RAM recomendations PLEASE

This is what I have:

THERMALTAKE SHARK
MSI K9N Diamond
Thermaltake Toughpower 700W
AMD64 X2 6400+ 3.2ghz
Thermaltake RubyOrb CPU cooler
Kingston 4x1024 DDR2 800MHz
WD RAPTOR 74gb 10,000rpm
WD2500KS 250GB HD/D 7,200rpm
MSI NX8800GTX768
LITEON 165H6S D/L w/ LITESCRIBE
LITEON 16P1S DVD-ROM
Creative S/B Audigy SE (onboard)
Harmen Carden 2.1 @ 70watts
Windows Vista Home Premium
CyberPower 1285AVR UPS
LOGITECH Revolution
DELL E228WFP 22in 1680x1050 widescreen.

If anyone here has any knowledgable advice on what RAM I could UPgrade to. I have Kingston Valueram, while this is OK. I would like to tweak this system up just a bit. I need something a bit faster but it has to work with my m/b and Vista and everything else. I am open to suggestions. Thanks in advance for your time and your help.
jwill58

 

You have (Kingston 4x1024 DDR2 800MHz) 4 gigs of ram. Usually, this would be about the MAX. If you want more, you can go to crucial.com and let it scan your system to see if you CAN upgrade, but 800MHz is about the fastest also.

 

According to your motherboard specs (here http://www.msicomputer.com/product/p_spec.asp?model=K9N_Diamond&class=mb) you can use up to 8gb (2gb per slot) of DDR2-800. Unless you're running a 64bit operating system, any more than 3.5gb of RAM is a waste and wouldn't be addressed. This is a limitation of 32bit technology and there isn't anything you can do about it except to move into a 64bit OS. Personally, I would just leave the RAM alone. There's not much you can do here. Kingston makes quality memory, and even though you have the 'ValueRAM' it's still better than many of the other brands available. However, if you really feel the need to get 'better' memory, Crucial and Corsair and OCZ are well known makers of rockin' memory. You may be able to overclock the memory, but I don't think you'd notice any increases in performance. If you're experiencing any system lag or slowness, I'd bet that it has nothing to do with your hardware, as your hardware is all pretty fast stuff. Any slowness or lag is probably due to a software problem, or maybe the hard drive has issues, and that can be easily tested by using Western Digital's diagnostics.

 

Thanks so much for your time. You make some really good points and I appreciate them. I have quite a bit of time on my hands and Im just trying to make constant improvments.I just upgraded my CPU from a 5400+ @ 2.8ghz to my current 6400+ @ 3.2ghz . I read a review on my m/b where they had this RAM :Two Corsair PC8500 CM2X512-8500 modules with 512 MB each, installed under DDR2 dual channel configuration (5-5-5-15 timings). (There are also 1gb sticks and 2gb sticks of this RAM)
You are right about how much my m/b recognizes ! On my WELCOME Page...it lists 3.25gb as my total RAM while I have 4gb installed. This would change if I had a 64bit OS ? Dont people with these 64bit Vista OS have problems ...compatability and otherwise ? I will check into this.
This is the review (http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/400/4). I think this was before Vista but Im not sure. Wouldnt this RAM be faster (even if I couldnt tell the difference) than my ValueRAM ?
My WD 74gb harddrive is realativly new....less than 6mo.I will check it like you suggested.I built this rig myself and truth be told there probably are some software and hardware compatability issues. Im sure I could have used some help choosing my components-I did the best I could however and it starts up everyday(knock on wood) and its been some time since I've seen a BSOD. I dont mean to sound picky....I just want to keep my rig as current as I can afford.
Thanks for your help. If you arrive at an epiphany and feel I could use it to my advantage....feel free to clue me in.
Thanks again,
jwill58

 

You could get some of these: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227299

But like dlb said, I don't think you would notice any difference except maybe if you were trying to get a better overclock. I would save my money and get one of them new Intel boxes... :cool

E

 

it lists 3.25gb as my total RAM while I have 4gb installed

Your video card may be hogging the difference, although 750 mb is quite a lot?

 

Yes. As I said before:

Keep in mind that a 64bit OS involves a whole new set of drivers, and alot of software isn't written for 64bit Windows, so many of the programs you own now may not work with 64bit. To me, it seems like a real big hassle to address an additional 512mb or 768mb of RAM that isn't going to cause any sort of noticeable performance increase. Generally speaking, 2gb of RAM is considered the 'sweetspot' for 32bit Windows and shows a significant performance increase over 1gb. However, going to 3gb doesn't improve performance significantly in most situations. But with RAM being so cheap right now, I did upgrade from 2gb to 3gb.

 

Like I said ....good points all......You're 100% right , RAM is insanely cheap right now. I could get twice the performance value in Ram now , based on what I paid for my RAM then , about a year ago. You know it seems like Vista would utilize MORE RAM instead of limiting our RAM to 3.25gb. I dont understand everything about how an OS operates but it seems to me WIN XP would need less and VISTA would need more ! Thanks for cluing me in on the intracacies of RAM usage in todays PC's.
Have a good weekend
jwill58
PS...If I can be sure it is compatable with my m/b-sys.I will upgrade to this : Kingston HyperX 4GB (4 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 1066 (PC2 8500) Quad Kit Desktop Memory - Retail

 

I'm not sure that 'utilize' is the right word here. Vista does use more memory just to do it's thing than XP does, but it does not utilize more if more is available. 32bit architecture limits this by design. Generally speaking, XP will run OK on a system with a 1.4ghz CPU and 512mb RAM. The same system would be nightmarishly slow with Vista due to it's resource hungry nature. All the fancy graphics and 'eye candy' requires more power to simply run normally. Vista also has some not-so-obvious enhancements that also require more resources.

Thanks, I'll try. I seem to be coming down with some type of sinus cold or flu or something.... left work early.... not too sick for the MG forums though LOL

 

Right , poor choice of words. I guess I meant...SEEMS like more RAM would be better with Vista. As we all have learned at on time or another....more isnt always a good thing. Back when I first bought FarCry(mid 2004 ?) I, like so many others learned that more RAM and more memory on our GPU's made a significant difference (improvement) in our ability to play FarCry with more FPS. So Vista comes along and now that we can afford more RAM , it just isnt needed.
Have you read or heard anything about "Readyboost" and its ability to help Vista in this dept ? As you pointed out , my m/b can have up to 8gb of RAM...do you think any of Vista's service packs (SP1 or eventually SP2 ?) might one day change the amount of RAM that Vista can recognize ? We can dream cant we ?
Take care of that sinus problem...GEEKS like you are too hard to come by ! Ha !
jwill58

 

It is, more RAM is definitely better with Vista. But the 32bit architecture doesn't make it possible to address over 3.2 or 3.5gb. All the service packs in the world will not change this. Only a 64bit OS will allow more memory to be properly addressed and used. You can install up to 8gb (or 100gb) but a 32bit system will not address or use it all, and it is therefore a waste.

Ugghhh :tired I'm going to bed. :tired I ain't feelin' so hot uke

G'nite