quad core or dual core which would be best for AC12?

[Anonymous]

Does anyone know which combination would provide best performance
and speed in AC12?

quad core at 3GHz or dual core at 3.33 GHz
and the other question would be the option of 8 GB ram @ 633 MHz Vs.
4 GB ram @ 800 MHz.

Thank you

[henrypootel]

So, even though its @ a slightly lower frequency than 800MHz more is better.
Maybe that explains the huge diff in price.

4GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 800MHz - 2 X 2048MB [+$55.00] Requires 64-bit edition of Windows Vista

8GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz - 2 X 4096MB [+$845.00] Requires 64-bit edition of Windows Vista

4Gb sticks are still absurdly expensive, that's why there's a huge price difference. Why not get 4x2Gb-800 sticks though?
It wouldn't cost much more and because they would be in 2xDual-Channel configuration, they would run faster than 2x4Gb-800 anyway.
Then just run Vista-x64(which is really very good, don't believe the naysayers) and your machine will scream along.

[Laszlo Nagy]

Jonathan wrote:
So, even though its @ a slightly lower frequency than 800MHz more is better.
Maybe that explains the huge diff in price.

4GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 800MHz - 2 X 2048MB [+$55.00] Requires 64-bit edition of Windows Vista

8GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz - 2 X 4096MB [+$845.00] Requires 64-bit edition of Windows Vista

I think the reason for the huge price difference is that a 4096 MB module is much rare, therefore much more expensive, than the 2048 MB one.
Check if it is possible to put 4 X 2048MB to achieve the 8 GB, should cost you much less.

Oh, I just notice henrypootel was faster than me... But only by a hair... half an hour or so.

[Anonymous]

laszlonagy wrote:

Jonathan wrote:
So, even though its @ a slightly lower frequency than 800MHz more is better.
Maybe that explains the huge diff in price.

4GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 800MHz - 2 X 2048MB [+$55.00] Requires 64-bit edition of Windows Vista

8GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz - 2 X 4096MB [+$845.00] Requires 64-bit edition of Windows Vista

I think the reason for the huge price difference is that a 4096 MB module is much rare, therefore much more expensive, than the 2048 MB one.
Check if it is possible to put 4 X 2048MB to achieve the 8 GB, should cost you much less.




Oh, I just notice henrypootel was faster than me... But only by a hair... half an hour or so.

Took me a little while to realize there was a second page.
Good points you guys, I will ask Sager if this is possible (the 4 2048 sticks)
and I am wondering why 8GB of 800MHz is not possible, they only have
the two options I posted earlier on the web site

You have all been very helpfull

Best Regards

JP

[Thomas Holm]

Jonathan wrote:
...So, even though its @ a slightly lower frequency than 800MHz more is better.
Maybe that explains the huge diff in price.

4GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 800MHz - 2 X 2048MB [+$55.00] Requires 64-bit edition of Windows Vista

8GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz - 2 X 4096MB [+$845.00] Requires 64-bit edition of Windows Vista

Considering the price difference, if 4gig modules is your only choice to get more than 4gig in total, maybe it's better to get just 4 gig now. Prices will drop. Within a couple of years, you'll be able to upgrade much cheaper.

Or consider a machine with more memory slots, and do what Henry or Lazlo say.

[Anonymous]

Jonathan wrote:
Took me a little while to realize there was a second page.
Good points you guys, I will ask Sager if this is possible (the 4 2048 sticks)
and I am wondering why 8GB of 800MHz is not possible, they only have
the two options I posted earlier on the web site

You have all been very helpfull

Best Regards

JP

So this is going into a laptop. That makes sense then, you are limited to two slots.

Here's my input:
DDR2-667 vs DDR2-800 may offer a 17% boost on paper, but your real-world performance may not be tangible. Real-world applications only see about a 2-5% gain from it. The real benefits come from overclocking, achieving those higher multipliers requires memory capable of higher speeds. I doubt you'll be overclocking your laptop (although some companies do it). See this Anandtech article comparing the very best 667 and 800 modules. The systhetic benchmarks seem impressive, but not much gain from actual use.



Overall, the benefit of running Vista64 is that AC will be allocated the maximum amount of memory it can use while allowing the operating system itself and your other applications the freedom to use the remaining memory unhindered. If you do ANY multi-tasking, I would argue that more RAM is going to benefit you over the miniscule speed increase that DDR2-800 offers.

Have you considered buying 8GB (2x4GB) of DDR2-667 from Newegg and installing it yourself? Only $300:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231210

In summation, buy the "slower" 8GB RAM and install it yourself. Order your laptop with the least memory possible to save even more money.