Alright, I need more RAM, but my dad is throwing a fit about it and I need advice, as he's telling me something contrary to what I've heard.

1. Do I need to replace RAM 2 sticks at a time (I can't just buy one 1GB stick, I gotta buy two at once or it won't work in my computer)?

2. My dad says upgrading from 1G RAM to 2-3 won't give me a difference in performance. Never mind the fact that I can barley run WoW and winamp at the same time, he says I don't need it...would it improve my computer any to upgrade?

3. With 2, my dad says that computers come standard with 16G-32G...I've never heard this before. My computer isn't even 3 years old and it came with 1G (can store up to 4GB max, crucial.com said).

I've got a GeForce 9400 GT, which I think is quite good. I keep hearing people running WoW on full settings with half that, and I'm running on almost the lowest settings, and the only thing I can think to upgrade it the RAM.

Any suggestions, dispell myths, or cheap RAM anyone knows about?

Comp:
http://www.crucial.com/store/listparts.asp...imension%20E521

I just laughed so hard.

Computers usually come with 1-2 GB of RAM, maybe he's thinking about the HD. Either way, an upgrade in RAM would not hurt and would probably make things run a bit smoother but would not fix all of your problems.

I'm not sure what your processor is, but an upgrade of it will help quite a bit.

Dude lmfao, 9400GT is a beast. Get another 1GB stick and you will run perfectly fine. My computer came with a single 512 stick and I put another stick of 1GB in it, along with an ati X1600 and it now runs everything without even a hesitation.

The newer RAM you install will clockdown to match your slower stick(s) if it's said frequency is higher, but that doesn't even even matter in most cases. All you need to do is make sure you get the correct connection style for the RAM. Also so you know, it has been proven in various benchmark tests that the more capacity of RAM you have results in greater performance gain compared to going with less capacity and higher frequency.

AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 3600+

You could upgrade to a quad core if you wanted but it probably wouldn't make much of a difference if you were a hardcore gamer. I don't know what the speed on it is but it's probably okay by the sounds of the rest of your computer.

Upgrade to 2-3GB of RAM and you'll run smoother.

You should be able to play like a boss either at 2GB or 2.5GB, depending on your CPU. If your CPU is crap, go grab more then 2.5GB. But i'm sure that you dont have a bad CPU.

Dont buy a quad-core, unless of course, you want to piss your money away like brian did on his computer. No programs out there can even utilize all 4 cores yet. Dual cores are recommended for everything other than benchmarking performance hardware, and your CPU isnt some shitball brand/model either. Both jalen and I have single core Pentium 4's in our rigs that are years old and we dont even have close to a problem running multiple programs simultaneously. The only thing your problem can be related to is ram, every single other thing about your rig is superior to that of our own. And no, you dont need to go huge on your ram upgrade like some might have mentioned. Just buying another single stick of 1gb (when you ad it up along with your existing 512) TRIPPLES the amount of available ram compared to what you have right now. Everything will run smoother, you dont even know.

This isnt some +1 topic either, noobfags like rsk over there need to learn how to differentiate between such things.

I've got nothing of my own to add really, except that your dad was probably looking at some servers. They come with anywhere between 32GB and 80GB of RAM, or something similar.

Quadcore is useless for games, your current processor should be fine, even though I wouldn't get an AMD myself.. But I guess they're cheaper so it's fine.

Upgrading your ram usually provides a major performance increase if you only have 512 to 1gb. Adding some more so you have about 2-3gb would seriously help.

What your dad said about buying 2 new ones is true, it is better to buy 2 sticks of 1gb and put them in. This is because most motherboards use dual-channel. That means that you have 4 slots, A1, A2, B1 and B2.
If you have 2 sticks of 1 gb 800mhz, you have to stick them in A1 and B1, and they will work together to achieve the 800mhz. But if you only put 1 stick in A1, and the other in A2 or B2, they'll only run on 400MHZ so your performance is less then you'd want to. To achieve maximum performance it's better to have 2 pieces of ram from the same manufacturing date or the same batch. That also means the same brand, if you have Kingston now, then buy Kingston.
(I hope this made sense)

lawl you're still pissed at me from IRC?

Oh shit, performance is affected by the placement of your RAM?

It really depends on how old your pc is. Dual channel has been around for like 5-6 years. I think it was introduced at a similar time as Pentium 4.

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/133
If you're interested, read that. But basically dual channel is just what I said. Stick them in A1 and B1, and if you have 3 pieces of memory you can't get dual channel. You also need to have the exact same amount of memory. For example 512MB in A1 and 1gb in B1 doesn't work, you'll only get dual channel if you put 1gb in A1 and 1gb in B1. Preferably the same brand, and if possible the same batch for the best performance. That's why they memory kits, like 2x1gb, 2x 2gb etc.

