Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Gem35
I live in a basement.[:)]

Maybe you do, maybe you don't.. But since you speak for that other crowd... What is the reason why there is no certified SLI memory by said company yet there are plenty by Corsair, Kingston, Samsung and others?

Is that an NVidia conspiracy or is there any other reason why nearly every vendor has the same opinion as me?

ORIGINAL: Veldor

ORIGINAL: Gem35
I live in a basement.[:)]

Maybe you do, maybe you don't.. But since you speak for that other crowd... What is the reason why there is no certified SLI memory by said company yet there are plenty by Corsair, Kingston, Samsung and others?

Is that an NVidia conspiracy or is there any other reason why nearly every vendor has the same opinion as me?

You can read books and reviews all you want.
I see for myself what hardware is capable of.
I'd rather do it hands on, my friend.[:)]
I like to help folks, not try to outsmart other people.
I offer my experience with PC hardware, let's help Gary and his magnificent PC he is going to build.[:)]

Well I got two 120mm case fans installed today. I'm still waiting on most of the components to arrive including processor and motherboard. I changed to a couple sticks of Corsair memory at the last minute. Here:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6820145034

I'm glad I have Veldor's vote of confidence that my system will last a week. I was afraid it might explode on the first day. [:D]

So Veldor, why do you think the system will not last a week? Do I have some bad components in the mix? Which ones?

EDIT: Here's a pic of my case with the front and back fans in. Case is laying on it's back. This is just like showing slides from a family vacation. [:D]

ORIGINAL: Gem35
You can read books and reviews all you want.
I see for myself what hardware is capable of.
I'd rather do it hands on, my friend.[:)]
I like to help folks, not try to outsmart other people.
I offer my experience with PC hardware, let's help Gary and his magnificent PC he is going to build.[:)]

I haven't gone into what my job is but I asure you my feedback is based upon that and not some book or review.
If I am being honest, what I do find a little bit curious is that you lead here with a lot of suggestions and advice, yet do not really give any technical defense or other behind them.
I suppose I am use to having to defend my recommendations in depth professionally and perhaps that is why I come off the way you perceive.
I apologize if you've taken any of that the wrong way but you are quick to dismiss much of what I've stated without giving any real reasons.
I hope you'll also realize that all of us posting here that we think the config is "great" and "looks good" would not be at all helpful to him. While certainly some need to do that, if everyone did, there would be nothing for him to use to confirm or alter his choices one way or the other.
So in my opinion it is very helpful to Gary even should he stick with all his original choices, which (in my professional opinion [:D]) he probably will.

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Well I got two 120mm case fans installed today. I'm still waiting on most of the components to arrive including processor and motherboard. I changed to a couple sticks of Corsair memory at the last minute. Here:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6820145034

I'm glad I have Veldor's vote of confidence that my system will last a week. I was afraid it might explode on the first day. [:D]

So Veldor, why do you think the system will not last a week? Do I have some bad components in the mix? Which ones?

EDIT: Here's a pic of my case with the front and back fans in. Case is laying on it's back. This is just like showing slides from a family vacation. [:D]

I do apologize. I think you misread. I meant that I did not see any reference at all to the 120mm fans being part of your build. Without those fans there is no way it wouldn't have fried [:D] They are easy components to overlook. I thought perhaps the case came with at least one, but I checked your link and it looked like it didn't.

Corsair is a much better memory choice to me. It's still on the performance end of the spectrum but it is a brand I would purchase myself. I don't have any strong feelings against any other component (unless money wasn't a factor). They are just personal ones for those.

I do strongly prefer Intel, but recognize it comes at a price. Every now and again that philosophy proves itself such as the latest service packs that crashed on AMD machines but not Intel. But its a minor point.

EVGA I've bought myself for others systems I've built but I've not been thrilled vs say the BFG Tech one in one of my systems. Probably a good price difference still though I have to admit...

For Power Supply i prefer something with a fan not just on the back, but also the bottom of the unit. But those cost more and for the price that power supply looks like a supurb choice.

No major complaints left after the memory you've already changed. The system should run just fine now that you've gotten the 120mm fans. Just a final reminder to make sure you don't install them backwards (especially just 1 of them).

