Upgrade system ram from DDR2 to DDR5 big difference?

[DarkPhoenix]

My Motherboard will not use more than 4 gigs of ram.. BUT.. I was thinking about a way to cheat this.

I understand every time you go up from a DDR rating say from DDR1 to DDR2 with 2 gigs of ram.. its really like you are getting a 3 gig stick of ram if it were still rated at ddr1.

This is how the DDR thing was explained to me.

So If I have DDR2 now with 4 gigs.. and swap that for 4 gigs of DDR5.. wont that be like getting something like 6 gigs of ram effectively work/power wise? (like having 6 gigs of DDR2)

 

[jimbo45]

Hi there
unless you are an inveterate gamer you'll hardly notice a difference in DDR2 / DDR5 RAM.

For 90% of "typical Users" the performance of your machine will be dictated by the speed of the HDD's.

Slowish Hard disks are usually always the cause of poor performance - assuming you have a decent amount of RAM in the system.

Getting an SSD will pay much better dividends in performance than upgrading your RAM to DDR5.

If you get an SSD put the system page file on this too. You don't need to have the OS on this drive BTW as once the OS is loaded Windows doesn't need to load a lot more. Putting the paging file (and any Photoshop etc Scratch / work files and database indexes on an SSD will speed up your system NO END).

Cheers
jimbo

 

[Wishmaster]

What jimbo45 said


I would add, that RAM speed will not help very much at all, if any for gaming.

If you are building a complete new PC, then YES, go with DDR3.

If upgrading you current system so it can use DDR3, in hopes it will speed things up, then NO. you will be sadly disappointed.
You will likely not see any real gain in a real world situation.

not to mention, if your board only supports DDR2, then you can only use DRR2 modules. Depending what you have, you may be able to replace them with 2x2Gb of faster.
A few boards will support both DDR2 and DDR3 .. but as stated above .. the diff is not much in real world use.

 

[madtownidiot]

Quantity of ram will make a bigger difference than speed. 16 GB of DDR2 @ 1066MHz will outperform 8 GB of DDR3 at 1333 MHz and cost less than half as much. Use what you'd save to buy a SSD large enough for the OS and a couple games and you'll end up with a much faster machine for the same money

 

[Wishmaster]

Thats true only IF you use applications that are very heavy on RAM use, Multiple VMs etc.

For the most part 4Gb is plenty for most people,
and those who use heavier RAM use apps 6-8 is typically enough, although true some will have exceptions and need more.

generally speaking most will never need more than 4-6

 

[madtownidiot]

generally speaking most will never need more than 4-6

"640K is more memory than anyone will ever need" - Bill Gates

 

[pparks1]

More ram does not always equate to better performance. Also, there are other things to consider to get an accurate picture. For example, latencies are lower with DDR2 RAM versus DDR3 RAM. So, while DDR3 does offer more bandwidth and total throughput speed, if you aren't maxing it out...you might not be gaining enough to offset the lower latencies provided by the DDR2 RAM.

Also, as most have likely noticed, DDR2 RAM is getting more and more expensive these days. I know that it's about 2x the cost that it was back in July of 2009. However, the price of DDR3 hasn't really been going up...but rather down.

Finally, in order to change from DDR2 to DDR3 you have to have a mobo with support for the new RAM chips. They don't have the same physical interface so DDR3 sticks will not fit into the DDR2 slots on older mobos. The little notch is in a physically different location.

I would say the "majority" of home computer users likely don't need more than 2GB of RAM. Some users might have heavier needs or run beefier apps like Photoshop and these people might gain from moving to 4GB of RAM. The vast majority of people who have upgraded to 8GB...hardly ever make use of that RAM. I put 8GB into my machine...but I setup lab scenarios in virtual machines so it's not uncommon for me to run 4-5 virtual machines simultaneously. ( A domain controller, an exchange server, a sql server, and 1-2 client machines).

 

[madtownidiot]

Three absolutes that have held true since I built my first gaming computer in the 80s

The operating system will expand to fill all available storage media.
Everything will require more memory after the next update.
Attempts to fully utilize available resources inevitably result in the need to increase available resources

 

[chev65]

That won't work as already pointed out, memory is board specific. But when it comes to performance CPU speed is still king I don't care what anyone says.

 

[pparks1]

Two absolutes that have held true from the beginning

The operating system will expand to fill all available storage media.
Everything will require more memory after the next update.

