2 x 8GB vs 4 x 4GB?

[Albuquerque]

For the life of me, I've googled about a hundred permutations of rank, channel, DDR3, benchmark, -forum, -haswell, and I cannot find whatever that damnable article was.

As Grall mentioned, I'm almost positive it had to do with total open active pages, but also dealt with the clocking limits involved with dual ranked, dual-channel, and two-dimm-per-channel configurations. The setup was specific to Intel Core i-series processors with their IMC, and there were multiple percentage points worth of differences in non-trivial workloads.

But, since I can't find the damned thing, I guess it doesn't matter. Whatever you do, get dual-rank memory (chips on BOTH sides of the DIMM) for your config.

 

[RudeCurve]

Thanks for all the info guys! Anyway I'm gonna pick up the 7850K Black Edition at Microcenter tommorrow...$151 tax included...best price anywhere.

In other news I just switched from Comcast to Time Warner and got the Ultimate internet...100Mbps...only $75/month promo.

 

[Lightman]

Thanks for all the info guys! Anyway I'm gonna pick up the 7850K Black Edition at Microcenter tommorrow...$151 tax included...best price anywhere.

In other news I just switched from Comcast to Time Warner and got the Ultimate internet...100Mbps...only $75/month promo.

Hey, that's not fair! They cheating you on bandwidth! You're getting 114.75Mbps instead of 100Mbps ... I would complain to them straight away!

 

[Wynix]

Hey, that's not fair! They cheating you on bandwidth! You're getting 114.75Mbps instead of 100Mbps ... I would complain to them straight away!

Don't worry they will compensate that by throttling him whenever he streams something.

 

[homerdog]

I've had TWC broadband for over a decade and so far haven't noticed any throttling of any services. Here's hoping they never stoop to that.

 

[Malo]

Aren't Comcast buying them anyway?

 

[Gubbi]

Not the article i am referring to, no.

Can't find the link but the article found that a single dual-rank DIMM per channel beat two single-rank DIMMs per channel which in turn beat a single single-rank DIMM.

Cheers

 

[RudeCurve]

So I'm picking up these Crucial Ballistix 1866 DDR3 sticks from Newegg today via Will Call. I got them for a good price since Newegg had a 10% code on desktop memory.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148740

I also got Windows 8.1 full version. My next component will be a Crucial MX100 250GB SSD. Is there anything I should configure in Win8.1 to take full advantage of the SSD like page file settings etc? Or is it basically plug and play when used with Win8.1?

 

[Grall]

Just plug it in, no point in bothering with configuring anything for the SSD, and so on. I read an article the other day summarizing an experiment run by a different website (I forget which) where six relatively small capacity SSDs were torture-tested; the first one failed at 700 TERABYTES of writes. That's far more than its manufacturer's specs.

If you stop and think for a moment of just how much data that is, you quickly realize just how much data that is!

Most HDDs sold today have a couple TBs worth of capacity. I have 2TBs worth of Raptor drives in my desktop rig, they're a little over half full right now. My system drive is a 480MB SSD, I've filled 131GB so far. Some of that data is dynamic of course, but considering that it took upwards of a year of torture-testing to wreck a SSD of half capacity of mine, I think I'd have to wait until doomsday for mine to fail.

So just plug it in, and don't think about it anymore. No genuine reason to.

 

[Rurouni]

Maybe try to find out whether it got the latest firmware or not and if not, try to update it first.
Btw, I manage to run my RAM @2400 with a little voltage bump on the NB. Probably because Kaveri is rated for 2133 max, thus need a little bump. Nothing else changed.

 

[John Reynolds]

Techreport.com has been running the SSD torture test.

 

[Albuquerque]

Grall, thanks for the link! I had long since forgotten TechReports torture test; the results are eye opening!

 

[Malo]

I concur on the firmware check and nothing else really.

With 16Gb of RAM I run my temp and pagefile in a 4Gb RAM drive but it's not necessary at all.

 

[RudeCurve]

Just plug it in, no point in bothering with configuring anything for the SSD, and so on. I read an article the other day summarizing an experiment run by a different website (I forget which) where six relatively small capacity SSDs were torture-tested; the first one failed at 700 TERABYTES of writes. That's far more than its manufacturer's specs.

If you stop and think for a moment of just how much data that is, you quickly realize just how much data that is!

Most HDDs sold today have a couple TBs worth of capacity. I have 2TBs worth of Raptor drives in my desktop rig, they're a little over half full right now. My system drive is a 480MB SSD, I've filled 131GB so far. Some of that data is dynamic of course, but considering that it took upwards of a year of torture-testing to wreck a SSD of half capacity of mine, I think I'd have to wait until doomsday for mine to fail.

So just plug it in, and don't think about it anymore. No genuine reason to.

Wow that's crazy given that Intel rates those 335 drives at only 22TB. The new Crucial MX100 is rated 72TB so I guess I shouldn't need to worry about flash wear....

http://techreport.com/review/26532/crucial-mx100-solid-state-drive-reviewed

Anyway thanks again Grall and everyone else for the insight. I can't believe how cheap these SSDs are getting.:smile:

 

[Grall]

Corsair seems to not list write endurance anywhere for their drives, but since the 240GB Neutron GTX drive has lasted past the 1PB marker I'm not particularly worried about my 480GB drive...

My previous, now retired, main rig, has a 60GB Intel X25-E as a system drive. It has 80GB of 50nm SLC flash that is rated for 2PB of writes by Intel, but going by the figures shown by these MLC drives (using ~20nm flash, which wears faster), it might well last 10PB in reality. Of course, its controller is older and more primitive, so it might not be able to wring as much endurance out of that flash as its newer descendants, but SLC and that giant spare area should compensate.

Unfortunately, while it's fast, this drive's so tiny it's hard to fit much more than the OS and maybe one game on it. I used to have WoW installed, but the current size of the game is so large (~25GB) it'd be hard to fit both at the same time now, certainly the way patching currently works. They're fixing patching in the next expansion, changing to a new file format to allow adding and replacing files directly in the game repository, but right now you need 2x the room to patch a game file, which would fail on this tiny old SSD...

 

[HMBR]

I concur on the firmware check and nothing else really.

With 16Gb of RAM I run my temp and pagefile in a 4Gb RAM drive but it's not necessary at all.

I've been running with no page file and 8GB since windows 8 came out, 0 problem here, oh well I had a warning for lack of memory once when running games and other things at same time, but never any software not running for lack of page file or anything (which would happen with some old programs)

on my windows xp 32bit install I have a 4GB ram drive pagefile


as for 2x8 vs 4x4, I would only go with 4x4 for lga 2011, for all the other platforms 2x8.

 

[Malo]

on my windows xp 32bit install I have a 4GB ram drive pagefile

A ramdrive can see past 32bit address limitations?

 

[homerdog]

Wow that's crazy given that Intel rates those 335 drives at only 22TB. The new Crucial MX100 is rated 72TB so I guess I shouldn't need to worry about flash wear....

All of Crucial's SSDs seem to be rated for 72TB. I think that's the extent to which they feel like testing rather than a technical limit.

 

[homerdog]

My 2 year old 180GB Intel 330 drive has 3.42TB written and 0 reallocated sectors. Everything still shows the maximum amount of health.

 

[RudeCurve]

Thanks for the insight. I'm a total noob when it comes with SSDs. I've had a hybrid drive but that's the closest thing to a SSD that I've used.