>>
Quite useful batch of intel, indeed, good sir. Might you inquire to me where bouts you acme across such great depths of knowledge of the topic? I am most intrigued.

It depends, if you're running a 32-bit OS, you'll only get 3 Gigs recognized no matter how much more than 3 Gigs you put in. If its a 64-bit, then go for at least 4 Gigs. If you're running Vista, then 2 gigs is a harsh minimal, while sitting alone doing nothing, a Vista computer eats up about 750Mb of RAM leaving you with little RAM for applications on a 2 Gig system, and no RAM for a 1 Gig system.

In answer to your questions

1. It's better to buy 2 of the same stick, most, if not all, motherboards have slots where RAM can be put to get better performance out of it. Although 2 different brands of RAM will work, it won't be as good as 2 of the same kind.

2. RAM is your system's short term memory. when you have 2 programs running, the inactive one's state is on your RAM for quicker resuming of the inactive program, rather than on the HD where it takes much much longer to resume the second program. So the more windows you have open, the more RAM you use. Now running open world games like WoW, you depend on RAM a little more than others, those games pull the data into memory on the fly. So the more RAM, the smoother the gameplay.

3. Your father's statement shows how little about computers he knows. Most motherboards can't handle more than 8 Gigs of RAM, so how can it take 16 Gigs standard?

RAM is cheap, so tell your father that if he doesn't want more RAM, then he should get this graphics card upgrade instead.

Admittedly, that post was long and such, but I wanted to be sure that I was thorough, yet still understandable.

Thanks for great responses guys, I'm probably going to buy 2 1GB sticks now, all I gotta do is find a good price and look around at best buy (parents hate me shopping online).

This is bull. I have Vista and 2GB RAM, and I have never had a problem with anything that was tolerable. EG: I don't give a damn if I can't right super-high-quality TF2 or Spore, when I can play just fine on a lower quality.

The Vista Sidebar add-on does say that I'm using 53% of total (2GB) Ram with nothing except Mozilla and Emails open, but I've never had uncopable performance drops - so it doesn't bother me.

You do realize that you are just confirming what he said, right?

You probably have had some occasions of bad performance, I'm sure. You just have to be able to identify them. Most people don't even know what would count as a performance drop.

Vista should never be run with less than 4 gigs of RAM. I could go into a whole dearth of reasons but I really can't be bothered. Basically you just don't get much out of it with any less. If you're running XP or Windows 7 then 2 gigs is all you really need.

Anyway, in an attempt to offer something to the topic, I don't suppose you know what motherboard you've got just to check RAM compatibility do you? I briefly looked it up on the Dell website but I couldn't actually find any full specs for the rig.

And I did cry with laughter upon reading your dad's comments. The most expensive, best looking, with-the-most-expansion-slots-and-ports-I've-ever-seen motherboard had capacity for 16gigs of Ram. Most high end motherboards max out at 8gigs. But currently there're no games or programmes I'm aware of which actually need more than 4. Maybe more can slightly reduce latency when running crysis on highest specs on Vista, but it wouldn't make a whole lot of difference.

Partially, because the same meter says I'm using less (only 52%) of total RAM when browsing and copying a ~6GB CD to an external hard drive.


Vista came out before 4GB of RAM was available to the general public (meaning not the people like us who would scout out the best value for money and performance).


Maybe you don't, but you can't accuse me of lying; I've been using Vista for nearly a year and I have had no problems. Say what you like, you can't deny truth. I can only see hardcore gamers having Vista problems.



Agreed. However, so I hear, Windows 7 will run better on 512MB RAM than XP does.

EDIT: Oh lol, XP is also a smiley

Windows 7 is the greatest thing since sliced bread. But I'd just never really recommend using any modern computer without 2gigs of Ram. It's just not worth the hassle of finding out next year that you wasted money getting not enough in the first place.

It is ever so slight rubbish about vista being out before 4gigs of Ram. Perhaps it was out before 4 gigs came affordably in pre-built systems but whilst 4 gigs of Ram in a custom build has effectively halved in cost in the last few years, two lots of not very much is still not very much. As evidenced by the fact that most custom PCs at the time contained 4gigs.

I will throw it out there that you're probably only using vista with 2gigs for casual use. I like taking things about and finding exactly how they run. I also like pushing things to the absolute limit to see how far they go. Vista doesn't run well on 2gigs of Ram (Infact I removed it from a partition on my HD as soon as Windows 7 beta came out) ((Although I was doing my playing on a laptop whose processor has a fairly low bus speed, but the thing does run a plethora of programmes on Windows 7 an absolute peach)) so running high end games at the same time as having open various programmes, conversations and firefox tabs caused a lot of latency. If you want to be gaming (WoW just about counts) moar Ram is most certainly better.