I am curious though, any particular reason you did change the memory? Did others elsewhere have similar concerns to mine or a stronger preference for Corsair??

ORIGINAL: Gem35
If he is not using Vista, the 64 bit version, getting 4 GB is worthless.
Besides Windows 7 will be out sooner or later and who knows what kind of RAM requirements you will need for that.
4 GB is a waste right now.

Not really. You might get somthing like 3,5 GB with 4GB but it seems to vary depending on hardware. I got 3GB with my windows xp pc. But upgrading to 3GB is of course the surest way - just remember to buy 2 x 512mb sticks to get the dual bandwidth mode. The price difference between 2 x 512mb and 2 x 1024mb is only 5-10 dollars though so it doesnt really matter which you choose.

And theres no such thing as too much memory! Som of the new games are allready recommending 3GB and windows will like it too. And its cheap.

They might be getting old, but WOW is constantly upgrading, and I would argue that it would match up to anything.

Wow has always had very low system requirements. I played it last xmas and imho the game looked quite ugly (they somwhat manage to hide it with the cartoony look) even with full graphics when you compare it to som of the more modern games.

ORIGINAL: Zakhal

ORIGINAL: Gem35
If he is not using Vista, the 64 bit version, getting 4 GB is worthless.
Besides Windows 7 will be out sooner or later and who knows what kind of RAM requirements you will need for that.
4 GB is a waste right now.

Not really. You might get somthing like 3,5 GB with 4GB but it seems to vary depending on hardware. I got 3GB with my windows xp pc. But upgrading to 3GB is of course the surest way - just remember to buy 2 x 512mb sticks to get the dual bandwidth mode. The price difference between 2 x 512mb and 2 x 1024mb is only 5-10 dollars though so it doesnt really matter which you choose.

And theres no such thing as too much memory! Som of the new games are allready recommending 3GB and windows will like it too. And its cheap.

Regardless of hardware Windows XP can only recognize(that does not imply using it efficiently) 3.2 GB of memory.
You lost me on the use 2x512mb sticks, do you mean using one 2GB ram stick and then add the 2x512mb sticks?

If so you lose the dual channel performance(though it is only maybe a 10% boost anyway)
It is best to use ram sticks that are of all the same size and exactly the same brand.

ORIGINAL: Gem35
Regardless of hardware Windows XP can only recognize(that does not imply using it efficiently) 3.2 GB of memory.

Might be 3.2GB or not. This says its 3.7GB:

If a computer is loaded with 4 GB of physical RAM, it may allocate 0.5 to 1.25 GB for the PCI memory address range before any RAM (physical user memory) addresses are allocated. Thus, the available addresses for RAM may be limited to 2.75 – 3.7 GB with a 32-bit OS, dependent on the AGP aperture size or PCI Express graphics RAM. To access more than 4 GB of memory the Windows client operating system (Windows XP) needs to be upgraded to the 64-bit version of Windows.
http://eu.shuttle.com/en/desktopdefault ... ead-13587/

You lost me on the use 2x512mb sticks, do you mean using one 2GB ram stick and then add the 2x512mb sticks?

If so you lose the dual channel performance(though it is only maybe a 10% boost anyway)
It is best to use ram sticks that are of all the same size and exactly the same brand.

Atleast in my mobo (asus p5b deluxe) the dual bandwith is not lost if you use 2x512 and 2x1024. You just have to have "matching pairs" (same brand etc 512 <==> 512 and 1024 <==> 1024 etc). It reads so in the manual even. Might not be the same with cheaper mobos of course.

ORIGINAL: Zakhal

Not really. You might get somthing like 3,5 GB with 4GB but it seems to vary depending on hardware. I got 3GB with my windows xp pc. But upgrading to 3GB is of course the surest way - just remember to buy 2 x 512mb sticks to get the dual bandwidth mode. The price difference between 2 x 512mb and 2 x 1024mb is only 5-10 dollars though so it doesnt really matter which you choose.