But I think Windows 7 runs much better on lower amounts of RAM than Vista ever did. So, that absolute might not be so absolute anymore

 

[madtownidiot]

However, windows 7 still requires more than 16x as much memory as xp to operate. If windows 7 had been released in 2007, most available machines at the time would not have been able to handle it. It's popularity lies more in what has been removed from vista than in what's new in 7.
People and organizations do not willingly change habits or traditions. The only way memory requirements and all other minimum requirements for any other software is not going stop increasing is if people stop trying to create more capable hardware. I don't see that happening any time soon.

 

[pparks1]

However, windows 7 still requires more than 16x as much memory as xp to operate. If windows 7 had been released in 2007, most available machines at the time would not have been able to handle it. It's popularity lies more in what has been removed from vista than in what's new in 7

Well, XP about 9 years ago needed 64MB to run...however that is the minimum and would provide minimum performance. 16x that is indeed 1024..which is listed as the RAM minimum in Windows 7. These days, I cannot even remember the last time I used a machine that had less than 1GB of RAM. Wait..it was my dad's HP notebook running XP which was slow as dog crap...so we bought him a new laptop for xmas with 4GB of RAM running Windows 7 and he is delighted.

And my point was that Windows 7 pretty much requires less RAM than Vista....not XP.

Well, Windows 7 wasn't released in 2007. Not to mention, RAM prices are so cheap now compared to what they were...almost all new cheapo machines have at least 2GB and most have 4GB.

I'm not seeing lots of lost functionality from component removal in Windows 7 versus Vista. It's running just great for me on everything that I have tossed it onto.

 

[nate42nd]

My Motherboard will not use more than 4 gigs of ram.. BUT.. I was thinking about a way to cheat this.

I understand every time you go up from a DDR rating say from DDR1 to DDR2 with 2 gigs of ram.. its really like you are getting a 3 gig stick of ram if it were still rated at ddr1.

This is how the DDR thing was explained to me.

So If I have DDR2 now with 4 gigs.. and swap that for 4 gigs of DDR5.. wont that be like getting something like 6 gigs of ram effectively work/power wise? (like having 6 gigs of DDR2)

I have not seen anybody say DDR5 is really only in graphics cards right now. "System memory" is only up to DDR3 right now as far as I know. Motherboards are made to accept DDR2 or DDR3.

I think 4GB is good for most people. 8GB is fine too. If you can go DDR3 then do it.

You really have to find a good balance between CPU, RAM, Hard drive speed, and graphics. Take my system for example, I need a better graphics card....that's where my "bottleneck" is. Find your "bottleneck" and upgrade whatever it may be.

 

[madtownidiot]

That said, I have on average 4.5 GB of free memory at any given time.. That's $300 worth of hardware sitting idle while the movie I watch is being read in 16MB increments every few seconds. I'd prefer to reduce the number of read/write operations in my HDD if possible

 

[pparks1]

That said, I have on average 4.5 GB of free memory at any given time.. That's $300 worth of hardware sitting idle

Well, perhaps going with 8GB of RAM was a bit overkill then.

Also, 4GB of DDR3 ram shouldn't be $300...if that is the hardware that you state is sitting there idle.

And, if you are running DDR3, for 3 channel performance you really want either 6GB of RAM ( 3 x 2GB sticks) or 12 GB (3 x 4GB sticks) for best performance...right???

 

[madtownidiot]

I'm using a laptop which only has 2 DIMM slots for DDR3 at up to 1333MHz, and at the time of purchase, 4GB dimms were $300 each. I run other versions of windows in virtualBox in linux for the purpose of remote desktop connections, and sometimes will have 3 virtual machines up simultaneously. That memory comes in real handy sometimes

 

[pparks1]

I'm using a laptop which only has 2 DIMM slots for DDR3 at up to 1333MHz, and at the time of purchase, 4GB dimms were $300 each.

Gotcha...well that is too bad. I'm almost surprised that a laptop with DDR3 didn't have 3 DIMM slots to utilize triple chanel.

I run other versions of windows in virtualBox in linux for the purpose of remote desktop connections, and sometimes will have 3 virtual machines up simultaneously. That memory comes in real handy sometimes

Yes, VM's are the only reason that I run 8GB of RAM. Without my VM's, 4 would have been more than enough. And having 8GB of RAM for VM's was my sole reason for going to 64-bit Windows 7 instead of running 32-bit. Had I only needed 4GB of RAM, I would have stayed with 32-bit for simplicity sake.

