If you've read my previous thread, than you know I've been having out of
spec voltage probs on my A7V. Though this baord has served me faithfully
for years, it's time may be at an end. My question is this....

To replace it would mean I need new RAM. $$$ limit my options and I will
not be able to get a full 512 meg as I would like. How much of a
performance hit can I expect by getting only 256 meg DDR? Is it fast enough
to pick up the slack left by that other 256 meg SDRAM that I wont have?

info:
Duron 1.2 Ghz
Windows XP Pro
64 meg GF3 Ti500

TIA
^JR^

"^JR^" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:HIkqb.58004$(E-Mail Removed)...
> If you've read my previous thread, than you know I've been having out of
> spec voltage probs on my A7V. Though this baord has served me faithfully
> for years, it's time may be at an end. My question is this....
>
> To replace it would mean I need new RAM. $$$ limit my options and I will
> not be able to get a full 512 meg as I would like. How much of a
> performance hit can I expect by getting only 256 meg DDR? Is it fast enough
> to pick up the slack left by that other 256 meg SDRAM that I wont have?

If you don't have enough memory in your system it may slow to a crawl.
Press ctrl-alt-del in windows XP, click the Performance tab, and check Total in the Commit Charge section.
That will tell you how much RAM your programs are currently using, so it may be a good idea to load
one big program that you use and see the result. If you are using a lot more RAM then you have then
the system will slow because it uses Virtual RAM, in other words the hard disk.
So if you have enough memory, adding more won't speed the programs much, but disk accesses will be
faster because of a larger disk cache.

OTOH I don't think you can put DDR in a regular SDRAM system.

I think you misunderstood the question. I'm aware of everything you said.
I'm wondering about the performance of DDR vs. regular SDRAM. With DDR
being much faster, how well would 256 meg DDR handle the load that my
current 512 meg of pc133 does? I ultimately want to get 512 meg DDR total
when I get a new motherboard, but the money doesn't allow for that right
now.

^JR^
"Madonna" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:fplqb.100807$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "^JR^" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:HIkqb.58004$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > If you've read my previous thread, than you know I've been having out of
> > spec voltage probs on my A7V. Though this baord has served me
faithfully
> > for years, it's time may be at an end. My question is this....
> >
> > To replace it would mean I need new RAM. $$$ limit my options and I
will
> > not be able to get a full 512 meg as I would like. How much of a
> > performance hit can I expect by getting only 256 meg DDR? Is it fast
enough
> > to pick up the slack left by that other 256 meg SDRAM that I wont have?
>
> If you don't have enough memory in your system it may slow to a crawl.
> Press ctrl-alt-del in windows XP, click the Performance tab, and check
Total in the Commit Charge section.
> That will tell you how much RAM your programs are currently using, so it
may be a good idea to load
> one big program that you use and see the result. If you are using a lot
more RAM then you have then
> the system will slow because it uses Virtual RAM, in other words the hard
disk.
> So if you have enough memory, adding more won't speed the programs much,
but disk accesses will be
> faster because of a larger disk cache.
>
> OTOH I don't think you can put DDR in a regular SDRAM system.
>
>

> I think you misunderstood the question. I'm aware of everything you said.
> I'm wondering about the performance of DDR vs. regular SDRAM. With DDR
> being much faster, how well would 256 meg DDR handle the load that my

Um, get 256 DDR now and another 256 later when you can afford it. Did you
really need to ask teh question? PC133 belongs back in the Pentium III era.

What exactly is the 512 meg memory?
If it's quality pc133(your mobo was 100bus), I'd drop
it in an upgrade mobo, ECS still makes either/or
sdram/ddr slots, $44 new egg, usb2
Newer games, vid editing, large graphics, etc are about the only
real need for 512 megs.

"^JR^" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:HIkqb.58004$(E-Mail Removed)...
> If you've read my previous thread, than you know I've been having out of
> spec voltage probs on my A7V. Though this baord has served me faithfully
> for years, it's time may be at an end. My question is this....
>
> To replace it would mean I need new RAM. $$$ limit my options and I will
> not be able to get a full 512 meg as I would like. How much of a
> performance hit can I expect by getting only 256 meg DDR? Is it fast
enough
> to pick up the slack left by that other 256 meg SDRAM that I wont have?
>
> info:
> Duron 1.2 Ghz
> Windows XP Pro
> 64 meg GF3 Ti500
>
> TIA
> ^JR^
>
>

Windows XP ideally wants to use 256 MB of RAM for ITSELF. Additional RAM is
used by the applications.

--
DaveW



"^JR^" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:HIkqb.58004$(E-Mail Removed)...
> If you've read my previous thread, than you know I've been having out of
> spec voltage probs on my A7V. Though this baord has served me faithfully
> for years, it's time may be at an end. My question is this....
>
> To replace it would mean I need new RAM. $$$ limit my options and I will
> not be able to get a full 512 meg as I would like. How much of a
> performance hit can I expect by getting only 256 meg DDR? Is it fast
enough
> to pick up the slack left by that other 256 meg SDRAM that I wont have?
>
> info:
> Duron 1.2 Ghz
> Windows XP Pro
> 64 meg GF3 Ti500
>
> TIA
> ^JR^
>
>

Yeah, I've looked at those boards, but I haven't found any that will carry
me far enough into the future for later upgrades.

