MoogleViper Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 I'm thinking of adding a stick of RAM to make it 3GB. Does it have to be the same speed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wesley Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 It doesn't have to be but its best. This place has a nice little "wizard" to help you along. http://www.crucial.com/uk/?click=true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoogleViper Posted August 11, 2009 Author Share Posted August 11, 2009 The thing is I have 2GB at 667MHz. Now another 1GB is the same price for both 667 and 800MHz. Would it make it faster going for the higher speed or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolan Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 The PC will automatically downclock the 800 RAM to 667 speeds to match your other RAM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wesley Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 It technically would make it faster but you probably wouldn't even notice if all your RAM was 800MHz instead of 886MHz. Take into account the fact that some programs will split the usage between them.... but if they're the same price then go for the 800MHz one. EDIT. Someone much better at this stuff than me just posted. I'd listen to them. *runs off* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoogleViper Posted August 11, 2009 Author Share Posted August 11, 2009 Also is there any point in paying extra for the brand? Or shall I just get Ebuyer's Extra Value range? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolan Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 If you're just going to be doing basic PC tasks the Value RAM will likely be fine...To be honest though, I'd go for a brand like OCZ or at the very least Kingston Value RAM just because you don't know what hte fail rates of the other brands might be. Given the option I'd rather pay a bit more for RAM that will last 6 years then save a bit and get RAM that dies in 2 months. It would likely be fine though, your decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoogleViper Posted August 11, 2009 Author Share Posted August 11, 2009 Ok I've sorted it now So I'd like to say thank you to both leetpants and Wesley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoogleViper Posted August 13, 2009 Author Share Posted August 13, 2009 Ok so I've just added the RAM. And now the Vista rating has gone from 4.8 to 4.7. How can that be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolan Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 I don't really know why the rating would go down, but does it seem any faster to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raining_again Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 The index quantifies the speed rather than the amount afaik. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wesley Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 Really? I added an extra 2GB a while ago at the same speed and it increased. The same brand too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoadKill Posted August 15, 2009 Share Posted August 15, 2009 The index quantifies the speed rather than the amount afaik. Speed yes, but amount - it does matter. I'm pretty drunk so I don't remember the exact deal, but it limits your number below a certain amount, although I think it's about 1.25GB or something Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolan Posted August 15, 2009 Share Posted August 15, 2009 Speed yes, but amount - it does matter. I'm pretty drunk so I don't remember the exact deal, but it limits your number below a certain amount, although I think it's about 1.25GB or something Errr I think you are referring to 32bit OS's only utilizing 3.25GB of RAM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue_Ninja0 Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 (edited) Speed yes, but amount - it does matter. I'm pretty drunk so I don't remember the exact deal, but it limits your number below a certain amount, although I think it's about 1.25GB or something LOL You've made it pretty clear. I'm not sure but I think the index takes both the speed and amount into account, but will probly ignore any added ammounts if you have already 4GB or more. Don't know. Anyway, the windows index is never a good place to benchmark your RAM. Edited August 18, 2009 by Blue_Ninja0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rummy Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 2686MB apparently. As I recently factory restored my comp, but put 4GB in(as opposed to previous 2+1G=3GB) and it says I only have 2686MB, which did worry me for a bit, as before it used to say I had 3.00GB but now it does not?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolan Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 Rummy, on laptops the Graphics can share (and must for IGP's like Intel) the system RAM. They'll appropriate anywhere from 256MB to 1.5GB of the RAM depending on your settings. Although, the PC should still recognize that all 4GB are present even if some of it is being used for Graphics. So I'm not sure why you only have 2686MB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cube Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 One thing I've always wondered: It is worth spending much on RAM if you don't have a brilliant processor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolan Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 It certainly doesn't hurt to have more RAM. Although it is true that often times, a CPU can't even fully utilize the bandwidth of the RAM. Tom's Hardware did a decent article on it, although the new Core i7's and to a lesser extent Phenom II's can use much more of the bandwidth than DDR2 CPU's. It's mostly due to the FSB (front side bus) the FSB is indicated in speeds just like RAM, and whatever that speed is happens to determine how much bandwidth. I'm not fully versed in it all though, but a slow processor can't really use alot of RAM effectively, but more doesn't hurt, and can often still be beneficial. Toms I think that was the article I was thinking of, either way it does give some insight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raining_again Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 (edited) 2686MB apparently. As I recently factory restored my comp, but put 4GB in(as opposed to previous 2+1G=3GB) and it says I only have 2686MB, which did worry me for a bit, as before it used to say I had 3.00GB but now it does not?? if you are referring to the My computer > Properties screen, its rarely ever accurate, as the above have said some GPUs will whore up system ram and that's deducted. @cube - it will bottleneck somewhere along the line yes. Going by what your OS requires is *generally* a good starting line. Like with XP - it will run on 256mb (although badly) so a good ballpark figure is 512mb-1gb for general use. Using 4GB on XP with a poor processor is really gonna be pointless - but certainly an upgrade from 512mb-1gb or 1gb-2gb is feasible enough. Speed is generally more important - but for a lot of people its not just as easy as changing the ram, it means a whole upgrade of motherboard/processor. Edited August 18, 2009 by Raining_again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rummy Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 Yeah I know, but even then it's apparently 256MB shared for graphics, but that's not my issue. What bothers me is that BEFORE my restore it accurately said I had 3.00(at least I'm pretty sure of it) but even then the graphics was the same etc. I do remember there was so other gay issue about vista though, and it not displaying it accurately(before the 3GB I had 1.5) but one of the vista/windows updates fixed that one day(as it changed from something rough to something rounder, or vice versa, when all I'd done is windows updated). It's really nothing and not too big a deal, but it's just...unexplained, and it bugs me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raining_again Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 Yeah I know, but even then it's apparently 256MB shared for graphics, but that's not my issue. What bothers me is that BEFORE my restore it accurately said I had 3.00(at least I'm pretty sure of it) but even then the graphics was the same etc. I do remember there was so other gay issue about vista though, and it not displaying it accurately(before the 3GB I had 1.5) but one of the vista/windows updates fixed that one day(as it changed from something rough to something rounder, or vice versa, when all I'd done is windows updated). It's really nothing and not too big a deal, but it's just...unexplained, and it bugs me! do a windows update then and it may fix it... tbh unless you are having massive uber booting problems (aka it freezing on the bios screen or windows splash screen) your ram is not faulty... so don't worry about it, its more likely to be a software/os issue.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conzer16 Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 just ordered 2x2gig sticks for my laptop. Next upgrade is a 250gig hard drive aand then windows 7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deathjam Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 One time, windows was telling me I had less RAM than I was supposed to, so i checked and found out that I had not inserted it properly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raining_again Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 One time, windows was telling me I had less RAM than I was supposed to, so i checked and found out that I had not inserted it properly That is too easy to do, it sometimes takes considerable force to put the buggers in! =P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts