Obviously, the amount I need revolves around what my needs are. Given that my audio editing can take 10+ minutes to perform certain functions (video can take hours), my 512 is far below what I need.

My question is...

I had settled on two sets of Corsair (1GB) TWIN2X1024-5400C4 at $185 a pair...giving me 2GB of memory. I'm tempted to go ahead and load up with four 1GB sticks, but I'm uncertain of where to look (in terms of price and manufacturer).

I see prices from $245 to $365 to $535 a pair for Patriot & OCZ.

What motherboard do you have? That will have a _lot_ to do with how much RAM you can install and what configurations you can use. I guess, from what you say, that your mobo has 4 DIMM slots. What is the maximum amount of RAM it can take?

-Joe-

Sorry, forgot to mention the mobo...

Asus P5WD2 Premium 955x Audio/GB-LAN/IEEE/PCI-E/SATAII/DDR2/1066-FSB/Dual-Core/ATX P4 775

Dual channel, 4 x 240-pin DIMM sockets support max. 4GB DDR2 711/533 non-ECC memory

2GB of RAM should be fine. Honestly, it's not quite at that point where 1GB modules are worth the cost. Maybe another 6-9 months...

I've found that doing intensive tasks (gaming, audio/video crunching, etc) gets a big boost between 512MB and 1GB of RAM, and an OK boost between 1GB and 2GB of RAM. But beyond 2GB of RAM you won't see extra performance unless you're running a Windows Server 2003 system! At that point you become CPU-limited, not RAM-limited. That's my advice, but if you really have the money to burn, go ahead and get more than 2GB of RAM if it makes you feel better.

since you have the $ for 4 1gig sticks I sugguest you buy 2 of them. You'd have lots of ram and could go to 4 gigs later.

Thanks for the input.

Are there pros/cons to going 4x512 vs 2x1024 (in terms of performance)?

Of course, you're limiting yourself for expansion with 4x512, but simply for performance purposes, is there a difference?

Performance wise, yes. You can set up the 2 sticks in a dual-channel format if your mobo supports it.

With today's modern memory controllers, there's actually a very slight performance boost to having more sticks of RAM. It has to do with the reduction (or more acturately the hiding) of latencies.

If you want to have a balance, why not get 2 x 1GB sticks and 2 x 512MB sticks! Best of both worlds! :D

??? Would that combination actually work? I always thought you needed to have the same amount of memory in each slot for best performance, or in some cases for performance at all.

But I agree, 2 GB RAM in 4x512 MB - Corsair is just fine - is probably your best choice. I have 1 GB in 2x512 MB sticks and my system can handle just about anything thrown at it without having to go to the swap file. I think the only people who could really use 4 GB RAM are really ultra-heavy-duty scientists or CAD types. With 2 GB that audio editing should go like a flash.

-Joe-
-Joe-

If you want to have a balance, why not get 2 x 1GB sticks and 2 x 512MB sticks! Best of both worlds! :D
??? Would that combination actually work? I always thought you needed to have the same amount of memory in each slot for best performance, or in some cases for performance at all.

I had not considered separate sized pairs. Wonder what I would be dealing with, throwing in a pair of Corsair 512's and a pair of Patriot 1024's?

All indications are that 2GB is plenty. I'm just looking out for those day long tasks of putting together video projects. :)

Putting different size sticks is possible and works fine. If you want dual channel to work though you need 2 of the same size in the coresponding slots. The only thing to make sure is the same is the speed of the ram. I believe if the speeds are different the mobo will slow the fast ones to the slower speed. I might be rong though so wait for Saph. to give you his opinion, he's the ram guru.

One other thing I though of, people here suggest cosair, kingston or crucial ram. I've heard good things on patriot though, but once again wait for Saph.'s opion on them.

Yes, you can use different sized pairs. Each pair must be the same size, and all sticks must be of the same speed and latencies. If they aren't, you run the risk of slowing down your RAM, or breaking dual-channel (which would merely leave you with single-channel not a broken computer!).

I'm keeping my eye on Patriot, but they haven't won my vote yet. I stick with Crucial, Corsair, and Kingston because I've used lots of RAM modules from each and they've always been top-notch. That's not to say there aren't other excellent RAM manufacturers out there, but that's what I use. A word of warning, however - all RAM in a single system should be from the same manufacturer. While it is certainly possible to successfully mix RAM, the risk of breaking dual-channel mode is too great in modern systems. Best to err on the side of caution and put the same manufacturer into each system.

Another thing I learned recently about WinXP. If you use more than 2GB of RAM, there's a limitation. Programs can only use the bottom 2GB of RAM, while anything over that can only be used by WinXP itself. This definitely holds true for the 32-bit versions of Home and Pro, but I'm not sure about the 64-bit edition. And of course this doesn't apply to the server versions of Windows.

I learn something new every time I visit. :)

Another thing I learned recently about WinXP. If you use more than 2GB of RAM, there's a limitation. Programs can only use the bottom 2GB of RAM, while anything over that can only be used by WinXP itself. This definitely holds true for the 32-bit versions of Home and Pro, but I'm not sure about the 64-bit edition. And of course this doesn't apply to the server versions of Windows. :(
That's good to know. Not much good having much over 2GB if it can't be used. 2.5GB-3GB max. 4GB would be a waste. I don't think XP32bit would ever use more than 512MB.

Let us know when you find out about the 64 bit edition.

A lot of motherboards can't take more than 3 GB RAM anyway - mine, for example. In fact, in some configurations my mobo can't do more than 2 GB. Then again, as reported on this thread, 2 GB is about the practical maximum for seeing real performance improvement and 1 GB is optimum for most heavy users.

Look, folks, let's put this in perspective. Ten years ago, somebody was considered a power user if they had 64 or (if they were a BIG spender) 128 MB RAM!

-Joe-

Ten years ago, somebody was considered a power user if they had 64 or (if they were a BIG spender) 128 MB RAM!Haha, yeah, computers back then never had enough RAM! Well, I should say that once Windows came out, computers never had enough RAM. DOS was just dandy with 512KB of RAM, and pretty much topped-out at 2MB of RAM. But once Windows came out, 2MB was nothing! After that, things got glutonous, to the point where computers, IMO, didn't really get enough RAM again until 2002-2003. It was then that RAM prices dropped to a point where the average user could feed WinXP with 256MB. And now, RAM is so darn cheap that we have people here on the forums asking if 4GB is too much! :eek: :cool:

Kind of fitting, though, when you think about DOS vs WinXP. DOS's sweet spot back then was 512KB, with 2MB being the practical limit. And WinXP's sweet spot is 512MB, with 2GB being the practical limit. Coincidence?...

Audio editing..I do some of that I guess. With my 512mbRAM, the average 4 minute-song takes 5 seconds to 5 minutes to work on, (With AUdacity and depending what I do to the file). I think 2GB is good enough for audio. If you do a lot of video, go for more ,(if you can).