Stage 2-1 last question

Congrats! From what I've read and heard (although I don't have personal experience with Vista - yet) the general consensus seems to be that 2GB of RAM should be more than enough to operate smoothly, even with demanding games and other software.

The issue with 32-bit operating systems is that 4GB is the maximum system memory they are able to address, including any and all hardware in your configuration. So, if you put in 4GB of RAM, and you have (for the sake of argument, a 512MB graphics card, your system is now using 512MB of its total addressable memory to keep track of/utilize your graphics card's memory, and now only using 3.5GB of your Corsair sticks. If you had for instance, SLI 8800GTXs, thats like 1.5 GB of video memory, leaving your system only able to address about 2.5 GB of your RAM.

So, it won't be totally wasted, but some of it does go unused in a 32-bit OS. Someone correct me if I'm wrong - I feel like I've heard it explained enough now to take a crack at it

Chris

Yeah - unless I'm mistaken the GPU memory goes towards the total addressable system memory. I don't know what other hardware has RAM that would push this down further, but that's it as I understand it.

I went with 4GB, but will also be running Vista 64. Had I chosen a 32-bit OS, I probably still would have gone with 4 gigs since, while the total 4 gigs would not be useable, my system would still make use of a good deal more than 2.

It would be funny if I'm totally incorrect and just going on and on as if I know sh*t.

Chris

Thanks! No - they aren't raided. One of them will be for my OS, the other for Games and Audio Editing/Recording programs. I have another hard drive from an older PC (about 200GB) that I will put in for mass storage - photos, docs, backed up music files, etc.

I almost wish I would have gone with a 74GB Raptor and a 150GB, since the one for the OS is probably overkill. I can't wait to get this thing though - I'm going out of my mind :)

Chris

Well all intel processors are quad pumped meaning 1333 MHz is 333MHz. All of the Core 2 has locked multipliers while the Core 2 Extreme has an unlocked multiplier (it is why they are overclocking monsters priced at $999).

The multiplier is a way to make the processor faster without increasing the FSB. Most Intel processors have a multiplier of 9.

This is how the speed of the processor is calculated..

For example... E6850 1333MHz / 4 = 333 MHz x 9 = 3.0GHz

Another example.. Q6600 1066MHz / 4 = 266 MHz x 9 = 2.4GHz

So 667MHz ram would be fine for running these processors at stock speed.

To overclock the E6850 or Q6600, you would have to increase the FSB because you can't change the multipliers (they are locked). So you would need higher speed ram to match the FSB.

You would have to raise the FSB of the Q6600 to 1444MHz to get it to 3.2GHz. 800 MHz ram would be ideal for that.

To overclock the E6850 to 3.7Ghz, you need to raise the FSB to 1666MHz, so you would need 1066MHz ram for that.

still confused?

1:1 is optimal but 1:2, 4:5, etc won't kill you in performance.

Here's a memory article to get you started on reading

http://techreport.com/articles.x/8966/1

Here's another link:

thetechreport article had alot of interesting information. I always though the most important thing when looking for fast memory was the cas latency-but those charts are showing the command rate plays the bigger role-in some cases. I never even knew what those numbers were, the -T and 2T stuff.   It looks like memory timings and latency doesnt play a huge role in multimedia, multitasking, photo editing which is the majority of what ill be doing--good to hear! I cant get over the price difference he explained at the end, its crazy. Off to read those other related articles on the page, good stuff. Thats why I was asking these memory questions-the same Corsair 800mhz memory thats coming in my  machine is on sale at an online vendor-a 2gig set for 50 bucks after rebate, cant beat it!


On to the directron article. I browsed the first page and that looks like it has some good information that im looking for. That should explain the relation between memory-cpu-keeping 1:1 ratio on fsb etc. Looks like an easy read and will certainly read it in a bit. Thanks Tyler-much appreciated.

Thanks for that article commast. I found out how many different types of TWIN2X2048-6400 there were yesterday when looking to buy another 2 gigs. I found 3 or 4 different versions-some varying greatly in price. I always thought 800mhz memory was all you needed to know, of course memory makers couldnt make it that simple though, heh!

Off to do some more reading and try and find out why back in the day you were able to OC an AMD chip and tinker with the multiplies and cpu without touching memory. I understand Intel locked their multiplies except for the xtreme series-but why do the cpu and memory have to be linked and overclocked together? Ok, gonna read the rest of those articles, maybe answer some of that stuff. Thanks again guys.


Just got done reading the article on directron. That helped alot on understanding the whole 1:1 thing and keeping the FSB matched up on both processor and memory.  Ok, the FSB on my processor is 1066 and 800mhz for my memory.   Since the multipliers are locked we bump up the 266mhz system clock, which has a multiplier of 9--yes? Now when we OC, are we adjusting the FSB speeds at all on either the memory or processor? I mean is there anyway to close the gap in the FSB difference between memory and cpu, 800 and 1033 respectively? I guess theres an option for that in the bios to adjust your memory speed separately then? I never oc'ed memory.  And if you cant get these matched is this why you unlink them in the Bios?  I think i'll get this alot better once I see whats available in the Bios settings.







Edited by donkeypunch - 06 Oct 2007 at 7:34pm