RAM - whats better, faster speed or additional chips ?

[g8ina]

Currently running 2x 1GB 667MHz RAM, what would improve my system more : a new set of 2x 1GB higher speed (800MHz), or 2 x 2GB of same 667 MHz ? I know Win XP will only let me see 3.5 GB ish of total RAM.

Main uses : music editing, HDTV showing via LCD panel, photo editing.

[peterb]

The speed rating of RAM is just that - the speed rating - so putting in RAM that is capable of a higher speed won't make any difference unless you start overclocking to take advantage of the additional speed capability. (Think of a car - one does 70MpH - the other 90MPH - but if you are driving within the speed limit - the extra 20 capability makes no difference)

Adding more RAM wonb't necessarily make an obvious difference - although if you have a lot of applications open at a time it may reduce swap filke activity.

There will be a greater difference with a later OS - like Win7 because that makes more efficient use (depending on how you define efficiency ) of available RAM.

[kalniel]

Are you editing large photos?

I begin to push against my 3gb RAM capacity if I have a couple of photos open, and plain go over it when doing panoramas, so I'd say more capacity is going to be of much more benefit.

[Fraz]

Are you editing large photos?

I begin to push against my 3gb RAM capacity if I have a couple of photos open, and plain go over it when doing panoramas, so I'd say more capacity is going to be of much more benefit.

I'm not saying you're lying at all, but it totally baffles me how have a couple of photos open can use 3GB of RAM.

[Ulti]

More capacity will be more beneficial, however this is only if you are currently using up the 2GB you have right now, "average" users using Windows XP will not use more than 2GB so it's really dependent on what you do.

As peterb says though, getting Windows 7 64bit will definitely make use of the 4GB RAM.

[jim]

4GB is a nice number to go with, but only if you actually reach it.

If you take your most extreme example of usage - internet browser open with a few tabs, some music playing in the background, and a couple of big photographs being edited, then you should be able to check. Go to task manager, look at the performance tab, and see how much physical memory is free. If it's virtually none, then get some more RAM.

[kalniel]

I'm not saying you're lying at all, but it totally baffles me how have a couple of photos open can use 3GB of RAM.

When you're editing photos you usually want to edit them in a non-destructible fashion, which means the program either keeps track of changes or keeps original copies in memory before the changes were made. Add in layering operations and/or working with multiple shots for example in a HDR or panorama and memory usage can really jump, especially when you're then carrying out a process on that picture, for example an unsharp mask operation.

[oolon]

That does not make sence to me, I assume you are going from 2GB to 4GB, you need to use the 667 and the 800 memory at the same time, so it will run at 667 (highest common speed) also it will be unmatched so it could cause errors. So both the configs will run at 667, (no you can't set one channel 667 and the other 800). So the difference is 4 chips or 2. The answer is very little difference the larger chips may have more banks on them so be the same as 2 chips in one anyway. Having 4 chips will is likely to have more compatibility problems. So I would go for 2x2GB.

[g8ina]

Jim - good thinking, Ill check next session.

Oolon - u misaunderstood I think, the choice was to add another 2GB of 667MHz or swap out entirely and replace with 4gb of 800MHz.

All points noted, many thanks, food for thought

[kalniel]

That does not make sence to me, I assume you are going from 2GB to 4GB, you need to use the 667 and the 800 memory at the same time, so it will run at 667 (highest common speed) also it will be unmatched so it could cause errors.

You only need matched ram between channels. To use an example from my own computer, I have 2x1gb g.skill and 2x512mb corsair - they have different SPD ratings as well. In one channel I have one 1gb stick and one 512mb, and the same in the other channel. The whole lot are running at a common speed and timings (set to the lowest common denominator) and are effectively matched (although matching is nothing but a marketing thing anyway).

But g8ina was suggesting *replacing* his 667 ram for 800, rather than running the two together I think.

[g8ina]

Just done some checking... Photoshop CS5 runs in nearly a gig of RAM on it's own !! With three large JPGs open and some editing done to build up memory usage, and a couple of Firefox tabs, Im already at 1.85GB !

I could probably leave it alone, but there is some money burning a little hole in my pocket

[oolon]

Currently running 2x 1GB 667MHz RAM, what would improve my system more : a new set of 2x 1GB higher speed (800MHz), or 2 x 2GB of same 667 MHz ?.

What you said in your later post makes sence, however isn't what you wrote in your orginal!

Two new 800 ones would run better so long as your processor can match it in FSB.

[jim]

Go for it

[Pob255]

Swapping over to pc2-6400 800mhz 2x2gb or 4x1gb AND overclocking is the way to go.

With that you should be able to the fsb up to 400mhz and get the cpu to 2.8ghz, probably without any voltage increases.