Dear Lazyweb...

[tobestool]

Does anyone out there have experience of how RAM speed vs quantity affects overall system speed? I'm thinking of updating my desktop PC. At the moment it has 512MB of reasonably fast (CL2) RAM in it. Looking around at the intertubes, I see that for roughly the same ammount I can buy 2GB of fast memory (for example this) or 3GB of cheap memory (e.g

Comments

[briggsy]

Is that an nForce based motherboard? I think the best bet there is to keep the memory capacities per channel balanced, so the 2x1GB option seems the best. I don't think you'll notice much difference regarding the memory speed. Eclipse runs well in 2GB.

[tobestool]

Yes, it is indeed nForce based. With you on the balanced channel stuff.

Neglecting that though, I still am interested in the real world issue of the cost benifit of "fast" RAM. Reading up on Tomshardware suggests that the only real-world benifit of expensive RAM is for overclocking.

I think the best option is to go for a 2x1GB setup, then if at some point I want more, I may be able to get a 2GB stick (my motherboard has two slots on one channel and one on the other, I believe for just such an upgrade path).

Still interested in real world experience of the memory Quality / Quantity argument.

[decayz]

Maybe if you spend that bit more now you won't have to spend anything else for a couple of years?

[tobestool]

Not sure what you're getting at? Given that 2GB of good RAM is about the same price as 3GB of cheap RAM, which way of spending £60 will make my system run better?