 

[DarkPhoenix]

My Motherboard will not use more than 4 gigs of ram.. BUT.. I was thinking about a way to cheat this.

I understand every time you go up from a DDR rating say from DDR1 to DDR2 with 2 gigs of ram.. its really like you are getting a 3 gig stick of ram if it were still rated at ddr1.

This is how the DDR thing was explained to me.

So If I have DDR2 now with 4 gigs.. and swap that for 4 gigs of DDR5.. wont that be like getting something like 6 gigs of ram effectively work/power wise? (like having 6 gigs of DDR2)

I have not seen anybody say DDR5 is really only in graphics cards right now. "System memory" is only up to DDR3 right now as far as I know. Motherboards are made to accept DDR2 or DDR3.

I think 4GB is good for most people. 8GB is fine too. If you can go DDR3 then do it.

You really have to find a good balance between CPU, RAM, Hard drive speed, and graphics. Take my system for example, I need a better graphics card....that's where my "bottleneck" is. Find your "bottleneck" and upgrade whatever it may be.

Thanks for all the Great replies from all of you.. I am going to pick on nate42nd's post because it gets back to the core of my problem.

I didn't know they didn't have ddr5 for system ram.. I just got a DDR 5 video card.

Finding the Bottleneck.

That is what I want to do. I cannot use ddr3 ram because I only have the ddr2 type slot.. I didn't know the slots were different.

I Love this video card.. and I do see an improvement.. But.. I feel I should see lots more of an improvement. My games run better.. but not as good as people seem to brag about with this card. It's an ATI Radeon HD 5750. (1 Gigabyte DDR5)

CPU is Pentium 4 (D, Cedar Mills with hyperthreading)

Motherboard is ECS GF7050VT-M

With a Bios upgrade it can accept these CPU's: Q9300,Q9450,Q9550,E8300 and already has support for Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad.

Here's the specs: http://www.ecsusa.com/ECSWebSite/Pr...goryID=1&DetailName=Feature&MenuID=52&LanID=9

I feel the CPU may be my bottleneck. But I do not really know this.. how does one know? How much of a difference do the other specifications on the motherboard make?

If I got a better CPU, would that board help the video card to really shine like it's supposed to.. or should I look for another limiting factor? Like perhaps something else on the board itself?

For instance, I was playing Metal of Honor Airborne and I notice when there is a lot of heavy fast activity on the screen it slows down and get choppy. This is the same thing it did with my ATI 2600 HD 512 MB card. Perhaps not as bad.. but I expect the 1 gig ddr5 to be good enough to solve that problem completely. Are my expectations too high?

Also, would further overclocking the ATI card using the ATI overclocking tool to safely overclock it help out.. or because I may have a bottleneck someplace.. I wont actually see the difference?

In Catalyst Control Center, should I leave all the settings at default or should I adjust them?

 

[Frostmourne]

1) Your CPU is a bottleneck

2) Every system needs balance - see below

3) Don't overclock unless you have an effcient cooling setup

Here is the rig I built:

http://www.sevenforums.com/gaming/46227-excellent-gaming-performance-7-a.html

I change anything, it's out of wack. So a new 5870 would require a quad to push it etc.

 

[DarkPhoenix]

1) Your CPU is a bottleneck

2) Every system needs balance - see below

3) Don't overclock unless you have an effcient cooling setup

Here is the rig I built:

http://www.sevenforums.com/gaming/46227-excellent-gaming-performance-7-a.html

I change anything, it's out of wack. So a new 5870 would require a quad to push it etc.

The only overclocking I would have done is using the built in ATI Tool.. they say this is safe and does not require extra cooling.. it just uses the built in fan on the card. The fan is made to handle overclocking of this type.

I have read about some hard core manual overclocking procedures but never felt the need to try it. So I can understand why you say changing anything in your rig would throw it out of whack.

Out of the CPU's listed.. which one would you recommend?

Oh, BTW folks.. I just wanted a better card.. all my games even new ones from this year and last year ran great with the ATI 2600 HD Pro 512 card... With the new card, I figure I should be able to take advantage of all the settings on very high and better pixel shaders etc.. With the 512 card, I ran all my games on medium settings.