Question: two 2GB vs. four 1GB sticks

CFM · Post by **CFM** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 11:02 am

Question: Two 2GB vs. Four 1GB Memory

For a total of 4GB of memory, which is the better configuration:

two 2GB sticks, or four 1GB sticks?

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 11:09 am

Wouldn't personally worry too much about that. The benefits of 2x2GB are small enough that the time is better spend on other bottle necks.

The main benefit as I see it of 2GB modules are that there is room for more memory

CFM · Post by **CFM** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 11:39 am

Thanks for the reply, Xandax.

I am continuously putting money aside towards pc component upgrades, a sort of ongoing "personal computer fund". (Removing as little as a $20 from the wallet once a month really adds up!) Whenever a component in my rig needs upgrading, I dip into my PC fund to replace the component. It's worked out very well: my computer always seems up to date, with a minimal amount of spending.

Next on my hit list will probably be a new motherboard, CPU, and memory. I'd be buying the memory anew, so as to get the fastest memory that the motherboard will take.

So I take by your comment that, all things being equal, 2x2GB is better than 4x1GB?

Is 'better' referring to performance, or just expandability?

Thanks again!

Siberys · Post by **Siberys** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 11:45 am

If you can do 4 1GB sticks, that's the better configuration. If one were to die, you wouldn't be losing too much, and it's easily replaced considering 1GB sticks are what, 20 to 30 bucks now?

Whereas, with a 2GB stick, if one breaks down, you'll need to pay a little extra to find a replacement.

CFM · Post by **CFM** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 12:16 pm

A great point Siberys. Thanks for the reply.

So far:

The advantage of 2x2GB memory configuration is expandability.

(Counter-point? Windows "32-bit" will only recognize up to 4GB of memory, no matter how much is installed?)

The advantage of 4x1GB memory configuration is failure recovery.

(Counter-point? If 1 stick were to die, then the remaining 3 sticks would no longer act as a "Dual Channel" memory configuration, which would cause a significant drop in performance?)

Between the 2x2 and 4x1 GB memory configurations (assuming Windows 32-bit, and assuming all sticks are functioning properly), which configuration yields the best performance?

Thanks!

Siberys · Post by **Siberys** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 12:22 pm

(Counter-point? If 1 stick were to die, then the remaining 3 sticks would no longer act as a "Dual Channel" memory configuration, which would cause a significant drop in performance?)

No, it would still work like normal, or at least it should still work like normal.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 12:38 pm

If using x32 bit I would only go for 3 GB RAM as the 4 GB address space is all memory (including video and similar).
If wanting to use 4GB or more - you must go x64 bit.

I would also not worry too much about a dual channel set up. The performance gain is marginal compared to what is achievable elsewhere. If all other bottlenecks are removed and your computer is optimized, then it IMO is time to consider dual channel and the 2x2 vs. 4x1 setup.
And only if you are a numbers "freak"

Tricky · Post by **Tricky** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 1:49 pm

Cool, I never quite understood why there are 32/64 versions of Windows. How does that work out for Linux though?

I am curious because I wish create a multimedia platform that runs on Linux. At some point anyway. I thought I'd use my current box of bolts to scrape together some kind of personalized distro, to mess with things a bit. I pretty much know what it has to be able to do, but I won't really need it until I buy a house. Which will take me at least three years, if not longer.

I'd do a web search myself, but my computer is all loopy and won't let me access Google.

Oh, I might be hijacking the thread a bit. A PM will do too.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 2:01 pm

Tricky wrote:Cool, I never quite understood why there are 32/64 versions of Windows. How does that work out for Linux though?

I am curious because I wish create a multimedia platform that runs on Linux. At some point anyway. I thought I'd use my current box of bolts to scrape together some kind of personalized distro, to mess with things a bit. I pretty much know what it has to be able to do, but I won't really need it until I buy a house. Which will take me at least three years, if not longer.

I'd do a web search myself, but my computer is all loopy and won't let me access Google.

Oh, I might be hijacking the thread a bit. A PM will do too.

Should be the same as the architecture issue stems from address space in the CPU and not something in the operating system. Basically - that's how big a number can be if you use 32 bit to store the number.
Take a look here for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/32-bit

CFM · Post by **CFM** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 2:17 pm

Xandax wrote:I would also not worry too much about a dual channel set up. The performance gain is marginal compared to what is achievable elsewhere. If all other bottlenecks are removed and your computer is optimized, then it IMO is time to consider dual channel and the 2x2 vs. 4x1 setup.

Yeah, the performance gain is probably marginal.

Still, it seems just as easy to use either 2x2GB or 4x1GB sticks, and the total cost either way seems almost even. So, since I'd be buying new memory for a new motherboard, I might as well use the better configuration, right? (Assuming one setup is in fact 'better' than the other.)

Expandability and failure recovery are great points.

But does one memory configuration yield better (albeit marginal) performance over the other?