RAM suggestions

[KannikaP]

The DDR3 8GB chip in my i5 PC has gone faulty after only 6 years, so must be replaced, this time with 16GB.

Which would be better, one 16GB 2400MHz or two 8GB 1600 MHz units?

Or could I get a DDR4 to DDR3 converter card and use that on an ASUS PC motherboard? Thanks experts!

[mrfill]

1 x 2400Mhz will be faster than 2 x 1600Mhz

 

No, I've never heard of a ddr4->ddr3 converter. The bus of the ddr3 machine could never each the speed available to use ddr4 usefully so it would be rather pointless.

[BritManToo]

16 minutes ago, KannikaP said:

Which would be better, one 16GB 2400MHz or two 8GB 1600 MHz units?

2x 8gb 1600mhz will be faster.

Unusual for memory to go bad ...... usually the fault is corrosion on the mobo/memory edge connector.

[KannikaP]

14 minutes ago, mrfill said:

1 x 2400Mhz will be faster than 2 x 1600Mhz

 

No, I've never heard of a ddr4->ddr3 converter. The bus of the ddr3 machine could never each the speed available to use ddr4 usefully so it would be rather pointless.

Thanks for prompt reply. But I did read that 2 x 8GB is better than 16GB single, as it can then work in dual mode. Right or not?

Further research tells me that DDR3 & 4 are incompatible.

[mahjongguy]

Some motherboards require a minimum of two RAM, so if you are tempted to go with a single you need to check that first.

[KannikaP]

3 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

2x 8gb 1600mhz will be faster.

Unusual for memory to go bad ...... usually the fault is corrosion on the mobo/memory edge connector.

Cleaned the connectors with a rubber (eraser for the Americans!) and contact spray in the slot.

So I have two replies right now, you say 2x8, previous says 1x16. Ooooh er?

[KannikaP]

2 minutes ago, mahjongguy said:

Some motherboards require a minimum of two RAM, so if you are tempted to go with a single you need to check that first.

Single stick been in the PC for 3 years, no problems. 

[OneMoreFarang]

8 minutes ago, KannikaP said:

Thanks for prompt reply. But I did read that 2 x 8GB is better than 16GB single, as it can then work in dual mode. Right or not?

You, and anybody else who needs RAM, should just look into the manual (offline or online). There are the parameter of the RAM modules which should be used. Faster RAMs then recommended won't make the PC faster.

2x8 is better, but by how much? Do you ever want to go beyond 16GB? If not, then buy 2x8GB. If you think about upgrading later and you have only 2 slots then buy one 16GB module and maybe add another module later.

Avoid any adapter or anything which was not meant to be there.

 

And before you ask: RAM is basically RAM. Don't buy any special RAM (often advertised for gamers) to get a faster PC. If it makes a difference at all it is so small that you won't be able to see any difference.

[KannikaP]

7 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

You, and anybody else who needs RAM, should just look into the manual (offline or online). There are the parameter of the RAM modules which should be used. Faster RAMs then recommended won't make the PC faster.

2x8 is better, but by how much? Do you ever want to go beyond 16GB? If not, then buy 2x8GB. If you think about upgrading later and you have only 2 slots then buy one 16GB module and maybe add another module later.

Avoid any adapter or anything which was not meant to be there.

 

And before you ask: RAM is basically RAM. Don't buy any special RAM (often advertised for gamers) to get a faster PC. If it makes a difference at all it is so small that you won't be able to see any difference.

Thank you for the manual suggestion, which tells me that my mobo can only go up to 1600Mh, or 2200 overclocked, which I do not want to do.

2 x 8GB 1600 MHz looks like the answer.

[BritManToo]

9 minutes ago, KannikaP said:

So I have two replies right now, you say 2x8, previous says 1x16. Ooooh er?

2 sticks work in parallel and so are twice the speed of the 1 stick.

[OneMoreFarang]

52 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

2 sticks work in parallel and so are twice the speed of the 1 stick.

No, they are not twice as fast.

 

And even if they would be twice as fast that absolutely does not mean the computer would be twice as fast (I know you didn't say that). There are lots of components in a PC and even if one component is replaced with another one which is a lot faster the result is often barely recognizable.

When people change their old HDDs to 10 times or more faster SSD that is something people recognize right away. But that is the exception. And there are almost no other components which can be exchanged with something 10 times faster.

[BritManToo]

Pointless discussion as OP's memory probably isn't faulty in the first place.

And whatever memory he buys won't fix the fault.

[KannikaP]

18 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

No, they are not twice as fast.

