2gig or 4?

[AKA_RA]

Ive got a tough decision to make. I have 1 gig of ram in my ASUS P5LD2 right now, and its a single stick. i plan on getting at least one more matching stick to get the dual channel working, but i was wondering, is 4gigs worth it? ive got 4 ram slots(max of 8 gigs i think) so i was considering getting 3 more matching sticks. i mostly game on this PC, with random tasks, such as photoshop or video editing here and there. is 4gigs over kill, or it is heaven?

[CanaBalistic]

4Gig's is probly just what your looking for. It might be a little overkill on a single core processor. However, on a dual core rig, you could fully utillize the extra headway that 4Gb will get ya.

[Zephik]

I've been told that anything more than 2 gigs will actually work against you. Might not be true though.

For your average gaming nut, 2 gigs is plenty. imo.

[The Black Pumpkin]

If you're running XP, it'll only see 3Gb max, I think. x64 Pro has a higher limit, as well as Srv 2003 and the Vistas.

I think.

So you can get 4Gb, but unless you're running something that will see it, it won't be worth it.

[azminisk8r]

id get 4 gb, and figure it out later, it should work never heard anything about xp topping at 3 gb

[DaJe]

I thought 32 bit could use up to 4

[AKA_RA]

ive also heard about XP having a cap for what it will see. lucky for me, im on vista. so that question isnt one i need an answer too.

i think im going to go ahead and go for 2gb for now, and then wait a month. im getting the ram from my local PC guys, and theyre most likely going to have the same ram in stock next month, so no loss there. worst case scenario, im stuck with 2gigs of ram running in dual channel. oh, woe is me...

the other option i have is to skip out on the second gig stick and get some high performance gaming ram(Kingston and Crucial are on the top of my list most likely), but im already OCing this budget stick way past specs, so i think its good to go. The only thing limiting performance right now, IMO, is the ram latency/capacity. I'm running a new machine, but its only in single channel. compared to my last PC, this ones a monster as is.

Do you think ill see a noticeable increase in FPS or load times if i double the ram capacity and run it in dual channel?

[Bucko]

XP Pro can use 4Gb of RAM.

Here's a list of how much RAM the various Windows versions and editions support (as of Nov 2004):

Windows NT 4.0: 4 GB
Windows 2000 Professional: 4 GB
Windows 2000 Standard Server: 4 GB
Windows 2000 Advanced Server: 8GB
Windows 2000 Datacenter Server: 32GB
Windows XP Professional: 4 GB
Windows Server 2003 Web Edition: 2 GB
Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition: 4 GB
Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition: 32 GB
Windows Server 2003 Datacenter Edition: 64 GB

You want to see physical ram displayed in system properties. That isn't how
Windows works though. Windows displays virtual address space there instead.
It only says "RAM" though and most people assume it refers to the physical
amount of ram installed in the PC. This seems to be confusing for many
people as you aren't the first person to make this mistake.
The 3gig number you see in system properties is virtual address space. It's
not referring to physical memory.
"All processes (e.g. application executables) running under 32 bit Windows
gets virtual memory addresses (a Virtual Address Space) going from 0 to
4,294,967,295 (2*32-1 = 4 GB), no matter how much RAM is actually installed
on the computer."
There's a long explanation here:

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;555223 It's not a simple explanation though but it is the official explanation.
Just understand that 3 Gig isn't referring to physical memory but virtual
addressing space. Windows still recognizes and uses your total physical ram.
It just doesn't display it in system properties where you thought it would.

So, our systems do use and recognize 4 GB but not in Windows system properites. It does in the BIOS and the Windows System Information page (START, Assessories, System Tools, System Information).

[Zephik]

ive also heard about XP having a cap for what it will see. lucky for me, im on vista. so that question isnt one i need an answer too.

i think im going to go ahead and go for 2gb for now, and then wait a month. im getting the ram from my local PC guys, and theyre most likely going to have the same ram in stock next month, so no loss there. worst case scenario, im stuck with 2gigs of ram running in dual channel. oh, woe is me...

the other option i have is to skip out on the second gig stick and get some high performance gaming ram(Kingston and Crucial are on the top of my list most likely), but im already OCing this budget stick way past specs, so i think its good to go. The only thing limiting performance right now, IMO, is the ram latency/capacity. I'm running a new machine, but its only in single channel. compared to my last PC, this ones a monster as is.

Do you think ill see a noticeable increase in FPS or load times if i double the ram capacity and run it in dual channel?

a noticeable increase in FPS? I'm going to say no. In load times? If you are running a few programs while gaming (such as TS and/or a TS Server), then I'm going to say maybe.

2gigs and a good video card. Thats all you need. If you want a noticeable increase in your gaming experience then upgrade your vid card not your ram. Get 2 gigs and save the rest for something else. Thats what I would do.

[Airbozo]

I know I have posted this before, but...

Windows XP (and all other 32 bit versions) will only see a total of 4gb of memory. "." This includes physical ram _and_ virtual ram. If you install 4gb of physical ram and leave your virtual page file alone, windows will set the virtual page file to around 1gb (depending on disk space), and will then only use 3gb of physical ram and 1gb of virtual ram (this could actually slow down memory access depending on the mobo's dual channel capabilities). If you disable the page file, windows will see and use all 4gb of physical ram. I personally have never seen any game use more than 2gb of memory (although it is possible). The only programs I have _ever_ seen gain performance improvement with more than 2gb of memory are cad programs, compiler programs and drawing programs (Alias, Autodesk, etc...).

That said I have not experimented with some of the newer games that _supposedly_ use as much memory as you throw at them for textures.