Windows 98, who didn't use that OS? What amount of memory did your PC have? Right, likely 128 MB.
Over the years we progressed and noticed that applications have gotten more and more memory intensive. With Windows XP we moved towards 512 MB as standard to prevent the OS from swapping to the HD, and as explained on the previous page with the latest games we see that the certain games really like 1 GB. All this has happened over just a couple of years my friends.
Then Microsoft launched Windows Vista, the biggest memory hog in the world. 1 GB is just be the average recommended specification. They actually recommend 2 GB. And then there's 64-bit platforms supporting more than 4 GB memory. With memory prices coming down you might even consider taking it a step further.
I'm on a 32-bit Operating system. I see 3 GB, bro, where's my 6 Gigabytes of RAM?
Can I use 4, 6 or more GB of memory ? Yes and no. As far as 32-bitoperating systems are concerned, the world ends at 4,096 megabytes. That's it. As an example I'll use a 4GB kit here. Say you get 4GB, it will run just fine, yet with for example Windows Vista 32-bit your memory size will be limited and you'll only have 3.2 GB out of the 4 GB available to you. This isn't a Windows problem-- it's an x86 hardware problem.
To address 4GB of memory you need 32 bits of address bus. There however is a problem - actually a similar problem that IBM faced when designing the original PC. You tend to want to have more than just memory in a computer - you need things like graphics cards and hard disks to be accessible to the computer in order for it to be able to use them. Microsoft call this MMIO (Memory-Mapped I/O).
For example, if you have a video card that has 256 MB of onboard memory, that memory must be mapped within the first 4 GB of address space. If 4 GB of system memory is already installed, part of that address space must be reserved by the graphics memory mapping. Graphics memory mapping overwrites a part of the system memory. These conditions reduce the total amount of system memory that is available to the operating system.
So just as the original PC had to carve up the 8086's 1MB addressing range into memory (640K) and 'other' (384K), the same problem exists today if you want to fit memory and devices into a 32-bit address range: not all of the available 4GB of address space can be given over to memory.
For a long time this wasn't a problem, because there was a whole 4GB of address space, so devices typically lurk up in the top 1GB of physical address space, leaving the bottom 3GB for memory. And 3GB should be enough for anyone, right?
So what actually happens if you go out and buy 4GB of memory for your PC? Well, it's just like the DOS days - there's a hole in your memory map for the IO. (Now it's only 25% of the total address space, but it's still a big hole.) So the bottom 3GB of your memory will be available, but there's a discrepancy with that last GB. If you want it all, go with a 64-bit OS. In 64-bit Windows, the limit is gone.
Anyway, let's have a peek at the modules and throw them at a test.
G.Skill Sniper 8GB CL7 DDR3 memory review G.Skill designed another 8GB low voltage DDR3 kit (2x 4GB) that can be set at 1600 MHz yet still run a CAS latency of 7. And that is truly interesting because the denser the ICs get, the higher latency typically gets.
G.Skill 2x4GB CL7 1600 MHz Trident DDR3 review We feel that more memory is rather important, and in that trend memory manufacturers have started to increase the density of DIMM modules. Where 1 and 2GB DIMM modules have been the standard, we now see very good progress in 4 GB DIMM modules. Today we\'ll do things a little different, G.Skill designed a 8GB low voltage DDR3 kit (2x 4GB) that can be set at 1600 MHz yet still run a CAS latency of 7. And that is truly interesting because the denser the ICs get, the higher latency typically gets.
G.Skill Flare DDR3 2000 MHZ C7 AMD kit review We test and review the G.Skill Flare DDR3 2000 MHZ C7 AMD kit. These kits are optimized for AMD platforms preferably with the new six-core X6 processors, and in specific some ASUS motherboards. The kit we'll be testing today obviously comes from that series and is a 2,000MHz CL7-9-7-24 1.65V 4GB (2GBx2) DDR3 kit with its latest Flare heatsinks.
G.Skill Phoenix PRO 120GB SSD review The SSD tested today once again is the Phoenix series from G.Skill. After we tested their 100GB Phoenix SSD (which received a very positive review) G.Skill instantly requested if we would like to review the 120GB PRO model. Both drives pretty much are the same thing, same controller ... The 100GB Phoenix uses Samsung memory though but the trick is that there is 20GB extra volume space available on the new 120GB Pro (compared to the 100GB model) for nearly the same price. A new Firmware for the SandForce 1200 based controller that is inside this 120GB model simply reserves less NAND flash memory for its data-compression scheme. As a result the overall write performance could be a tiny bit slower, but only a few percent as best. It however will give you 20 GB more space to play around with at the same price. And since price per GB is everything in the land of SSDs -- this certainly is a significant for any vendor and for you as an end-user.