 

And even if they would be twice as fast that absolutely does not mean the computer would be twice as fast (I know you didn't say that). There are lots of components in a PC and even if one component is replaced with another one which is a lot faster the result is often barely recognizable.

When people change their old HDDs to 10 times or more faster SSD that is something people recognize right away. But that is the exception. And there are almost no other components which can be exchanged with something 10 times faster.

When guys put an SSD in their PC, the first thing they say is that it boots up much faster, in say 30 seconds as opposed to 45. How often do you boot up, once a day, week, hour, and how important is 15 seconds.

OK, yes, saving/retrieving data will be faster with the SSD, but more RAM would possibly make more difference in routine processing.

[lopburi3]

30 minutes ago, KannikaP said:

When guys put an SSD in their PC, the first thing they say is that it boots up much faster, in say 30 seconds as opposed to 45. How often do you boot up, once a day, week, hour, and how important is 15 seconds.

OK, yes, saving/retrieving data will be faster with the SSD, but more RAM would possibly make more difference in routine processing.

It is a lot more than 15 seconds for most of us - minutes more.  And having the SSD negates the need to more RAM for normal work/home computer for most users.  SSD is the single most important improvement for most older computers.

[OneMoreFarang]

29 minutes ago, KannikaP said:

When guys put an SSD in their PC, the first thing they say is that it boots up much faster, in say 30 seconds as opposed to 45. How often do you boot up, once a day, week, hour, and how important is 15 seconds.

OK, yes, saving/retrieving data will be faster with the SSD, but more RAM would possibly make more difference in routine processing.

A computer with a SSD compared to a HDD will always be faster. It will boot faster, it will open and save documents faster, games will be faster, basically everything will be faster.

 

RAM is something very different. There has to be enough of it. I.e. maybe when the computer runs with a few windows it needs 7GB in total. In that case 8GB would be enough and having 16 or 32GB would not make the PC faster.

But if a user who just used only 7GB opens one or more additional programs and then he uses i.e. 9GB then the computer will be dramatically slower because the PC does not have anymore enough RAM for all applications at the same time. If the user would close another program and then be below 8GB again then it would be fast again.

And the best thing about RAM is that it's easy to see how much is currently in use. Open Task Manager, click on performance, and it shows exactly how much is currently in use.

 

Right now on my PC:

[OneMoreFarang]

5 minutes ago, lopburi3 said:

It is a lot more than 15 seconds for most of us - minutes more.  And having the SSD negates the need to more RAM for normal work/home computer for most users.  SSD is the single most important improvement for most older computers.

If a computer has not enough RAM then no SSD will make it fast - see my post above. 

[robblok]

49 minutes ago, KannikaP said:

When guys put an SSD in their PC, the first thing they say is that it boots up much faster, in say 30 seconds as opposed to 45. How often do you boot up, once a day, week, hour, and how important is 15 seconds.

OK, yes, saving/retrieving data will be faster with the SSD, but more RAM would possibly make more difference in routine processing.

Its not just starting up also programs launch faster. I got 2x m2 SSD in my computer everything is faster booting, loading everything. OF course if you buy a small SSD and only put the operating system on the SSD then you don't have much other benefits.

[lopburi3]

13 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

If a computer has not enough RAM then no SSD will make it fast - see my post above. 

It will still boot and load faster - slowdown would be in applications that need to be in memory and most use does not require that much memory for those not doing video editing or gaming or want 30 tabs running in a browser.  RAM is over rated for the average user - but very much a major factor for some uses I agree.

[BritManToo]

1 hour ago, KannikaP said:

When guys put an SSD in their PC, the first thing they say is that it boots up much faster, in say 30 seconds as opposed to 45. How often do you boot up, once a day, week, hour, and how important is 15 seconds.

My computer took 3 minutes to boot up with a hard drive.

That same computer now boots in 20 seconds with an SSD (cloned from the original HD).

I generally boot up my computer 5-6+ times a day as it runs all my media/entertainment through Kodi.

 

Don't make the mistake of keeping your old hard drives or optical  drive  connected in the computer, they add significantly to the boot time.

[JayClay]

4 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I generally boot up my computer 5-6+ times a day as it runs all my media/entertainment

Why on earth don't you just put it to sleep rather than constantly boot it up and shut it down?

[KeeTua]

5 hours ago, KannikaP said:

When guys put an SSD in their PC, the first thing they say is that it boots up much faster, in say 30 seconds as opposed to 45. How often do you boot up, once a day, week, hour, and how important is 15 seconds.

OK, yes, saving/retrieving data will be faster with the SSD, but more RAM would possibly make more difference in routine processing.

