Memory Greater Than One Gig

[auerbach]

Pawing through the parts drawer I found some spare RAM, and to my 512 megs I
added a 512 and a 256, for a total of 1.25 gigs of RAM. This is on a P4
2.66. The two 512 are 3200, the 256 is 2700. (I ran a thorough memory test
all night, and the RAM checked out fine.)

I haven't noticed any breathtaking increase in performance with the
additional memory. The only change is that the system seems to take a few
seconds longer to boot up.

Is there a "sweet spot" for RAM with XP? Is there any down-side to having
unmatched RAM (3200 and 2700)?

Thanks,

Alex

 

[Jim Macklin]

It will run at the speed of the FSB, even the slower RAM if
it is "good." The speed rating is done by testing samples
from each batch and the rating is the speed that was stable
without errors. If your mobo has a FSB at 133, the DDR
would be 266 or PC 2100, so PC 2700 or 3200 would be stable
and as long as the system boots the only problem is that the
POST takes a little longer because it has to count through
all the RAM. You can turn the splash screen off in the BIOS
and watch the test, a useful thing and besides you know who
built the computer.
If you open MS OFFICE and all the included modules and Adobe
CS Premium and a few other files, you would use all the RAM
and some hard drive space as virtual memory. But as long as
the programs and files open do not max out the RAM, virtual
memory will be used rarely so you will not see much
improvement past 512 MB.

Each open application will have some amount of RAM
allocated, right now on my computer, Photoshop Elements can
use 50% of the available RAM or 227 MB, I may reduce that so
other programs can use the RAM. But as long as there is
plenty of VM available nothing bad will happen. Just
because hard drive space is reserved for VM does not mean it
is used and now that hard drives are measured in tens and
hundreds of GB, why worry? [Credit to Alfred E. Newman]

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.


| Pawing through the parts drawer I found some spare RAM,
and to my 512 megs I
| added a 512 and a 256, for a total of 1.25 gigs of RAM.
This is on a P4
| 2.66. The two 512 are 3200, the 256 is 2700. (I ran a
thorough memory test
| all night, and the RAM checked out fine.)
|
| I haven't noticed any breathtaking increase in performance
with the
| additional memory. The only change is that the system
seems to take a few
| seconds longer to boot up.
|
| Is there a "sweet spot" for RAM with XP? Is there any
down-side to having
| unmatched RAM (3200 and 2700)?
|
| Thanks,
|
| Alex
|
|

 

[Bob M.]

Generally, after 512 you will see little improved performance.

 

[Plato]

I haven't noticed any breathtaking increase in performance with the
additional memory. The only change is that the system seems to take a few
seconds longer to boot up.

Neither would I as I only use my pc for text messages and usenet
messages.

 

[Plato]

Generally, after 512 you will see little improved performance.

Depends on what files you use. For example, my wife works with huge
pagemaker files some of them 200 megs. Open a few of these at the same
time and your 512 is already used up.

 

[Peter A. Stavrakoglou]

Generally, after 512 you will see little improved performance.

Depends on what is meant by performance. I had to crunch a lot of
data and I produced some Quattro Pro spreadsheets that had over
600,000 rows of records. Working with those spreadsheets with 1 gig
or RAM was still slow, as you could guess. Adding a third stick of
512 megs certainly made a difference.

 

[Alex Nichol]

Pawing through the parts drawer I found some spare RAM, and to my 512 megs I
added a 512 and a 256, for a total of 1.25 gigs of RAM. This is on a P4
2.66. The two 512 are 3200, the 256 is 2700. (I ran a thorough memory test
all night, and the RAM checked out fine.)

I haven't noticed any breathtaking increase in performance with the
additional memory. The only change is that the system seems to take a few
seconds longer to boot up.

Is there a "sweet spot" for RAM with XP?

