4 gig of ram in XP?

[Fred Forsythe]

Awhile back, I built a PC around an ASUS P5B Deluxe mobo. Installed 2 gigs of Corsair DDR2 SDRAM 675 (PC2 5400). Main OS is XP home, with a 2ndary install of XP Pro. The memory was $275, about 30 months ago :eek:

I see RAM prices have plummeted (whoo be to the Early Adopters... :D ) and now I can get CORSAIR DOMINATOR 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 1066 (PC2 8500) for about 60 bucks. So I'm wondering if I would see any performance improvements if I switch to this faster, higher-quantity of RAM. I don't do any gaming, but this is a HTPC, and I do some fairly heavy video, like playing 8 gig-plus .MKV files, etc.

One thing I note is my original RAM is listed as 1.9volt, with timing of 4-4-4-12, while this new RAM is 2.1 volt, with timing of 5-5-5-15-2T. I understand the difference between 1.9 & 2.1 volts, the timing thing, not so much. Would the newer stuff even be compatible?

Also, I know XP home is somewhat limited in the way it can use such quantities of RAM, how it's allotted between OS/Apps, and that XP Pro has somewhat fewer limitations in this regard.

So, would it behoove me to add this newer/faster/MORE ram?

TIA

Fred

[Paul Komski]

Your RAM doesn't seem to appear in this list (http://www.ec.kingston.com/ecom/configurator_new/modelsinfo.asp?SysID=30578&mfr=ASUS%2FASmobile&model=P5B+Deluxe+%2F+P5B+Deluxe%2FWiFi&search_type=&root=us&LinkBack=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kingston.com&Sys=30578-ASUS%2FASmobile-P5B+Deluxe+%2F+P5B+Deluxe%2FWiFi-AP+Motherboard&distributor=0&submit1=Search).

I'm not aware of any difference between 32 bit Windows Home or Pro. Both max out at 4GB of RAM (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx#physical_memory_limits_windows_xp) but may need to be tweaked to see it all. Others will know more about such things.

My Computer >> Properties >> Advanced >> Performance Settings >> Advanced: Adjust for best performance or for caching is the same in both Home and Pro (or did you have some other setting that is unique to one or the other OS?). Caching might be the better setting for Video editing.

[Fred Forsythe]

Thaks Paul. The brand I'm considering is Corsair, which I have now & have used successfully on other systems as well. Didn't know the memory companies had pages like the one you included for Kingston, looking at the Corsair site, I do see that the module I'm considering (TWIN2X4096-8500C5D at newegg page http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820145214) is listed under my mobo here http://corsair.com/configurator/product_results.aspx?id=10342#other_modules so I guess it's compatible. Do you think 4 gig of this, properly config'd, as you suggest, would produce anoticable performance increase over my present 2 gigs of Corsair DDR2 SDRAM 675 (PC2 5400)?

Couldn't hurt, right? :D

Fred

[Paul Komski]

I would say that most things to do with multimedia are amongst my weakest points. On re-reading you say playing video rather than capturing/editing video but maybe I have misunderstood.

As a rule more RAM does no harm and is often the best improvement one can get bang for buck. If you want to be more scientific about it have a look at memory and pagefile usage etc (Task Manager performance tab) while you are doing the intensive tasks. If virtual memory is not being called into play or remains small and static then RAM is probably sufficient as things stand.

Most of the memory supplies have such RAM identifiers and they will usually guarantee the modules if you used their identifier.