Memory Chips

I am going to be getting a new I8600 with XP Pro soon and I'm going to get 1GB of DDR RAM. I was wondering which congifuratrion would be better: one 1GB stick or two 512 sticks. I know getting the two sticks is cheaper (not a pressing concern) but is there any performance difference between the two congifurations? Or any other differences?
Thanks.

"Erronius" wrote in message ...
I am going to be getting a new I8600 with XP Pro soon and I'm going to get 1GB of DDR RAM. I was wondering which congifuratrion would be better: one 1GB stick or two 512 sticks. I know getting the two sticks is cheaper (not a pressing concern) but is there any performance difference between the two congifurations? Or any other differences?
Thanks.

Only using 1 memory stick gives you more scope for upgrade at a later date

"Noel Wester" wrote in message
...

"Erronius" wrote in message
...
I am going to be getting a new I8600 with XP Pro soon and I'm going to get
1GB of DDR RAM. I was wondering which congifuratrion would be better: one
1GB stick or two 512 sticks. I know getting the two sticks is cheaper (not a
pressing concern) but is there any performance difference between the two
congifurations? Or any other differences?
Thanks.

Only using 1 memory stick gives you more scope for upgrade at a later date

True, however: if one stick goes out, you're screwed.
If you use two sticks and one stick goes out, you can survive AND
troubleshoot more easily / effectively.

"personalpages.tds.net/~rcsilk" wrote in message
...
"Noel Wester" wrote in message
...

"Erronius" wrote in message
...
I am going to be getting a new I8600 with XP Pro soon and I'm going to
get 1GB of DDR RAM. I was wondering which congifuratrion would be better:
one 1GB stick or two 512 sticks. I know getting the two sticks is cheaper
(not a pressing concern) but is there any performance difference between
the two congifurations? Or any other differences?
Thanks.

Only using 1 memory stick gives you more scope for upgrade at a later
date

True, however: if one stick goes out, you're screwed.
If you use two sticks and one stick goes out, you can survive AND
troubleshoot more easily / effectively.



Yewp. While it's possible, it's also unlikely that the OP will ever need
more than 1gb of RAM during the system's life.


Stew

"S.Lewis" wrote in message
...
"personalpages.tds.net/~rcsilk" wrote in message
...
"Noel Wester" wrote in message
...

Thanks - good points. Any possible performance differences? One guy told me
there would be no performance difference between 1 or 2 sticks and I read
somewhere that the 2 stick configuration would have better performance.

"Erronius" wrote in message
...

"S.Lewis" wrote in message
...
"personalpages.tds.net/~rcsilk" wrote in message
...
"Noel Wester" wrote in message
...

Thanks - good points. Any possible performance differences? One guy told
me
there would be no performance difference between 1 or 2 sticks and I read
somewhere that the 2 stick configuration would have better performance.




No. Shouldn't make any difference in performance. Among the other relevant
points, should a DIMM go bad not only will you have one left to keep the
machine up and going, but it will cost much less than a 1gb DIMM.

Good luck.


Stew

"S.Lewis" wrote in message . ..
"Erronius" wrote in message
...

"S.Lewis" wrote in message
...
"personalpages.tds.net/~rcsilk" wrote in message
...
"Noel Wester" wrote in message
...

Thanks - good points. Any possible performance differences? One guy told
me
there would be no performance difference between 1 or 2 sticks and I read
somewhere that the 2 stick configuration would have better performance.




No. Shouldn't make any difference in performance. Among the other relevant
points, should a DIMM go bad not only will you have one left to keep the
machine up and going, but it will cost much less than a 1gb DIMM.

Good luck.


Stew

Thanks.

"Erronius" wrote in message
...

"S.Lewis" wrote in message
...
"personalpages.tds.net/~rcsilk" wrote in message
...
"Noel Wester" wrote in message
...

Thanks - good points. Any possible performance differences? One guy told
me
there would be no performance difference between 1 or 2 sticks and I read
somewhere that the 2 stick configuration would have better performance.

Technically, one stick *avoids a possible glitch* when data has to be split
between two physical addresses, being the address of stick one and the
address of stick two. But this glitch is purely theoretical, and would only
occur with a really funky machine language program. I don't think anyone
has even mentioned this since the '80s.

Theoretically, data might zip along faster with two sticks:
Let's say you have address memory locations (these are NOT technically
accurate, but only for demonstration purposes) 1-512 and 513-1024.
If you are retrieving data from address 1024 using TWO sticks, then two is
faster because it only has to search 512 locations. With ONE stick, the
data "travels a farther path".

Years ago, they started building "supercomputers" based upon transmitting
data by the lengths of the wires used. (Pre-PC times.) Although this
timing issue is rendered insignificant by today's technology speeds, it's
still a theoretical concept one can benchmark in millionths (or perhaps
thousandths) of a second.

"personalpages.tds.net/~rcsilk" wrote in message
...

Technically, one stick *avoids a possible glitch* when data has to be
split
between two physical addresses, being the address of stick one and the
address of stick two. But this glitch is purely theoretical, and would
only
occur with a really funky machine language program. I don't think anyone
has even mentioned this since the '80s.

Theoretically, data might zip along faster with two sticks:
Let's say you have address memory locations (these are NOT technically
accurate, but only for demonstration purposes) 1-512 and 513-1024.
If you are retrieving data from address 1024 using TWO sticks, then two is
faster because it only has to search 512 locations. With ONE stick, the
data "travels a farther path".

Years ago, they started building "supercomputers" based upon transmitting
data by the lengths of the wires used. (Pre-PC times.) Although this
timing issue is rendered insignificant by today's technology speeds, it's
still a theoretical concept one can benchmark in millionths (or perhaps
thousandths) of a second.

Interesting. Thanks - appreciate it.