PDA

View Full Version : RAM Q's



Trev0
17-11-2002, 02:49 PM
I have a 1300mhz celeron and 384Mbs of SD ram running XP home and was wondering if anyone knows, if upping it to 512Mbs (motherboard max), would make much difference to the general speed of opening apps, browsing files, searching, etc?

RAM seems to be cheap at the mo, so if I thought I'd get turbo performance from my '1.3L', and turn it into a '3.8GTX' I'd go for it...
but I don't think I use all the RAM I have now, so I'm unsure.

Also, if it is worth it, and I can put the stripes on the side, could I get away with buying the cheap 1 sided sdram (256 $56) or is the 2 sided sdram (256 $79) worth the extra $23??

godfather
17-11-2002, 04:22 PM
The type of RAM is limited by the design of your motherboard, check the manual.

I have noticed that XP home goes "OK" with 128 M of RAM, better with 192 M, not really noticeably better with 256.

Presently running 512 M of Ram, but performance not noticeably better than 256.

I an sure it is better, as yours will be if you upgrade, but you may bot *notice* it.
If you were doing large graphics manipulation etc, you may get a benefit.

Trev0
18-11-2002, 09:58 AM
Thanks for saving me $79 Godfather, I won't bother.

I think I have both 1 and 2 sided ram in this comp the 128 all the chips are on 1 side and the 256 has them on both, so I thought 1sided 256 meant bigger chips on 1 side? or am I barking up the wrong tree totally??

Thanks again

roofus
18-11-2002, 06:55 PM
Well i'm on the other side of the fence to God Father.
Indeed you 384Meg is not bad. But i believe you will get a reasonable performance bost from going up to 512.
I run WinME on 258Mb, and i find that i often use it all up, and then move onto virtual memmory, which is as slow as a turtle.

In reality 256MB i would consider to be a minimum for WinXp. so your only 128Mb above that.

Ofcourse it fully depends on what your computer is used for. If its just surifing the net, and listening to Mp3's then you won't find a performance gain.
Use your system monitor and enable the "unused physical memmory" option.
at the same time enable "swapfile in use"
both from the memmory manager section.
The fact that unused physical memmory remains low is probably good, as it shows windows is using it to the full extent, but if that swapfile in use starts up then it shows that you would benefit from more ram, Equivalent to how much is been used in the swapfile.

Trev0
18-11-2002, 09:32 PM
To check how much I use sounds like good advise, but where do I find the 'memory manager' to - enable the "unused physical memory" along with the "swapfile in use" option? does XP home have that? or perhaps it's called something else??

Danger
18-11-2002, 11:29 PM
Trev0, not familiar with XP but in ME the memory manager is found in Programs/Accesories/System Tools/System Monitor. Open the System Monitor and Edit/Add Item/Memory Manager/and the options are there before you.

Trev0
19-11-2002, 09:15 AM
Thanks Danger,
I don't seem to have a 'memory manager'! at least it's not where it is on ME.
But I do have a 'Microsoft Management Console' that looks complicated to learn...and may not do the test anyway!

any other thoughts?

roofus
19-11-2002, 12:32 PM
Ok trev0 "memmory manager" is a section in the programme "system monitor"
as another person suggested its under accessories. If it isn't there then install it from the add/remove programmes in control panel. Once that is done my instructions will make sense.

p.s. i state this for win9x machines. I don't know if they have taken it away from XP, but i doubt it.

Chilling_Silence
19-11-2002, 12:35 PM
You should be able to hit Ctrl+Alt+Esc to bring up the Proccess Manager. One of the tab's up the top will be something to do with resources. In there, It'll say how much RAM you've used. If itss getting near full frequently, then upping the RAM might be a good idea!

Trev0
20-11-2002, 09:52 AM
OK- Ctrl+Alt+DLTE brings up the task manager.
In 'Performance' in there has 2 different memory's Kernal memory, (total 50456, paged 36120 and non paged 14336) and Physical memory (total 391152 available 174928, changing at the refresh speed and system cache 238472) I guess this one is the RAM?

It also records cpu usage (all over the place!) and page file usage (137K)
unfortunatly I don't see an option to log any of this though to get an over all impression of how much I usually use. It does show a small hisorical graph of cpu usage and page file usage, but probably only about 10 mins (and I don't think it's much to do with the ram)

No sign of the 'system monitor' Roofus
any Ideas on logging?

thanks guys...

gibler
20-11-2002, 10:23 AM
Control Panel -> Administrative Tools -> Performance

Add a counter log that monitors some memory stats you are interested in.

SKT174
20-11-2002, 11:03 AM
>Well i'm on the other side of the fence to God Father.

I'm with you on that.. :)

If you look at the taskmanager aftet XP loaded in a 128MB system, u'll get about 30 odd MB left in physical memory ... that's XP only, now with those standard things like firewall, antivirus, msn or icq, and IE started... u'll soon be hitting the virtual memory :P

I would say 256MB is the minimum for XP and 512MB is standard and if u tends to open lots of apps simultaneously and do video editing .. over 512MB would be better :D

BTW roofus ... I read somewhere in microsoft saying that 95, 98SE and ME won't make any difference with anything over 192MB ? It's something to do with their memory management ?

roofus
20-11-2002, 11:20 AM
> BTW roofus ... I read somewhere in microsoft saying
> that 95, 98SE and ME won't make any difference with
> anything over 192MB ? It's something to do with
> their memory management ?

