Win7 64bit - Should I run 4GB @ 1333 or 8GB @ 800?

I am building a new system using a Phenom II X3 720BE. I plan to install Windows 7RC 64 bit and 8GB of DDR3 1333 RAM (4x2GB). After ordering the parts I discovered the following information on the OCZ support forums (http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=50927):

"4 memory modules when run with a Phenom II CPU are only supported at 800 MHz. Size does not matter. 4x512, 4x1GB, or 4x2GB ram modules will be run at a max speed of 800 MHz."


From both a performance and usability standpoint, will it be better to run only 4GB of RAM (2x2GB) at the the higher speed, or all 8GB of RAM (4x2GB) at the 800 speed?

6 GB at 1333 Mhz

Is it 3 or more that it automatically drops to 800?

Therefore, OCZ will not support more than 2 memory modules at any speed higher than 800 MHz.

Click to expand...

straight from the link he provided.
reading helps

He could have posted the article... I'd rather not follow every link I see. And look, you read it for me, thanks I would go 4 at 1333, unless of course you run a lot of memory intensive apps at once, or are a hard core video editor etc.... But you should run a few performance tests with both configurations. Get the feel of both, see which one has a better placebo affect on you.

I'd go with 8GB. The usability of 8GB over 4 is far greater than a speed increase in computing power. Unless you do serious number crunching, go with 8GB and disable your pagefile. Zoom.

Captain Zero said:

I'd go with 8GB. The usability of 8GB over 4 is far greater than a speed increase in computing power. Unless you do serious number crunching, go with 8GB and disable your pagefile. Zoom.

Click to expand...

I agree with disablin the page file as well... I disable mine at 4...

The faster modules will do better on artificial benchmarks. But in my experience, once you get to the level where you're not constrained by quantity most users can't tell the difference either way. And since running slower clock speeds usually allows tighter timings, and slower ram is cheaper than the factory overclockable stuff?? For a given amount of cash, I tend towards the "More/Slower/Tighter" side of the house.


Regarding Pagefile: Again, I've tried both and neither noticed nor measured any difference. From this, I've decided that if you have enough memory that the pagefile isn't being used anyways, then you can disable it. But when you have enough memory that the pagefile isn't being used anyways, there is also zero performance gain to be had... You know.. Because the system wasn't using the pagefile...

The corollary to this is if there comes a time when you actually need it, then you *NEED* it. Not having a pagefile in this case can/does cause blue screens.

So - If you have a lot of RAM and want the placebo that comes from tweaking your settings to fit your ideas of "best" performance, then please feel free. Personally, I simply turned it down to 512MB in Vista. But that's simply to save a little disc space, not because I expect any difference in how the computer operates. On 7, which I dual boot on the same machine, I never even thought about it until writing this post. Maybe I'll set a size... maybe not...

That's actually why I disable my pagefile, it's just for the XXX amt of space on the hard drive, not that hard drive space cost anything, it's practically free, but just cause...