Using Vista 32 I have never exceeded 2gb of memory in use. Typically I have a couple of web servers, a database, mq, two development environments and all the usual desktop crap open at once. I put 3g in and have never, ever, seen it used. Waste of money unless you consistently see that you need more memory.

ORIGINAL: Zakhal

ORIGINAL: Gem35
Regardless of hardware Windows XP can only recognize(that does not imply using it efficiently) 3.2 GB of memory.

Might be 3.2GB.

You lost me on the use 2x512mb sticks, do you mean using one 2GB ram stick and then add the 2x512mb sticks?

If so you lose the dual channel performance(though it is only maybe a 10% boost anyway)
It is best to use ram sticks that are of all the same size and exactly the same brand.

Atleast in my mobo (asus p5b deluxe) the dual bandwith is not lost if you use 2x512 and 2x1024. You just have to have "matching pairs" (512 <==> 512 and 1024 <==> 1024 etc). It reads so in the manual even.

I have the same board.
Interesting that you have a board that can run in dual channel using 4 ram sticks.
Can you post a screenshot of your memory tab using cpu-z?

ORIGINAL: dinsdale
Using Vista 32 I have never exceeded 2gb of memory in use. Typically I have a couple of web servers, a database, mq, two development environments and all the usual desktop crap open at once. I put 3g in and have never, ever, seen it used. Waste of money unless you consistently see that you need more memory.

I dont know about work desktop but Ive seen multiple games for vista recommendations of atleast 3GB. Memory requirements of pc games have always grown steadily and Im 100% sure they will go to 3GB too. And its silly not to boost memory by 50% if the cost is only few percent of the total price.

ORIGINAL: Gem35
I have the same board.
Interesting that you have a board that can run in dual channel using 4 ram sticks.
Can you post a screenshot of your memory tab using cpu-z?

What you dont believe me? I did infact check it with cpu-z when I bought the memory and yes it is dual channel. However I bought 2x1024 - not 2x512 so its no use in this case. But you can read abt the dual channel mode of 2x512 and 2x1024 from the manual. Its even in the online pdf.

EDIT:
Hers what the manual says:

You may install varying memory sizes in Channel A and Channel B. The system maps the total size of the lower-sized channel for the dual-channel configuration. Any excess memory from the higher-sized channel is then mapped for single-channel operation.

Hers the picture if you were curious:

ORIGINAL: Gem35
Regardless of hardware Windows XP can only recognize(that does not imply using it efficiently) 3.2 GB of memory.

Not true at all. All 32bit operating systems can address exactly 4 GB of address space. Since a PC needs some of that space for hardware components like the PCI Bus and even Video Memory, it reduces the remaining available address space down from 4 GB. But it is in no way a constant even if the majority of motherboards or configs end up with that number. There are plenty of hardware possibilities to get much more.

Technically 32bit O/S can have much more memory. This has been true for a decade or more for 32bit Server O/Ss and even flavors of LINUX. Thats through PAE but what is funny about that is so many people throw 16GB of memory in say a Microsoft Exchange Server and it actually can't use a bit of the extra even though the hardware and O/S recognize it. SQL is a different story. The app has to understand how to access it.

For XP I don't see as much of a point to buy more than 3GB. And 2GB should run great as 90%+ of the time your not likely to ever access that last GB. For Vista I'd still max it out and, as has been pointed out by others already, its really so cheap there isn't exactly a downside anyway to any configuration.

ORIGINAL: Veldor

ORIGINAL: Gem35
Regardless of hardware Windows XP can only recognize(that does not imply using it efficiently) 3.2 GB of memory.

Not true at all. All 32bit operating systems can address exactly 4 GB of address space. Since a PC needs some of that space for hardware components like the PCI Bus and even Video Memory, it reduces the remaining available address space down from 4 GB. But it is in no way a constant even if the majority of motherboards or configs end up with that number. There are plenty of hardware possibilities to get much more.

Technically 32bit O/S can have much more memory. This has been true for a decade or more for 32bit Server O/Ss and even flavors of LINUX. Thats through PAE but what is funny about that is so many people throw 16GB of memory in say a Microsoft Exchange Server and it actually can't use a bit of the extra even though the hardware and O/S recognize it. SQL is a different story. The app has to understand how to access it.