From my understanding this was rectified in winME (which i run) it continues to be a problem in 95 but in 98 and ME itself you can add a line to your system.ini that tells the computer to use as much ram as possible.
This resolves the memmory management issue.
I have 256 Mb ram. and i usually sit around with about 5 Meg free, or even onto virtual memmory, but thats because i always have a thousand applications open.

tweak\'e
20-11-2002, 12:02 PM
> BTW roofus ... I read somewhere in microsoft saying
> that 95, 98SE and ME won't make any difference with
> anything over 192MB ? It's something to do with
> their memory management ?

there was a lot of testing for speed with various amounts of ram. 192 meg gave best speed for the price with most games/general apps with 98/me.
going bigger than 192meg resulted in minnor performance increase. however now that ram is dirt cheap its easy to install big amounts. for those that do any video/picture editing or some of the new bigger games then 256+ is well worth it.

i use 512meg with win98 and it still uses the swap file a fair bit. its easy enough to use 600-700meg total memory.

Chilling_Silence
20-11-2002, 12:33 PM
>
> i use 512meg with win98 and it still uses the swap
> file a fair bit. its easy enough to use 600-700meg
> total memory.

Especially when gaming starts!
Even with WinAmp3, Lotus Notes, Phoenix and Outlook Express, the Ram gets used up pretty quick (I've got 256)...
and SD-RAM is extremely cheap right now!

Trev0
20-11-2002, 01:08 PM
I do have the log thing in Control Panel -> Administrative Tools -> Performance, gibler, but it looks a bit complicated too, ie couldn't see any mention of ram logging.

But since I do have a DVC and a normal dig camera I suppose it will be worth the upgrade (whilst it's still cheap!)
I had upped it from128mb with the 256 to 384 when I first bought it and it made a huge difference!

Any thoughts on 1 sided and 2 sided ram? slower/quicker/better/worse or just cheaper?

Chilling_Silence
20-11-2002, 01:12 PM
No ideas there, but goto http://www.qmb.co.nz for some good cheap SD-RAM!

Trev0
20-11-2002, 01:35 PM
thanks Chilling silence, even though that is a good price, they don't want to recommend that ram! but also the price would be bumped up a bit with the freight to chch... I'm thinking of computer future- not the cheapest, but handy and with lifetime warranty.

Chilling_Silence
20-11-2002, 01:36 PM
They have lifetime warranty ones for an extra $8
Freight for Chch should only be about another $10 MAX!

tweak\'e
20-11-2002, 02:02 PM
>Any thoughts on 1 sided and 2 sided ram? slower/quicker/better/worse or just cheaper?

single sided is cheaper to make (usually). however if you are making out he mobo ram then the odds are you will need to get duall sided.

memory has "banks" ie one side is one bank the other side is the 2nd bank. most motherboards have a max amount of ram per bank. eg you can go 128 single sided max or 256 dual sided max (128 per side).

watch the chipset specs. some mobo manfactures quote max ram but its dosn't always work out that way. some are known to get problematic when you fill up all the ram slots.

Trev0
20-11-2002, 04:48 PM
comp future say theirs is 'A grade' ram, made in oz (they're real salesmen!) and works out at only $11 more expensive and a lot closer (thinking pessimistically of future trouble) and also since that is what I bought 3 months before (for $125!!), I know it works in this comp.

Thanks for the help guys---I'll go and spend!!

Trev0
20-11-2002, 04:56 PM
My mistake it's only $1.40 more expensive here at comp futu after GST!

toodle-oo

Danger
20-11-2002, 10:41 PM
>From my understanding this was rectified in winME (which i run) it continues to be a problem in 95 but in 98 and ME itself you can add a line to your system.ini that tells the computer to use as much ram as possible.

Is this a fact? How do I go about adding this line to my System .ini (comfortabe with registry changes)

Win ME 384 Ram

tweak\'e
20-11-2002, 11:16 PM
under 386Enh put in ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1

be aware i've had problems with this causeing glitches in games. properly due to the sudden use of the swapfile when the ram gets full.

also if you are have large amounts of ram installed it might pay to (and if you have 512+ ram you WILL need to) tweak the vcache settings
eg
ChunkSize=512
MinFileCache=16384
MaxFileCache=98304

roofus
21-11-2002, 09:01 AM
Tweake this glitch you refer to, is it a BSOD caused by VMM32
I seem to have been able to rectify that one by having a fixed swapfile. Mind you considering your an expert you probably have a fixed swapfile also.

tweak\'e
21-11-2002, 09:51 AM
the "glitch" is not a BSOD. its just a wee pause which during a FPS game is NOT acceptable.

i don't run a fixed swap file. otherwise i would run into "out of memory errors". i just have a minimum swapfile size set (nortons does it anyway).

windows likes to keep a little bit of the ram free so its easy to load new data into ram. if the ram is totaly full it will have to swap data out to the swapfile before loading new data into the ram. hence the wee pause.