2X1GB ballistix VS 2 x 2GB OCZ Reaper

Would i see any improvements in upgrading my ram amount

I run Vista Business

E8400 CPU, on a ip35Pro

I am thinking about buying those Reapers

absolutely will.

Absolutely not, unless you have some very specific needs such as manipulate huge images at crazy resolutions. 2GB is more than enough for everyday usage and gaming (considering even Crysis Warhead only lists 2GB as the recommended requirement, and they have 9800 GX2 for the video cards part).

If you can get it for $10 or something... sure, go for it, but don't expect to see any improvement (at least not for another year or two, at which point DDR2 RAM will probably be something like $10/4GB).

depends actually.
the answer is not really or not much, if you're running Vista Business x32.
the answer is yes, HEAPS, if you're going to switch to 64bit OS.

Rich'[ard] said:

depends actually.
the answer is not really or not much, if you're running Vista Business x32.
the answer is yes, HEAPS, if you're going to switch to 64bit OS.

Click to expand...

Thanks man that answer is right on the money

Mhypertext said:

Thanks man that answer is right on the money

Click to expand...

haha, glad i can help 64bit ftw! also, if you have time, check out the windows 7. i hear it's faster than Vista

EDIT: it's only Beta though

Thanks man that answer is right on the money

Click to expand...

Why ask then if there's already an answer you are expecting?

Can people please stop spreading this 64-bit-needs-more-ram-misconception?

64-bit mode simply means memory addresses and CPU's general purpose registers are 64 bits long. It doesn't increase memory requirement of programs appreciably, unless they keep a huge list of pointers (memory addresses), and AFAIK no sane program does that. The diff between 32-bit and 64-bit memory requirements will be something like 0.1%.

64-bit OSes can address more memory, but do not NEED more memory. 32-bit Windows IIRC can address ~3.2GB, and that is already more than enough.

I still stand by my opinion that 2GB is enough.

cyberfish said:

Why ask then if there's already an answer you are expecting?

Can people please stop spreading this 64-bit-needs-more-ram-misconception?

64-bit mode simply means memory addresses and CPU's general purpose registers are 64 bits long. It doesn't increase memory requirement of programs appreciably, unless they keep a huge list of pointers (memory addresses), and AFAIK no sane program does that. The diff between 32-bit and 64-bit memory requirements will be something like 0.1%.

64-bit OSes can address more memory, but do not NEED more memory. 32-bit Windows IIRC can address ~3.2GB, and that is already more than enough.

I still stand by my opinion that 2GB is enough.

Click to expand...

oh, was that me?
i just meant that, if you had 4gb of ram, you may as well switch to x64 so you can use all of it. no real point getting 4gb ram when x32 can only read ~3.5gb of it AND no one program can use more than 2gb ram in 32 bit OS. (this is info from the Crysis 2gb vs 4gb ram thread). Crysis runs 2-3fps more when running in 64 bit.

well he is asking whether he will see a big improvement, and you said he will if he uses 64-bit.

64-bit programs are a bit faster because one of the major deficiencies of x86 is the lack of registers, and x86-64 introduced a few new general purpose registers to relieve the register shortage. Should only be 5-10% on avg, though. Modern compilers/optimizers are pretty good at optimizing for register use.

oh yeah yeah. but he said IF he upgraded, what performance gain would he get in return. He would still get a gain on x86, just not as much as if it was his same system running x64.

and i say why not spend that extra $5-10 to get an x64 copy if he does end up getting more ram.

I have 32-bit XP, 64-bit vista, and 64-bit Linux on my machine.

For gaming I still use the 32-bit XP, although I have 4GB of RAM, because no game right now will need more than 2GB, so 3.5GB is more than enough, and 32-bit is more compatible with programs, and the difference in speed is not that great (and even less games have 64-bit versions).

I only got the second 2GB because I had to send my first 2x1GB sticks to RMA (so I would be RAM-less for a few weeks), and there was a good 2GB kit on sale at that time, so I took that chance to upgrade. Noticed no difference at all (after I added my original 2GB that came back from RMA to my machine).

For development I use 64-bit Linux because 64-bit compatibility is a lot better on the Linux side (open source programs only need a recompile), and for my special purpose (I am developing and testing a chess AI), 64-bit offers a good gain.

Right tools for the right job. At the moment, IMHO, 32-bit + 2GB is enough for games. Modern games especially at higher resolutions aren't really limited by the CPU anyways, and 3.5GB is way too much for modern games, too, so why not just go with 32-bit? (some programs and drivers introduce 64-bit headaches)

hmm..yeh i guess so
i never see my ram go over 45% usage. i got 4gb myself becuase the Reaper X didn't come in 2gb kits. and i was upgrading from 1gb of generic 667 ram.

do games/programs load faster for you? becuase they seem to for me, compared to XP32
OH YEH, i forgot. i got 4gb also because Vista alone uses more ram than XP. so i wanted to make sure i had a sufficeint amount.

hmm I don't think I noticed shorter loading times. Loading times are largely determined by the harddrive bandwidth, which doesn't depend on amount of RAM (or 32-bit/64-bit).

Yeah I guess Vista does need more RAM.

I always wanted to have 2x2GB, too (I have 4x1GB now, 2GB of Crucial Ballistix DDR2-800, CAS 4, and 2GB of Reaper DDR2-1150 CAS 5). But my 4 sticks costed me $55 in total ($25 for the ballistix, $30 for the reaper)... so I guess I can't really complain .