garnet]

But you weren't saying a 64-bit OS was the way to go. You simply said "make sure you have a 64-bit OS for 4GB of RAM", and I was saying that's not exactly necessarily so. While a 32-bit OS won't see the full 4GB, unless you're in a situation where you're seeing less than 3GB of it, the difference you'll gain is really just a few hundred MBs of RAM, which is peanuts in the overall picture (if 200MB-300MB really makes a difference in a certain situation, you should be on more than 4GB to begin with). 64-bit software, which includes the OS itself, as well as programs, have a slightly larger memory footprint, so you'll gain a few hundred MBs at most. As I said, that's not worth it.

Also, here's a good article about memory amount and how much is enough. It basically confirms everything I said. The difference for the things most of us do is absolutely nothing at all. Most people don't need more than 4GB.

Do You Really Need More Than 6 GB Of RAM? : Is “Too Much†Really Just Enough?

 

[Princess Garnet]

I did read up on it. Notice the title of the thread is "my experience with 8GB of RAM" and not "What's what of 8GB of RAM based on what I think". I did choose to use 4GB for now, as I haven't gotten it stable at 4.5GHz with 8GB of RAM, and there's nothing I use that would benefit from it. I still think that with RAM, more is always better, but given the special conditions with 32-bit limits and 4GB, and most programs being 32-bit, I simply see no loss with sticking to 4GB for now since I can get a higher CPU clock speed with it. Again, this thread was about my experiences with 8GB of RAM. i did note that it'd be hard to get a combination of tight timings and higher than 800MHz speed, but obviously, hardware differs. Is that an actual 4x2GB kit, or two 2x2GB kits? It makes a difference. Even though a kit is published to run at certain timings, that it with each other, and sometimes with four sticks, things aren't the same, especially if the modules were purchased apart (like mine were, although they both say version 3.1, but diuffer in appearance and published timings). That does give me hope for trying 8GB again in the future, but for now, I'd rather not mess with it and get the benefits of low RAM and/or chipset voltages since the 8GB won't give me any boost anyway. this is just my experience and my situation, and I was sharing it.

 

[Princess Garnet]

Yes, alot of things are at the point of where they're starting to show difference between 2GB and 4GB.

my bad, I left out the "I" in "I read up abit" I was merely adding my experience with it. Not disputing your findings.

Also seems I left out I'm using 64bit Vista.

It's a pair of 2x2GB DDR2 1006 Dual channel kits. They're clocked identical (should be at least) and the pairing is maintained for the channels.

Thought came to mind, is the 8gb issue in general or intel/amd based? I saw the mentioning of the ddr volt increase and north bridge volt increase to address stability issues but, is that really needed in most cases? Like my ram for example, is 1.8 in ddr2 800 or 2.0-2.1 for 1066. I just use the voltage labeled by spec and the nb is stock voltage.runs solid. maybe is chipset/ mem controller related and the 940 resolved the issue?

I figured you were using a 64-bit OS. I was using Windows 7 64-bit.

It's because you use an AMD based system. This same thing happened on older AMD systems with AMD CPUs that didn't have the integrated memory controller. The stock chipset voltage is often enough for two modules, but for four, especially if those four are running higher speeds and/or tighter timings, it needs more. Come to think of it, you probably need to add to the CPU voltage some with more modules on AMD based system then.