^JR^

"BoB" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:wErqb.207284$(E-Mail Removed)...
> What exactly is the 512 meg memory?
> If it's quality pc133(your mobo was 100bus), I'd drop
> it in an upgrade mobo, ECS still makes either/or
> sdram/ddr slots, $44 new egg, usb2
> Newer games, vid editing, large graphics, etc are about the only
> real need for 512 megs.
>
> "^JR^" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:HIkqb.58004$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > If you've read my previous thread, than you know I've been having out of
> > spec voltage probs on my A7V. Though this baord has served me
faithfully
> > for years, it's time may be at an end. My question is this....
> >
> > To replace it would mean I need new RAM. $$$ limit my options and I
will
> > not be able to get a full 512 meg as I would like. How much of a
> > performance hit can I expect by getting only 256 meg DDR? Is it fast
> enough
> > to pick up the slack left by that other 256 meg SDRAM that I wont have?
> >
> > info:
> > Duron 1.2 Ghz
> > Windows XP Pro
> > 64 meg GF3 Ti500
> >
> > TIA
> > ^JR^
> >
> >
>
>

"Darkfalz" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:bode9i$1e6fgl$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > I think you misunderstood the question. I'm aware of everything you
said.
> > I'm wondering about the performance of DDR vs. regular SDRAM. With DDR
> > being much faster, how well would 256 meg DDR handle the load that my
>
> Um, get 256 DDR now and another 256 later when you can afford it. Did you
> really need to ask teh question? PC133 belongs back in the Pentium III
era.
>
>
The reason I asked that question is I wont be able to do a full
chip/board/memory upgrade at once and I dont want suffer through (possibly)
slower performance while I'm waiting for more money to get the additional
RAM.

If I get a new board, I'll need new memory. SO once again, the question....

Will I have comparable system performance with my current processor (Duron
1.2 Ghz) on a new board and using only 256 meg DDR (pc2700, to be exact to
support my furture plans for a Barton 2500+ chip) VS. the 512 meg of pc133
I have now.

I ask because DDR reads twice twice on each pass so it is much more
efficient. So, in theory, I could probably get away with less for the short
term. BUT if the 100 mhz bus of my current chip nullifies the speed
advantages of DDR and therefore would slow down my whole system then I will
just have to wait till I get more money. THAT is what I'm asking.

^JR^

So the advantages of DDR would make no difference if I'm using only 256 meg.
Thank you. That's what I was asking.

^JR^

"DaveW" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:MKBqb.96618$9E1.463085@attbi_s52...
> Windows XP ideally wants to use 256 MB of RAM for ITSELF. Additional RAM
is
> used by the applications.
>
> --
> DaveW
>
>
>
> "^JR^" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:HIkqb.58004$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > If you've read my previous thread, than you know I've been having out of
> > spec voltage probs on my A7V. Though this baord has served me
faithfully
> > for years, it's time may be at an end. My question is this....
> >
> > To replace it would mean I need new RAM. $$$ limit my options and I
will
> > not be able to get a full 512 meg as I would like. How much of a
> > performance hit can I expect by getting only 256 meg DDR? Is it fast
> enough
> > to pick up the slack left by that other 256 meg SDRAM that I wont have?
> >
> > info:
> > Duron 1.2 Ghz
> > Windows XP Pro
> > 64 meg GF3 Ti500
> >
> > TIA
> > ^JR^
> >
> >
>
>

With 256 megs, windows xp reserves about half for itself leaving the rest
free
for other apps, however if you let services and processes get out of hand,
I am sure that you could cripple any box!
With my custom setups, power user settings, I have never really seen a
drastic performance improvement with more ram, but I don't do vid editing or
large graphics or intensive gaming, just a little dvd work!
Give me a fast processor and 256 megs of cas2 synched ram!

"DaveW" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:MKBqb.96618$9E1.463085@attbi_s52...
> Windows XP ideally wants to use 256 MB of RAM for ITSELF. Additional RAM
is
> used by the applications.
>
> --
> DaveW
>
>
>
> "^JR^" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:HIkqb.58004$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > If you've read my previous thread, than you know I've been having out of
> > spec voltage probs on my A7V. Though this baord has served me
faithfully
> > for years, it's time may be at an end. My question is this....
> >
> > To replace it would mean I need new RAM. $$$ limit my options and I
will
> > not be able to get a full 512 meg as I would like. How much of a
> > performance hit can I expect by getting only 256 meg DDR? Is it fast
> enough
> > to pick up the slack left by that other 256 meg SDRAM that I wont have?
> >
> > info:
> > Duron 1.2 Ghz
> > Windows XP Pro
> > 64 meg GF3 Ti500
> >
> > TIA
> > ^JR^
> >
> >
>
>