Questions regarding memory...

PS · Post by PS » Thu May 12, 2005 1:40 pm

And by memory, I mean RAM

like I'd be talking about anything else on a computer forum.

So here's my question.
Is it better to buy high-performance low-latency RAM
OR
Is it better to buy TWICE the amount of normal ol' standard RAM?

Because generally in terms of price,

$$$high-performance RAM = 2x $$$normal RAM

Maybe this would be a better question to ask at anandtech but I trust no one more than my friends here at SPCR

-PS

scaryduck · Post by **scaryduck** » Thu May 12, 2005 1:50 pm

Go for the standard RAM. I doubt you'll be able to notice the difference in latency. I swapped 512MB of 2-2-2-5 Kingston RAM for 1GB of 3-3-3-6 Samsung and couldn't percieve the difference in latency.

m0002a · Post by **m0002a** » Thu May 12, 2005 5:16 pm

This question is OK in this forum, but is probably better placed in the Not-Quiet section.

It depends partly on the OS and what applications you are using. If you are a typical user on Win XP, then 512MB of slow memory is definitely better than 256MB of fast memory. The difference between 512MB and 1GB is less clear and dependening on the applications you run. Choosing between 1GB of faster memory and 2 GB of slower memory, the faster memory probably is better for most users.

For power users who edit large graphics or music files, the more memory the better, anything to avoid swapping working files to disk.

The other factor is reliability. Faster memory “may” be more reliable in some systems, but if you don't push your slow memory beyond it rated speed, and you know it is approved/tested for use on a particular MB, then slower memory is usually fine.

PS · Post by PS » Fri May 13, 2005 12:30 pm

m0002a, thanks for the info! I do see now that this would be better in the Not-Quiet section... my fault

But yeah thanks for the info! In my current system I have that Kingston HyperX in my computer... and 1 stick of it has failed twice in the past two years. It's got a lifetime warranty so they always replace it, but... I guess I'm just saying that it's not really more reliable in my experience.

I will be working with large audio files, so I guess that 1 gig of normal memory would be better. That is actually what I was suspecting...

Well I got the info I wanted... moderators might as well move this to Not-Quiet or maybe just delete it. It doesn't seem to be generating a whole lot of interest... :\

m0002a · Post by **m0002a** » Fri May 13, 2005 12:57 pm

Kingston memory has a questionable reputation in many of the forums I have seen. I am not sure if it is a compatibility issue or a reliability issue.

alglove · Post by **alglove** » Fri May 13, 2005 12:58 pm

No, do not delete this post! I actually think this is a good question. I see it asked over and over at other forums.

It just so happens that I agree with both scaryduck and m0002a, so I did not bother posting until now. I suspect that many other people viewing this post thought the same thing, so they did not bother posting either. That does not mean they are not interested, though.

scaryduck · Post by **scaryduck** » Fri May 13, 2005 4:06 pm

You don't specify what chipset you have, but Kingston HyperX memory had difficulties running at 2-2-2-5 on Intel 875/865 boards. I vowed not to buy Kingston memory after that experience -- memory from other companies, using the same memory chips, worked perfectly fine. Somehow Kingston managed to screw things up.