4 GB of ram an over kill? (will 2 gb do it?)

<p>Hansen: I'm just saying that 2x PCI-e means you'll have tandem card capability, but whether such support is of the SLI (nVidia) or CrossFire (ATI) variety is dependent upon the northbridge chip - nForce 690 SLI et al.</p>

<p>Apologies. I work at a computer store. 8-B</p>

<p>Unless you're running a quad core proc, building a mySQL batch server, or working on Shrek 3, you don't need 4GB. Trust me. I run Vista Ultimate (most memory-hungry OS EVAR) and play Oblivion/F.E.A.R./BF2142 (some of the most intensive games to date), and I rarely cap my 2GB.</p>

<p>UCLAri: Truth. 2x1GB DDR2 DIMMs + SATA2 HD + decent proc/video/chipset = win.</p>

<p>As I tell my customers...CPU directly affects performance, as does memory speed (DDR2 vs. DDR et al), while memory capacity affects the ceiling of stuff you can do before your rig slows the crap down. Your page file is your enemy.</p>

<p>
[quote]
is chanman's comment true?

[/quote]

False,
with 4gb quality ram ur always on the benefit.
If u want proof then make one folder dumb 3gb+ photos in it, then view them as thumbnials (don't forget to view them all) n u can try play some game or listnin to some music using itunes at the same time. U'll see how ur 4gb ram drains in that situation. In forthcoming Vista era 4gb RAM would be a plus. If extra 100 bucks is nutin for u then buy it.
Well if ur buying ur PC next month then u can buy ATi’s upcoming R600 instead of G80</p>

<p>Porkey,</p>

<p>Sure, but if his goal is gaming, then he's probably not worried about big photo folders. I'm not saying that 4GB of RAM is ever a bad thing, but a good chipset on the motherboard (northbridge especially) should come first.</p>

<p>^ya the case is rare thats why i recommended him 2gb in that list and also told him that if $100 meant nothing to him. :)</p>

<p>
[quote]
but a good chipset on the motherboard (northbridge especially) should come first.

[/quote]

680i is the best shot(price+performance) till now if some1's looking for core2</p>

<p>ok i understand you guys now, if i have a budget then no but if i have the extra 100 then why not, right?</p>

<p>^exactly :p</p>

<p>That's like saying you should always carry a grounding rod around, on the off-chance you might get by lightning.</p>

<p>I'd rather spend $100 on a better video card. Or case bling. Or a freakin' webcam. =P Chances are I'll upgrade my mobo and ram speed before I need 4GB, anyway.</p>

<p>zyklon means that even if i get 4 GB of ram, there is no way that all all 4 gb will be in use at any time</p>

<p>He's right, too. It's unlikely that even with the crazy memory hogging OSes of today that you'll need 4 gigs of RAM any time soon. </p>

<p>Spend more on GOOD RAM, a good mobo with an excellent northbridge, and reduce bottlenecks as much as possible. Don't fall into the "more is better claptrap."</p>

<p>ya u can always buy 2gb of high-end RAm</p>

<p>but i dont have that choice for a gateway computer.. :(</p>

<p>
[quote]
The problem with running 4GB of memory is that the marginal returns on the extra RAM are very very low. You're not going to see a huge jump in performance. In fact, you'll likely see better performance with two 1GB DIMMs than one 2GB DIMM due to duel channel characteristics of a lot of the current mobos.</p>

<p>The money is better spent on a good video card or a good hard drive.</p>

<p>It always amazes me how many people run beefed up rigs on crappy mobos and slow HDs then wonder why their performance isn't quite what they expected.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You actually do have a good point there. I've found that it's actually possible to have TOO MUCH RAM for optimal system performance. I found this out the first time on my old 486 when I was about 11; I added more memory, and it actually SLOWED DOWN the computer. And, more recently, I was fixing my friend's computer (P4, 512 MB RAM) and expanded up to 2GB, and it also slowed in boot-time and run-time(though, still not as drastically as the 486, but then again, VERY different hardware for the memory between the two). It ran its best at 1GB RAM, so I just kept the other stick for myself :-). I asked my prof about why this happened, and he said something about having to register the additional mem space as well as the processor not being able to do this fast enough.</p>

<p>^ yep.</p>

<p>All pro gamers use 2 GB. Never exceed 2 GB.</p>

<p>edit: unless u can manually clock/config the processor to fit it perfectly</p>

<p>lol the 6600 (at 2.4 ghz) is easily overclockable?</p>

<p>it's not necessarily to do with clocking, that is only 1 variable</p>

<p>theres many variables, sse, sse2, fsb, cache</p>

<p>i mean, upgrading to 4 GB will probably technically make it faster.
But don't expect a big difference. dont expect to fly through time
its just not needed</p>

<p>wait, .... let me get this straight
you guys are saying 4 GB of ram would be too much for Intel? Core™2 Duo E6600 (2.40GHz 1066MHz FSB 4MB cache to handle?
and that 4 GB of ram would actually SLOW down a 'future' VISTA PC with the above processor?</p>

<p>No, it depends on a lot of factors. It depends on clocking, the mobo, the OS, the RAM itself, the program being run, and all the other variables chanman listed.</p>

<p>It's not technically that the Core 2 Duo can't handle it. It's that there are tons of factors that usually mean that 4GB of RAM won't make your computer into Optimus Prime.</p>

<p>oh, i dont want it to be optimus prime, i just want to know that it wouldnt actually HINDER my performance</p>

<p>It depends on a lot of factors whether or not it would. In the short run, however, you're best off with 2 GB... at least for now.</p>