But whilst Dells are now pre-loaded with Vista I'm going to make the assumption that Zimy's running XP. You flat out can't run vista with 1gig of Ram. You wouldn't be able to open anything.

New Mobo's now adays are dual channel but in the same sequence A1-A2. along with the new triple channel boards as well A1-A2-A3, etc etc etc. As said before where u needed to pair the ram in A1 to B1, A2 to B2 sockets.

Keep in mind make sure u get the right memory that is on the QVL list or what some of the ram manufacturer's have tested the board with. Taking double sided ram and inputting it into a board that only accepts single sided.... may still work, but can cause problems since the board isnt ment to read that type of ram. I made that mistake with my P5L- D2 board, it still runs, but sometimes it gets a little figdidy when using certain programs >.>

Few rules when gaming:
--Most of the time: 2 gb ram IN duel channel mode runs better then 3 gigs out of duel channel. In other words, used match pairs whenever possible.

--In windows XP: Games can not see more then 2gb of free memory, thus anything over 3gb is usually useless.

--Your dad is either looking at solid state hdd sizes, servers, or is talking out of his ass.

--In most cases 2 gb will offer a HUGE advantage over 1gb.

Thats kinda what I was saying, 2GB is the general average RAM these days. Someone tried to convince me nearly a year ago when I bought this computer to only get 1GB, and I told him that in a couple of years 1GB would be completely obsolete and he should be quiet. Who was right? Huh? Huh? Another year and 1GB will be unheard of except in worthless laptops! <I can't believe we don't have an evil maniac laugh smiley.>





That is what I meant by " the general public (meaning not the people like us who would scout out the best value for money and performance)."

So yeah, saying "Vista doesn't run well on 2gigs of Ram..." is only when reffering to hardcoar pplz like you.

I'm personally running 2x 1GB 800MHz, dual-channel. Worked fine for me under Vista Ultimate (except was slow with Valve Hammer Editor), and works fine under Windows 7 RC (again except for VHE).

2GB offers a massive boost over 1GB. You dad must have been looking at high-end servers or SSDs. He probably got confused between netbook HDDs and RAM.

Matt: In Windows 32-bit, a single application cannot use more than 2GB RAM. However having more ram enables background apps to use RAM, while your game gets the most out of its 2GBs.

Which is why i referred to 3gb as being optimal <3

So 52% of 2048 is less than 750? Okay...



You couldn't be more wrong. Actually, it doesn't run well with only 2 gigs of ram. A lot of people just don't recognize bad performance, they are okay with the waiting times. But there's a big load of people who don't want to wait a long time to just load up firefox while playing some music. It just doesn't work. Stop trying to defend it, because you have no idea what you're talking about.

I suppose it depends on how well you have optimised your system.


4GB will still give you a slight advantage over 3, as hardware will use RAM, not pagefile. memory mapped IO reservations use the last x Mb that the processor can see. If not enough RAM is installed to hit that limit, it uses pagefile.

ITT people talking out their ass

Thats nto the point. The point is it says I'm using 53% when idling, 52% when browsing and copying a ~6GB CD to an external hard drive. Therefore, meter cannot be accurate.



Actually, I do. I am very computer wise and I do notice wating times. You are in another country (which could actually be part of this, you know, how computers are made internationally, but wtvr) and am not at my computer, you do not know me, and stabbing insults at who I am ain't gonna do nuthin' if you don't know me! If you want some measured time, fine. I played music and opened Firefox (while still loading Photoshop, Google Earth, Avira, GIMP and Microsoft Word, mind you) and it takes, oh my gosh, a whole TWO SECONDS.

And again, average computer uses and hardcoar people are different. If you have become so ingrained in computers that 2 seconds of waiting is so unbearable, then I suggest you go outside and lessen your time on a computer.

I SMELL A TROLL CREATING DRAMA.

I smell a troll creating drama

oh hey, where?

Um, yeah this got uncomfortable really fast.

Yes. Seing as he's gone to buy stuff anyway, lets stop now.

Therefore, I get the last post, and I win .

None of you win, Zimy already got his answer.

I win

I was talking about the debate. I win.

I know somebody who was in a "last person to post in this thread wins" thread, about two years after it was created, they won.

Im still winnan

Incorrect. I win.

There is no debate, I was just pointing out you were wrong. If you really are that computer-wise, you should probably know that computers in Europe aren't different from American computers.

Hush your bacon.