16GB RAM on a Single CPU SYSTEM

[forumdude123]

Can I run 16GB RAM on a motherboard that contains a single cpu (with vista ultimate x64 installed)?

[bbqchickenrobot]

Sure as long as you get the configuration (hardware, i.e. - motherboard and individual RAM modules + sizes) right and you're running the 64-bit version of the OS

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=37
http://www.vistaclues.com/reader-question-32-bit-vista-memory-limits/

Do you really need that much memory on a Vista workstation? Curious to what you are doing ... rendering perhaps?

[lordx78]

Agree with bbqchickenrobot. I've seen the Gigabyte Motherboad M57SLI-DS4 running with 16GB of RAM with the BIOS upgraded on Windows x64 SP2.

[forumdude123]

Sure as long as you get the configuration (hardware, i.e. - motherboard and individual RAM modules + sizes) right and you're running the 64-bit version of the OS

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=37 http://www.vistaclues.com/reader-question-32-bit-vista-memory-limits/

Do you really need that much memory on a Vista workstation? Curious to what you are doing ... rendering perhaps?

RAM is very cheap and can make the difference between a turtle pc and a rocket pc, and I play many games. Also, i want the most future proof configuration out there.

[jbennet]

for crysis to run well you need 2 gb + (the 64 bit version of the game client will use up to 8gb but needs vista x64)

[forumdude123]

For Crisis I'd recommend a 64bit OS with at least 4GB RAM (something i don't have yet). But if I had 16GB, i could use 8gb for crisis and 8gb for background apps.

[jbennet]

yeah the 32 bit version of the game can use max 2gb for the game, its more on the 64 bit game client (i think 8gb)

[forumdude123]

who runs vista x64 right now, i want to know if it can run most hardware smoothly now, so i can start playing advanced games like crysis. My friend runs a 32 bit os with 2gb and plays crisis, and even with a 320mb video card, he can only get about 30 fps @1024*768 Medium. He upgraded to 4gb, but his pc only recognized 2.6gb.

[bbqchickenrobot]

32-bit systems are 4GB max, minus the memory used for your graphics card... + some other stuff... so that's about right.

If you want 4GB or more... go 64-bit.

[jbennet]

its a lot better than xp x64 was

the 2.6 thing is normal . its because he has 32 bit

[bbqchickenrobot]

isn't there 32-bit emulation in vista? WOW i believe... Doesn't AMD provide this option via it's processors as well? Don't know about intel... anyhow - you canemulate 32-bit for all your other apps and run your crysis game in true 64-bit mode...

with 16GB or RAM. lol.

[jbennet]

yes

[Groox]

64-bit Vista and 64-bit XP can take 128 GB of RAM!! And Microsoft wants to increase that dramatically! So 16 GB is an awful lot right now, but not for long—just like 512 MB of RAM was HUGE such a short time ago.

It's when you imagine x64 using what seem like gigantic RAM GBs that you get the picture why everything is going to x64. As long as we're still using just a few gigs of RAM, x64 seems like just a sort of silly trend. But x32 has places to go & people to see around the 3 GB mark, it's designed that way—so it's not seeing anything above 3 GB because it's got other commitments.

The GA mbs that support 16 GB of RAM are going to have their moment in the sun.

[forumdude123]

now it is possible!!! get an ecs 780g board and 4 4gb ram modules (corsair) from newegg.com and you've got your self a 16gb ram system. the ram costs 300.00 per 4gb stick.

[bbqchickenrobot]

Seriously... you won't need 16GB's of RAM for anything other than bragging to your buds. That's for home use of course. If you are running server stuff, then you can find other boards that will take care of this for your.

For home usage - 4 - 8 Gigs is enough I can run Crysis without a prob on 2 gigs, but I have 4 and will eventually consider the upgrade to 8GB in case of running multiple memory intense progs simultaneously with my Quad processor.

I just built a new system - the "spider" platform from AMD:

AMD Phenom X4 9850 Black Edition OC'd to 3.0 Ghz (air cooled)
4GB Corsair Dominator 1066 DDR2 (PC8500) RAM (4 x 1GB)
1 WD Raptor 75GB 10,000 RPM HDD (boot drive)
2 WD 500 GB HDD (Non-Raid)
2 Sapphire Radeon 3870 512MB DDR4 Graphics Card (Crossfired)
ASUS M3A32-MVP Delux WiFi Motherboard (790 chipset)
CoolerMaster 850W Power Supply
Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit

This thing handles anything thrown at it.... for cheap too ;) The motherboard is for advanced builders and can give a little bit of trouble. You have to sort of coerce it to do what you want it to, but once it's running - it's a great board.

[forumdude123]

i know, i was just letting everyone know that it was possible. who the #ell would need 16gb ram anyway, it won't be used by programs anyway.

[forumdude123]

now here's another question. is there a noticable difference between 1066mhz ram, 800mhz ram, 667, 1142, etc for ddr2. what about 1066,1333,1600,1866,2066, etc for ddr3. there are so many speeds to choose from. is there a benefit to get higher speed ddr2. what about hi speed ddr2 (1142mhz) vs low speed ddr3 (1066). Thanks for those who can help.

[bbqchickenrobot]

This depends on your hardware. The short answer - yes, there is a difference. As long as you can keep a 1:1 ratio on the FSB you will be cool.

DDR3 can be faster depending on the speed it is set to. If it's lower speed than DDR2 then obviosly, not gonna be faster. I believe DDR3 will allow for faster speeds without overclocking and without tons of heat being generated. That's it.

DDR2 should be cheaper and I believe is the only type compatible with AMD AM2/AM2+ boards and CPU's.... DDR3 probably won't be available until later on this year for AMD.
Not an Intel guy so I don't know if DDR3 is there yet, but I think I heard/read it was.

[bbqchickenrobot]

Basically you can think of it like this: DDR3 = DDR2 at higher performing speeds w/o overclocking and less heat (which is ultimate due to less Voltage). Voltage is what you use to overclock... so my DDR2 1066 uses a voltage of 2.2. While DDR3 1066 uses a voltage of ~1.5 - much lower. And less heat and power consumption. Also, DDR3 operates at a higher latency which may result in slower performance when compared to DDR2 of same speed. Technically they should perform the same and have the same bandwidth, but the latency is lower.

DDR3 compensates for this by obtaining higher clock speeds than DDR2 at a lower voltage (without overclocking) so ultimately, on the highend, will out perform DDR2.

Check out these two links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ddr3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDR2_SDRAM

[Groox]

I think the difference in the builder/user has to measured along with the difference in the RAM. I am putting my first build together, mainly watching NCIX sales (I can walk to their store) and buying bits and pieces one by one, very slowly.

RAM was a troublesome thing, because the mobo makers and the RAM makers don't keep up with the myriad combinations possible. You can go according to the "safe" lists, but they don't show much. I am taking the advice of my fellow at the store, and risking 1000 on my machine. I could have been safer at 800, but the price was good (actually the same for either) and my RAM will be a bit better, if I can get away with it.

For somebody experienced, this would be easy. The NCIX store fellow seems good, and he emphasized that he's "sure" my chances are better than 99%. Actually I'm just about as "sure" that he's right. But it's a dicy thing when you really don't know what you're doing.

But then, so is building a computer a bit dicy. I could have just walked into a store and bought one, and it might have been cheaper, if anything. But. . . .

So I'd factor a bit of that into purchasing decisions about RAM. I'd call it the "Depends if you're up to it" factor. Good luck.