2 or 3 gigs for gaming? YES.

[shaihulud]

WOW, Reminds me of why I hardly ever post here anymore, Listen up boys and girls, GOD HAS SPOKEN!!!! (what a dick)

I think literature is easily taken out of context, and also comprehension skills are not as good as they used to be. But I really do not care what anyone thinks of me, nor do I “attack” anyone (If this is what you think). If I was to attack, you would know so.

I see it as correct or incorrect. What you do to achieve the better is all your prerogative. But when I see the opposite happen I will want to fix it. How you comprehend the fix, that is your own fault. It is a shame that being succinct can easily be considered as rude, but this again is the fault of the reader that thought as so.

My post just basically says, stop this insane “Windows only see X amount of RAM.” Addressing and utilization are two different issues, and this needs to be known. As for increasing the RAM, how can you go wrong with more? You feel you don't need it, then don't do it. I am all about RAM, but as I said it is relative, and arbitrary.

[El Wiseguy]

It's the way you said it that made them dislike what you said. There are ways of saying things that will be either informative or offensive.

Originally Posted by Mr. Charles

. . . . so, you are stating for here that you went from 1GB memory to 2GB, and now at 3GB of memory??? For this upgrading you can see & feel a BIG improvement in all, OR Gaming, OR OS & app's?????? ............just curious to get your pont of noticed-improvement's of from the upp'ng in the memory past 1GB........


mr. Charles

Yeah man. Going from 1GB to 2GB was a HUGE difference in Gaming and running Apps. But, I thought that was the sweet spot.

But now, since upgrading to 3GB I've noticed that most of the bottlenecks I thought my processor was giving me wasn't my processor at all. Those little tiny kinks in my games seem to have gone away.

Oblivion used to run crappily at certain high specs with 2GB, but with 3GB it runs smooth at those same settings.

BF2 is obvious. It runs just way better with more ram.

My computer just runs better overall. It's been a great improvement.

[johnrr6]

When I tried 4 gigs in XP on two different boards----I could never get Windows XP to "recognize" it when I Right clicked on My Computer, Properties----General

Maybe that is the wrong term----recognize....

Didn't seem to make any difference in performance----so I assumed that the memory was not being used-----hence no reason to use 4 Gigs....in XP at least....

I read the article you suggested----good stuff and I think I understand it-----but it never really explained (at least to me)----whether in XP the entire 4 gigs was every really used-----whether it be for reserved memory addressing or free memory.

Be that as it may----I think from everything I read here that Windows Vista 32 Bit WILL use, recognize, address----whatever you want to call it-----better than XP did-----hence with this new software----it MAY be advantageous to go to the full 4 gigs .....at least much more so than XP.....

Shal----I think you are a very smart guy or gal----but I would respectfully recommend that you write your posts as if you are in face to face conversation with someone.

Manners are everything-------that and morals are what holds a society together......

You may not realize it (I suspect that you don't)----but sometimes you sound a bit too preachy and superior for my tastes.

That is your right----and I totally support your right to write however you want----in fact, unlike many, I have actually fought to protect that right....

But I felt that you should hear this from someone who likes, respects and looks forward to your posts....

Most of the time.....

John

Originally Posted by shaihulud

OK, ok, this has to stop! Every time I see this I cringe. Windows addresses all 4GB. ALL OF IT. There is no see only partial, a bit, some, or whatever. ATINut is on point, and as he said you are all incorrect if you think in that way.

How, all 4GB is utilize is another subject matter, and I leave it up to a previous link I posted for the details. So, please, stop misinforming people or incorrectly describing the 4GB barrier. All it takes is just a little education, and these horribly misinforming posts can stop.

Also, to recommend a memory size is futile for it is too relative, and even arbitrary. Really, the golden rule I learned long ago is: The more memory the better-period. It is simple as that. If you cannot simply gauge that you need more memory, then perhaps you do not even need to think about it.

Please read to understand the 4GB barrier better.
Understanding Address Spaces and the 4GB Limit - [H]ard|Forum

[johnrr6]

Oh Boy!!!

Here we go....

And this is 64 Bit....

Lovely....

http://www.abxzone.com/forums/memory...sta-64bit.html

[fvbounty]

Originally Posted by johnrr6

Oh Boy!!!

Here we go....

And this is 64 Bit....

Lovely....

http://www.abxzone.com/forums/memory...sta-64bit.html

You got that right.....

[El Wiseguy]

My thread's been hijacked.

[johnrr6]

Apologies....

I will get out of the thread.

Understand.....

John

[fvbounty]

Originally Posted by johnrr6

Apologies....

