Thinkpads Forum

Can anyone tell me what is the difference in speed?

1GBx2 should be faster, as it enables symmetric dual-channel mode. The but speed difference is very small. Memory benchmarks will put 1GBx2 at about 8-10% faster than 2GB, but the real-world difference is far smaller.

I would buy a 2GB module, so that if you need to upgrade to 3GB or 4GB it's easy. I'm using Vista 64-bit on my T60 and at times I'm up to 80% usage of my 2GB. I'll be going to 3GB soon.

My T60 is going to be 3 gig tomorrow. I'm sure that 1 gig + 2 gig will be better than 1gig x 2. Too bad it won't use 2gig x 2.

Well, you can still put 2x2GB in the T60, but the T60 will only use 3GB.

How does 2GB + 1GB compare to 2GB + 2GB, if your computer only supports 3GB?

My point exactly. Why spend the extra bucks for 4 gig when it will only use 3 gig? I'm pretty sure the extra gig (2 gig + 1 gig) outweighs the advantage of dual channel (1 gig x 2).

Depends which OS and Applications you are using. For either XP and Office 2003 or linux (Ubuntu) and firefox/open office - I have tried 1GB, 1.5GB and 2GB configurations and there is no noticeable difference.

I have only tried 1GB for Vista and it is awfully slow.

It also depends on your meaning of value. If you think that a 2GB part costs a mere pittance more than 1GB, and your time is extremely valuable (to you), then having 4GB, even though only 3GB is usable and it works only 8% faster than 3GB, can pay for itself eventually... or some people might think that way, anyway.

Does T61 support up to 4GB or 3GB like the T60?

Is there a noticeable difference between 1gb x 2 dimm running in symmetrical dual channel compared to lets say 2gb's in one dimm and 512mb's in the second dimm running asymmetrical dual channel [32 bit vista]?

I ordered my T61 with 512mb's of ram and am wondering if i should just purchase a 2gb x 1 dimm stick to add to the system, or two 1gb sticks? The price of ram is coming down quite a bit and i can get a 2gb 1 dimm stick for about $90. I can get a 2gb kit for about $65.

whizkid wrote:It also depends on your meaning of value. If you think that a 2GB part costs a mere pittance more than 1GB, and your time is extremely valuable (to you), then having 4GB, even though only 3GB is usable and it works only 8% faster than 3GB, can pay for itself eventually... or some people might think that way, anyway.

You are correct.
Here is what I was watching:
http://www.crucial.com/store/listparts. ... pe+2623%29
At the time of this posting the 1 gig stick is $44.99 and the 2 gig stick is $149.99 for a difference of $105.00. More than a mere pittance right now but who knows what will happen in the future.

him2678 wrote:Does T61 support up to 4GB or 3GB like the T60?

Looks like it will handle 4 GB. Problem solved if you have a T61. Although the prices are a bit higher right now:
http://www.crucial.com/store/listparts. ... T61+Series

From the above crucial link:

" Q: Will my system recognize the maximum upgrade?

A: Possibly

How much memory your Windows OS will recognize depends on which version of Windows you are running. 32-bit versions of Windows will see (and utilize) only 3GB or 3.5GB. To utilize more memory, install a 64-bit version of your OS. More information about OS memory maximums can be found at http://www.crucial.com/kb/answer.asp?qid=4251.

pae77 wrote:From the above crucial link:

" Q: Will my system recognize the maximum upgrade?

A: Possibly

How much memory your Windows OS will recognize depends on which version of Windows you are running. 32-bit versions of Windows will see (and utilize) only 3GB or 3.5GB. To utilize more memory, install a 64-bit version of your OS. More information about OS memory maximums can be found at http://www.crucial.com/kb/answer.asp?qid=4251.

States what is supported by both the 32bit and 64bit version of Vista:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605/en-us

Here's a little blog by someone who figured out for him/herself how much memory is actually supported by the 32bit version of vista:

http://addressof.com/blog/archive/2007/ ... 2E00_.aspx

hypertrophy wrote:Is there a noticeable difference between 1gb x 2 dimm running in symmetrical dual channel compared to lets say 2gb's in one dimm and 512mb's in the second dimm running asymmetrical dual channel [32 bit vista]?

Good question. I would like to know that, too.

MCheiron wrote:

hypertrophy wrote:Is there a noticeable difference between 1gb x 2 dimm running in symmetrical dual channel compared to lets say 2gb's in one dimm and 512mb's in the second dimm running asymmetrical dual channel [32 bit vista]?

Good question. I would like to know that, too.

Yes, there is a difference, but it's VERY small. The CPU does such an excellent job caching data from memory that the difference between symmetric/asymmetric mode doesn't really matter. A memory benchmark program may be able to see the difference, but you almost certainly will not.

The benefit of having more memory definitely outweighs the benefit of symmetric vs asymmetric.

RonS wrote:

MCheiron wrote: Good question. I would like to know that, too.

Yes, there is a difference, but it's VERY small. The CPU does such an excellent job caching data from memory that the difference between symmetric/asymmetric mode doesn't really matter. A memory benchmark program may be able to see the difference, but you almost certainly will not.

The benefit of having more memory definitely outweighs the benefit of symmetric vs asymmetric.

RoS, thanks for your answer. That was very helpful.

You MAY notice the difference. If you do something very memory intensive, you could save up to one hour on a ten-hour run... or one minute on a ten minute run. What that's worth to you, only you can say.

What kind of apps are considered memory intensive? Photoshop?

Anything that deals with a lot of data, a little at a time, and doesn't do much with it, might be a good candidate, but really, I can't think of a good example.

Video transcoding (say turning a DVD into an MP4) takes all the CPU it can get, but memory speed will make a difference.

Heavy database use is usually limited by the speed of your hard drive, but memory speed will make a difference.

I guess you would see an improvement most on Photoshop filters that aren't usually CPU limited, like brightness, contrast, hue, gamma and simple calculations like that, but those are already very fast.

If you had an in-memory database, like memcached, and was used a lot, that would show the most improvement.

furrycute wrote:What kind of apps are considered memory intensive? Photoshop?

CAD tools.

Yes, CAD tools. And now that I think a little more, web browsers can be memory hogs too, if you have a lot of pages open or a few large pages.