Building a new PC, part 6

[philmophlegm]

RAM



Here, the choice of RAM is very much dictated by my choice of a motherboard using the nForce 790i Ultra chipset. This chipset needs DDR3 RAM, not the more common DDR2. This is faster, but more expensive.

The 790i (like most modern motherboards) wants its RAM in matched pairs. DDR3 comes in a range of speeds, although it is important to match the memory speed to the front side bus speed (the speed at which the processor talks to the rest of the system). As the E8400 CPU works on a 1,333mhz front side bus, it's important not to buy RAM that is rated slower than that, otherwise you would either have to throttle back the speed or risk unstable RAM. Faster rated RAM is ok - and aids overclocking - but quite a bit more expensive.

I also had to decide how much to buy. I had already decided not to opt for the 64 bit version of Windows Vista, because of my experience with the 64 bit version of XP (some speed gains, but also some annoying incompatibilities and driver issues). The only problem with the more mainstream 32 bit Windows is that it will only recognise about 3.2gb of RAM. 2gb is a useable minimum for Vista, but more games seem to want more nowadays, so I decided to buy a matching pair of two 2gb DD3 RAM modules rated at 1,333mhz. I went for OCZ's platinum range, as review sites suggested it had potentially more room for overclocking and it wasn't as ludicoursly priced as some of the other manufacturers' DDR3 memory.

Comments

[sigisgrim.livejournal.com]

I'm running 64 bit Vista Business (with 4G Bytes RAM) and I can confirm that there are still incompatibilities and driver issues, partly this is Vista and partly it is the 64 bit OS. This isn't a particular problem for me as that machine is a long term upgrade, it is (ultimately) replacing a 1 gig Athlon W2K machine from early 2001, which is still in use. The Athlon will eventually become a server. I need to upgrade some of my older applications, though others are happy to run in some form of compatability mode, and a few I have been able to download a 64 bit version. Also, it isn't being used for any graphics hungry gaming, about the heaviest is Civ IV.

[philmophlegm.livejournal.com]

Ahh. You confirm what I feared. Longer term, I imagine that both issues should be less of an issue - I understand that the 'Games for Windows' label requires 64bit compatibility for example. Still, I bet there will always be some slightly more obscure game or application or hardware that doesn't work.

Vista 64bit seems rather better supported than XP64, which didn't work with some pretty common applications, for example iTunes and any game using the StarForce copy protection system. Dual booting was in some ways a cool ide, but in practice was just a pain to have to use.

[sigisgrim.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I hate rebooting. In fact I get very grumpy if I have to do so, particularly at work; in part because of one application which takes about five minutes to set up in the way that I use it: I have about five windows open and it only saves one (and that appears to be chosen at random!). My usual approach is to hibernate the machine; I've got one of theose power save mains extension leads, so I can just press the sleep button on the keyboard and walk away -- everything just powers down.

Longer term, I imagine that both issues should be less of an issue

That's the view I'm taking, fingers crossed!