I will get out of the thread.

Understand.....

John

Me too, sorry.......

[El Wiseguy]

lol you foos. It's all good.

So is there really that much of a speed difference with DDR2 and DDR1?

[shaihulud]

Johnrr6, yes the 4GB is entirely used, and is noted throughout the entire post. Even this part of the post which says “While the total memory available to the operating system will be less than four gigabytes, the system certainly is capable of accessing four gigabytes of memory space. “ The 4GB is there without a doubt, as noted, for it has been mapped to the device. If the operating system was not able to address and use the memory then it would not be I/O mapped. It is being used by a device and cannot be used as system memory-this is the caveat.

But you basically proved my point on the matter, and how I “defend” myself. Literature and spoken words are two completely different ways of communication. Being of the IT and latter medical profession, I have learned to read almost to a crawl. Not because I cannot read fast, but to prevent errors in comprehension and to make sure I get the context correct. Even the relationship of the words used are very important for I have to be very careful, and responsible with my work.

But since the post is not spoken it can easily be read and misunderstood. I think Sting said it best about his song Every Breath You Take. Many think it is a love song, but it is a song about stalking. Yes, stalking. He said it himself on VH1. I laughed so hard, I never knew that people played this song at their wedding thinking it was a love song. Even he was like “Well, good luck then.” So even if I personally said this too, it or I can still be taken wrong.

So, as for Vista x86 and XP they are the same with 4GB. It can address all the way up to 4GB. Having all memory banks full up to 4GB will be the same with either OS for the 32bit barrier. How, they utilize and manage the memory that is completely different. Anandtech has an article on that and goes into some details.

So it is very important to be careful with the words used when talking about the subject matter of 4GB and the 32bit barriers of addressing. Because, people will continue to post this misinformation. I see it in every forum I have been to. It is horrible, really horrible.

As for the speed difference there are two basic ways to mean speed. The memory can be lower latency therefore faster. It can be of a higher latency, but a faster memory bus speed. Therefore, DDR2 can be faster. So to mean faster, it really depends on the specifics or basically the context. It is like an ISP saying they are fast. In which way do they means so? Are the packets traveling across their wires at blazing low millisecond speeds, or do you have an amazing amount of bandwidth allocated to you and can download at blazing speeds? The relationship of words are very important. Maybe this can shine some light on what I mean even more.

[johnrr6]

Originally Posted by shaihulud

Johnrr6, yes the 4GB is entirely used, and is noted throughout the entire post. Even this part of the post which says “While the total memory available to the operating system will be less than four gigabytes, the system certainly is capable of accessing four gigabytes of memory space. “ The 4GB is there without a doubt, as noted, for it has been mapped to the device. If the operating system was not able to address and use the memory then it would not be I/O mapped. It is being used by a device and cannot be used as system memory-this is the caveat.

But you basically proved my point on the matter, and how I “defend” myself. Literature and spoken words are two completely different ways of communication. Being of the IT and latter medical profession, I have learned to read almost to a crawl. Not because I cannot read fast, but to prevent errors in comprehension and to make sure I get the context correct. Even the relationship of the words used are very important for I have to be very careful, and responsible with my work.

But since the post is not spoken it can easily be read and misunderstood. I think Sting said it best about his song Every Breath You Take. Many think it is a love song, but it is a song about stalking. Yes, stalking. He said it himself on VH1. I laughed so hard, I never knew that people played this song at their wedding thinking it was a love song. Even he was like “Well, good luck then.” So even if I personally said this too, it or I can still be taken wrong.

So, as for Vista x86 and XP they are the same with 4GB. It can address all the way up to 4GB. Having all memory banks full up to 4GB will be the same with either OS for the 32bit barrier. How, they utilize and manage the memory that is completely different. Anandtech has an article on that and goes into some details.

So it is very important to be careful with the words used when talking about the subject matter of 4GB and the 32bit barriers of addressing. Because, people will continue to post this misinformation. I see it in every forum I have been to. It is horrible, really horrible.

As for the speed difference there are two basic ways to mean speed. The memory can be lower latency therefore faster. It can be of a higher latency, but a faster memory bus speed. Therefore, DDR2 can be faster. So to mean faster, it really depends on the specifics or basically the context. It is like an ISP saying they are fast. In which way do they means so? Are the packets traveling across their wires at blazing low millisecond speeds, or do you have an amazing amount of bandwidth allocated to you and can download at blazing speeds? The relationship of words are very important. Maybe this can shine some light on what I mean even more.

Good post-----thank you-----I believe I understand now.

John