It depends on your workload. The system will try to find a way to use
any RAM around, eg to cache a few more files, but eventually it runs out
of ideas. You can check to see if any actual use is being made of the
page file (tool at Doug Knox's site - www.dougknox.com/xp/utils - at
the bottom Page File monitor). If with a given amount of RAM the usage
is trivial (there is always maybe 10 or 20 MB as contingency) then more
RAM will not be useful. For a general workload I'd reckon on 256 as a
working minimum, with maybe 512 as being plenty; I currently have 768
and am not using it all. Some heavy graphic loads (Movie making
especially) will use every byte you can throw at them

Is there any down-side to having
unmatched RAM (3200 and 2700)?

There may be; Windows is very fussy about matching of RAM modules; if
you start having unexplained crashes, make that top suspect

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

In

Pawing through the parts drawer I found some spare RAM, and to my 512
megs I added a 512 and a 256, for a total of 1.25 gigs of RAM. This
is on a P4
2.66. The two 512 are 3200, the 256 is 2700. (I ran a thorough memory
test all night, and the RAM checked out fine.)

I haven't noticed any breathtaking increase in performance with the
additional memory.

That's not surprising. 512MB was apparently enough to keep you
out of the page file, so adding more does little or nothing for
you. How much memory you need depends on what apps you run, but
almost everyone needs a least 256MB for decent performance. For
some people, for example those who edit large photographic
images, more than 256MB--even much more--can be required for good
performance.

The only change is that the system seems to take a
few seconds longer to boot up.

Is there a "sweet spot" for RAM with XP?

I hate that term, "sweet-spot." It implies that there is an
amount of RAM that's best for everybody running XP, and that's
*not* the case. As I said, it depends on what apps you run.

Is there any down-side to
having unmatched RAM (3200 and 2700)?

In many cases, unmatched RAM won't work, but if yours is working,
it should be fine.

 

[xl]

It also means that all your memories are running at the lower speed of the
2700, which could be part of the reason why you did not see much
improvement.

 

[Jim Macklin]

Actually RAM runs at the FSB speed. If the RAM is PC 2100
on a PC 3200 system it will run at the higher speed or it
will fail with errors or fail to boot at all.


| It also means that all your memories are running at the
lower speed of the
| 2700, which could be part of the reason why you did not
see much
| improvement.
|
|
in message
| | > In | > auerbach <[email protected]> typed:
| >
| > > Pawing through the parts drawer I found some spare
RAM, and to
| > my 512
| > > megs I added a 512 and a 256, for a total of 1.25 gigs
of RAM.
| > This
| > > is on a P4
| > > 2.66. The two 512 are 3200, the 256 is 2700. (I ran a
thorough
| > memory
| > > test all night, and the RAM checked out fine.)
| > >
| > > I haven't noticed any breathtaking increase in
performance with
| > the
| > > additional memory.
| >
| >
| > That's not surprising. 512MB was apparently enough to
keep you
| > out of the page file, so adding more does little or
nothing for
| > you. How much memory you need depends on what apps you
run, but
| > almost everyone needs a least 256MB for decent
performance. For
| > some people, for example those who edit large
photographic
| > images, more than 256MB--even much more--can be required
for good
| > performance.
| >
| >
| > > The only change is that the system seems to take a
| > > few seconds longer to boot up.
| > >
| > > Is there a "sweet spot" for RAM with XP?
| >
| >
| > I hate that term, "sweet-spot." It implies that there is
an
| > amount of RAM that's best for everybody running XP, and
that's
| > *not* the case. As I said, it depends on what apps you
run.
| >
| >
| > > Is there any down-side to
| > > having unmatched RAM (3200 and 2700)?
| >
| >
| > In many cases, unmatched RAM won't work, but if yours is
working,
| > it should be fine.
| >
| > --
| > Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
| > Please reply to the newsgroup
| >
| >
|
|

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

In

It also means that all your memories are running at the lower speed
of the 2700, which could be part of the reason why you did not see
much improvement.

The RAM runs at at the speed the motherboard is set to run it at.
RAM "speeds" aren't actually speeds, but just ratings--the speeds
that the RAM has been tested to work at. If the motherboard is
set to run it too fast, the system crashes. If it's not too fast,
all is well.