For XP I don't see as much of a point to buy more than 3GB. And 2GB should run great as 90%+ of the time your not likely to ever access that last GB. For Vista I'd still max it out and, as has been pointed out by others already, its really so cheap there isn't exactly a downside anyway to any configuration.

Thanks for clearing that up, boy was I way off.
So Windows XP can use 4 GB of memory but it can't.
It can only use about 3.2 GB of memory.

ORIGINAL: Gem35

ORIGINAL: Veldor

ORIGINAL: Gem35
Regardless of hardware Windows XP can only recognize(that does not imply using it efficiently) 3.2 GB of memory.

Not true at all. All 32bit operating systems can address exactly 4 GB of address space. Since a PC needs some of that space for hardware components like the PCI Bus and even Video Memory, it reduces the remaining available address space down from 4 GB. But it is in no way a constant even if the majority of motherboards or configs end up with that number. There are plenty of hardware possibilities to get much more.

Technically 32bit O/S can have much more memory. This has been true for a decade or more for 32bit Server O/Ss and even flavors of LINUX. Thats through PAE but what is funny about that is so many people throw 16GB of memory in say a Microsoft Exchange Server and it actually can't use a bit of the extra even though the hardware and O/S recognize it. SQL is a different story. The app has to understand how to access it.

For XP I don't see as much of a point to buy more than 3GB. And 2GB should run great as 90%+ of the time your not likely to ever access that last GB. For Vista I'd still max it out and, as has been pointed out by others already, its really so cheap there isn't exactly a downside anyway to any configuration.

Thanks for clearing that up, boy was I way off.
So Windows XP can use 4 GB of memory but it can't.
It can only use about 3.2 GB of memory.

The range for 32bit systems can be as low as 2.8 GB or thereabouts and as high as 3.75 GB as others posted.

For anyone looking for a good Power Supply one neat alternative are Power Supplies such as the NeoPower from Antec. They have customizable cable attachments so you don't have all that clutter. You only connect the types and quantities of cables needed. I've used them before for others with no issues though I generally buy higher end ones for my own machines (At the time they didn't offer any).

ORIGINAL: Zakhal

ORIGINAL: Gem35
If he is not using Vista, the 64 bit version, getting 4 GB is worthless.
Besides Windows 7 will be out sooner or later and who knows what kind of RAM requirements you will need for that.
4 GB is a waste right now.

Not really. You might get somthing like 3,5 GB with 4GB but it seems to vary depending on hardware. I got 3GB with my windows xp pc. But upgrading to 3GB is of course the surest way - just remember to buy 2 x 512mb sticks to get the dual bandwidth mode. The price difference between 2 x 512mb and 2 x 1024mb is only 5-10 dollars though so it doesnt really matter which you choose.

And theres no such thing as too much memory! Som of the new games are allready recommending 3GB and windows will like it too. And its cheap.

They might be getting old, but WOW is constantly upgrading, and I would argue that it would match up to anything.

Wow has always had very low system requirements. I played it last xmas and imho the game looked quite ugly (they somwhat manage to hide it with the cartoony look) even with full graphics when you compare it to som of the more modern games.

Interesting, because the 8600GT is the absolute lowest end card you can get to have that kind of performance and even then, every once in a while my framerates diminish every once in a while. So, for a very low end graphics, it sure seems to to take an awful lot of memory. Also the last upgrade in graphics was about 2 months ago. It was a significant upgrade. Have you played your WOW recently?

Woohoo! Computer is up and running. Windows installed, printer installed, CPU running at 39-40 degrees C. Connected to Internet. Connected to wireless network.

Now I just need to install about 100 more programs and games and I'll be back to where I was before! [:D]

Glad to hear it, Gary. And, yeah, having to sit there and re-install EVERYTHING takes a bit of the glee away from a new machine. [>:]

Ah, but I find the reloading of selected favorite programs onto a virgin drive to be a beautiful experience of refreshing renewal. The time when you finally dump those old programs that you haven't used in years, but could never quite bring yourself to delete them. [;)]