BF2S Forums RAM is insanely cheap

Gawwad wrote:

Go for it FM! All the cool kids have 4GB today. You wouldn't want to be left out, now would you?

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

yer ive never tried but i think u could have as much RAM as ur comp could hold and XP would only recognise 3.8... so i guess theres nothing stopping u getting 4
.i say buy it
u have inspired me to add to my 2 GB of RAM lol

No-one is going to read your posts with that color.

give me a break im trying to find the hardest colour to read... so i can piss off all the guys reading this forum at 4-5 am.


and i love how u stayed perfectly on topic... nice contribution to the conversation!

Last edited by Little BaBy JESUS (2007-12-14 03:08:12)

Yeah i just picked up some recently. Still supports  over 3GB and I can play CoD4 while a VM is running with a GB of ram

Last edited by jsnipy (2007-12-14 04:12:14)

xRBLx wrote:

Why is it when i stick in 4 gig of RAM i only see 2.75 of it?

Motherboard limitation? What motherboard do you have?

Gawwad wrote:

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

Gawwad wrote:

Go for it FM! All the cool kids have 4GB today. You wouldn't want to be left out, now would you?


No-one is going to read your posts with that color.

give me a break im trying to find the hardest colour to read... so i can piss off all the guys reading this forum at 4-5 am.


and i love how u stayed perfectly on topic... nice contribution to the conversation!

Go ahead, get offended.

hehe ok... arguing turns me on

Sometimes it's cheaper to get 2 1GB individual sticks instead of the 2x1GB package. Search around.

xRBLx wrote:

Why is it when i stick in 4 gig of RAM i only see 2.75 of it?

See my post.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a … 6820227231

lol i spent 3x that on mine

Well, I ordered it, I'll post the performance difference/how much I actually get to use on 32 bit XP, maybe help others out on the same decision.

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

<*SIGH*>

Not this hot potato again.

OKAY, I'm only going to say this once.

32bit XP DOES support 4GB of physical RAM - whether it's PC3200, PC6400 or whatever.

However, in all systems, some memory addresses are 'mapped' to IO (meaning they're used to communicate with any peripherals, video card, sound card, and do on).

So, because the 32-bit address space is exactly 4GB, if you install 4GB of physical ram, the IO mapped addresses will hide some of the physical addresses.

How many addresses are hidden in this way varies from system to system, so there is no single maximum amount of ram that will be available to windows.

In fact, if one were to build a system that didn't use memory-mapped IO, windows would see all 4GB - but that's only in theory - all modern PCs use memory-mapped IO.


Now to answer the OP, yes you'll see some improvement going from 2GB to 4GB physical RAM, but not as much as you get from going from 1GB to 2GB, unless you do a lot of graphics/video/audio editing, or other tasks that require large amounts of RAM.

LOL!

Completely and totally right (although I remember arguing with you for ages over semantics regarding this - but that was over the physical/logical issue - I still say it supports 4GB of logical memory, the 3.something GB physical and the rest for IO, making up a total of 4GB logical addressable space).

For all those who haven't paid any attention to Scorpion's (and rdx's) insightful post I'll try and simplify it even more.

Windows XP can use 4GB of memory. But that's the absolute maximum. Windows needs to use some memory space to talk to hardware, that means not all the 4GB can be used. If you turn some hardware off you can often increase the amount of available physical memory since the OS doesn't need to talk to it any more.

The idea that memory frequency has anything to do with it is absolutely retarded.

Unreal_Insanity wrote:

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

san4 wrote:

Is that true? Sux.

yes its true... XP supports a maximum of 3.8 Gb of RAM ^^^

Actually 2.7 gigs or depends on the bandwidth of the memory. For example PC 3200 can get up tp 3.8 and PC 6400 can get up tp 2.7. So it depends on what you have.

If you don't have a clue what you're talking about, please don't offer advice to people in a tech forum. It's just going to confuse people.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-12-15 05:18:53)

alright bertster i will no longer post in Tech section.

happy?
good.

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

alright bertster i will no longer post in Tech section.

happy?
good.

I don't think he is trying to be a prick, it just devalues the forum when people post misinformation.

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

we need ppl like me to keep threads alive long enough for the smart ppl to get off their lazy asses (or get home from work )

You were right the first time.

It's hard work being this damn knowledgeable, didn't you know!

jsnipy wrote:

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

alright bertster i will no longer post in Tech section.

happy?
good.

I don't think he is trying to be a prick, it just devalues the forum when people post misinformation.

Exactly.

When people post stuff that isn't true in the tech section and people follow that advice they could wind up wasting a lot of time and/or money. That's a bad thing.