I recently replaced the 7200 rpm HDD in my old ThinkPad with and SSD. I put it on standby after each use by closing the lid. Including opening the laptop lid and scanning my fingertip it takes 2 or 3 seconds to be back to the desktop and the programs I left running, the same as the old HDD. It boots faster for sure but I only reboot at the most once a month. I appreciate having plenty of RAM and a good processor more than I do the SSD.

[KeeTua]

4 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

If a computer has not enough RAM then no SSD will make it fast - see my post above. 

I wonder how greatly the performance would differ if not enough RAM but you have an SSD since read/write to the pagefile on an SSD should be greatly improved compared to the pagefile on HDD.

[OneMoreFarang]

33 minutes ago, KeeTua said:

I wonder how greatly the performance would differ if not enough RAM but you have an SSD since read/write to the pagefile on an SSD should be greatly improved compared to the pagefile on HDD.

I just searched: "ssd vs ram speed" ...

 

And a relatively fast SSD may achieve real-world write speed of 456 MB/s. Whereas, the speed of RAM is determined by the PC number and a module of PC3-12800 memory can transfer data at the speed of 12,800 MB/s.

 

 

[KannikaP]

5 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Pointless discussion as OP's memory probably isn't faulty in the first place.

And whatever memory he buys won't fix the fault.

I bow to your superior knowledge Sir, nothing wrong with the RAM. I cleaned all cable connectors, and saw that the CPU fan was full of 5hiT, so took it off.............................oops, no thermal paste to put it back! 85km round trip to the city for a tube costing Bht 99, and used only a smidgeon. All up and running again. Thanks everyone for your contributions. Can close this one now.

[KannikaP]

13 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I just searched: "ssd vs ram speed" ...

 

And a relatively fast SSD may achieve real-world write speed of 456 MB/s. Whereas, the speed of RAM is determined by the PC number and a module of PC3-12800 memory can transfer data at the speed of 12,800 MB/s.

 

 

But for us poor mortals with 1600Mb/s DDR3 RAM?????

But yes, still faster than using part of your SSD as a page file.

[BritManToo]

I've got Aorus RAM with pretty lights on the side.

 

[OneMoreFarang]

1 minute ago, KannikaP said:

But for us poor mortals with 1600Mb/s DDR3 RAM?????

I am sure there is somewhere a place to look it up.

Just looking at the many many contacts on the RAM modules compared to the (for older PCs) SATA interface is a clear indicator who the winner is.

Basically I think it's a no-brainer that it's a good idea to have enough RAM. It is not expensive.

If a computer would work fine with just one big memory (like RAM and SSD combined) then I am sure it would exist. It doesn't!

[OneMoreFarang]

2 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I've got Aorus RAM with pretty lights on the side.

 

Make sure you keep it cool for high performance!

 

[fdsa]

I don't know how Windows works (and noone really knows btw even the Microsoft developers) but properly written operating systems such as MacOS or Linux consume all the available RAM to speed up the computer by caching all opened files in RAM, and when some program needs more RAM then the oldest opened and most rarely used files are dropped from the cache and the freed memory is given to that program.

Thus the general recommendation for the maximum computer performance is to install the maximum amount of RAM supported by your motherboard (with the highest supported speed and the lowest possible latency, of course)

 

a few other thoughts:

- 1x 2400MHz is faster than 2x 1600 MHz;

- DDR3 and DDR4 are incompatible;

- "2 sticks work in parallel and so are twice the speed of the 1 stick." - no. Two modules are really faster than a single module, but just slightly - not two times faster. Also note that to achieve the speedup you need to install the modules in the specialy marked slots on the motherboard - usually its 1st + 3rd slot or 2nd+4th, not 1st+2nd nor 3rd+4th. Read the manual!

- "Cleaned the connectors with a rubber (eraser for the Americans!)" - this is correct and everyone should do that once in few years;

- "contact spray in the slot" - I wouldn't do that;

- "Don't buy any special RAM (often advertised for gamers) to get a faster PC. If it makes a difference at all it is so small that you won't be able to see any difference." - this is correct, the "gaming" RAM is very often a marketing bullshít which is not really faster than the usual cheap modules. You need to be really tech-savvy to understand and find the best balance between the speed in MHz and CAS latency in ms for your needs.

- "I wonder how greatly the performance would differ if not enough RAM but you have an SSD since read/write to the pagefile on an SSD should be greatly improved compared to the pagefile on HDD." - the insufficient amount of RAM will make your computer much slower, because even the fastest and most expensive NVMe drives are 2-4 times slower than the slowest and cheapest RAM.

 

[ThaIrish Sean]

Crucial memory have a very handy tool that will scan your computer and advise you on what memory you can use in that computer and their prices.

https://uk.crucial.com/