Speaking of RAM....

[Max]

I'm running Corsair Vengence 2X4 GB SDRAM DDR3 with Win 7 64 bit.

I've read conflicting reports saying 8 GB is a "sweet spot" for Win 7 while others suggest 16 GB is better suited, especially for gaming. I'm not aware of any problems as of now so the question is, does it make sense to spend $63 for the extra 2X4 GB sticks and if so, what would I gain?

Thanks

[Drane]

Just playing Aces High while browsing a few web pages won't put a strain on 8GB with Windows 7. Even with office open too.

Not much bang for your $63 bucks. I wouldn't bother. 

[Denniss]

Please check your mainboard manual - with four memory sticks it may be possible it reduces the maximum permissible memory speed. If you upgrade to 16 GiB consider buying 2x 8GiB.

[Drano]

I have 16 in my machine and it seems even when editing videos I rarely get much more than 20% load. I don't think I've ever seen 30%. And that was the thinking when I went with 16 over 8. Could have saved a few bucks.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[TequilaChaser]

Please check your mainboard manual - with four memory sticks it may be possible it reduces the maximum permissible memory speed. If you upgrade to 16 GiB consider buying 2x 8GiB.

With out going and looking it up , isn't it not the other way around?

Say you are using 1333 MHz DDR3 or 1600 MHz DDR3 etc... 4 GB DIMMs (memory sticks) x 4...don't it slow the through put if you switched over to using (2) 8 GB DIMMs instead of using (4) 4 GB DIMMs?.....even though the system memory is of the same brand/speed/GB amount?

or am I thinking of something entirely different?

TC

[TequilaChaser]

Drano, getting into some heavy video transcoding, audio transcoding or something like using Photoshop for doing commercial graphics, using AutoCAD designing HVAC-R/plumbing, engineering blueprints etc... are some of the things that can and will happen to heavily tax a computer's system Ram....

Even more so in the old days before Windows 7...( WinXP, Win98, Win95, Win for WGs 3.0/3.11 etc ) where we used batch files and used the PAE, etc...

TC

[Skuzzy]

As far as performance goes, there are two things to consider when thinking of system RAM.

1)  Does the computer have enough RAM to run any given application?
2)  Is performance the top priority?

Most of the time as you buy larger and larger memory modules, they tend to get slower and slower.  Not talking about the rated clock rate.  That is a marketing game.  Check the specifications of the memory module and look for the number of wait states, as a start.  Wait states can be inserted to help slow RAM to be marketed with fast numbers, but they actually run slower.

So there is some truth to adding more RAM can slow down a computer.  I believe that statement has to do more with the memory module performance, than the actual size of the memory module.

TC, a system can perform better with 4) 4GB modules versus 2) 8GB modules, as the *GB modules usually contain much slower RAM chips.  It also depends on the memory controller on the motherboard.  Some of the older memory controllers were not installed correctly and had capacitance issues when that many memory modules were installed.

My approach has always been to determine the biggest memory hog I run and buy the RAM to meet that application need.  No more than is necessary.  My home computer has 16GB of system RAM and I do a lot of heavy editing, including 4K video.  16GB is the least amount I would have for my application and it is comprised of 4) 4GB modules. 

[Bizman]

I noticed a big difference when I upgraded from 4 to 8 GB. For everyday use and AH I believe 16 GB wouldn't make such a difference. Unless you're planning to do heavy photot/video editing I wouldn't bother.

[Skuzzy]

8GB is more than enough for most people.

[jskibo]

Haven't seen an issue with 32GB in either the laptops or the desktop

[Skuzzy]

Haven't seen an issue with 32GB in either the laptops or the desktop

Unless you swap it with faster smaller modules, you will not see any difference.

[AAIK]

Are you talking about modules with better timings, skuzzy?

[Denniss]

Larger modules are not slower than smaller modules pending they have the same speed rating, timings and internal organization (Single-Rank vs Dual-Rank).

[Skuzzy]

Larger modules are not slower than smaller modules pending they have the same speed rating, timings and internal organization (Single-Rank vs Dual-Rank).

They do not have to be, but many are.  You can have the same speed rating (the DDR marketing number) and be slower. 

You just have to do some math to see which is faster in the application as all the timings are measured in clock ticks.  Just divide 1 by the rated speed of the memory, then multiply that time the various timings to get the actual time.

For instance, if the clock of the RAM is rated at 2400 and the CL is 5, versus another stick rated at 3200, with a CL of 10, the 2400 module is going to be faster.

[Pudgie]

They do not have to be, but many are.  You can have the same speed rating (the DDR marketing number) and be slower. 

You just have to do some math to see which is faster in the application as all the timings are measured in clock ticks.  Just divide 1 by the rated speed of the memory, then multiply that time the various timings to get the actual time.

For instance, if the clock of the RAM is rated at 2400 and the CL is 5, versus another stick rated at 3200, with a CL of 10, the 2400 module is going to be faster.

Hi Skuzzy,

So to make sure that I got this, you divide the mem clock speed by the cas latency to arrive at the thruput over time....the higher the mem thruput over time (1 clock tick) the faster the mem module, right?

For example, 2400^5 = 480 per clock tick. 3200^10 = 320 per clock tick so the 2400 frequency w\ CL of 5 is the faster module. For the 3200 mem module to equal the 2400 one the CL has to be at 6.6 or lower than 6.6 to be faster than the 2400 module..........

Or am I missing something here?

Appreciate the info..............