 

[Loren Kallwick]

Where do I find out more about motherboard speed settings? I have a Compaq
computer(that's all it says). any software I should look at besides Aida
Everest, and I've tried a few others I can't think of right now. 3 of us
looked for a week trying to figure motherboard mfg by number. Very closed
mouthed at Compaq. Ideas? Thanks Loren
ps. is Dell worth looking at? and are they as vaguue as compaq? Thanks

 

[Jim Macklin]

Dell is "best" in that they supply real OS media and
application CDs. They do make some alterations to retail
hardware but they use only minor variations of what you
could buy at retail yourself. Compaq builds much of their
own hardware and they customize the BIOS, taking many
settings away. HP is very similar to Compaq although they
do use modified retail parts (in my experience with my own
first PC).
If I don't build it my self, I would buy a Dell, but I would
be careful to read the spec sheet so I got what I wanted in
the mobo and software package.
Just MHO.

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.



| Where do I find out more about motherboard speed settings?
I have a Compaq
| computer(that's all it says). any software I should look
at besides Aida
| Everest, and I've tried a few others I can't think of
right now. 3 of us
| looked for a week trying to figure motherboard mfg by
number. Very closed
| mouthed at Compaq. Ideas? Thanks Loren
| ps. is Dell worth looking at? and are they as vaguue as
compaq? Thanks
|
in message
| | > In | > xl <[email protected]> typed:
| >
| > > It also means that all your memories are running at
the lower
| > speed
| > > of the 2700, which could be part of the reason why you
did not
| > see
| > > much improvement.
| >
| >
| > The RAM runs at at the speed the motherboard is set to
run it at.
| > RAM "speeds" aren't actually speeds, but just
ratings--the speeds
| > that the RAM has been tested to work at. If the
motherboard is
| > set to run it too fast, the system crashes. If it's not
too fast,
| > all is well.
| >
| > --
| > Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
| > Please reply to the newsgroup
| >
| >
| > > "Ken Blake, MVP" <[email protected]>
wrote in
| > message
| > > | > >> In
| > >> auerbach <[email protected]> typed:
| > >>
| > >> > Pawing through the parts drawer I found some spare
RAM, and
| > to
| > >> my 512
| > >> > megs I added a 512 and a 256, for a total of 1.25
gigs of
| > RAM.
| > >> This
| > >> > is on a P4
| > >> > 2.66. The two 512 are 3200, the 256 is 2700. (I ran
a
| > thorough
| > >> memory
| > >> > test all night, and the RAM checked out fine.)
| > >> >
| > >> > I haven't noticed any breathtaking increase in
performance
| > with
| > >> the
| > >> > additional memory.
| > >>
| > >>
| > >> That's not surprising. 512MB was apparently enough to
keep you
| > >> out of the page file, so adding more does little or
nothing
| > for
| > >> you. How much memory you need depends on what apps
you run,
| > but
| > >> almost everyone needs a least 256MB for decent
performance.
| > For
| > >> some people, for example those who edit large
photographic
| > >> images, more than 256MB--even much more--can be
required for
| > good
| > >> performance.
| > >>
| > >>
| > >> > The only change is that the system seems to take a
| > >> > few seconds longer to boot up.
| > >> >
| > >> > Is there a "sweet spot" for RAM with XP?
| > >>
| > >>
| > >> I hate that term, "sweet-spot." It implies that there
is an
| > >> amount of RAM that's best for everybody running XP,
and that's
| > >> *not* the case. As I said, it depends on what apps
you run.
| > >>
| > >>
| > >> > Is there any down-side to
| > >> > having unmatched RAM (3200 and 2700)?
| > >>
| > >>
| > >> In many cases, unmatched RAM won't work, but if yours
is
| > working,
| > >> it should be fine.
| > >>
| > >> --
| > >> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
| > >> Please reply to the newsgroup
| >
| >
|
|