how much SDRAM?

[andreadebiase]

hi,
it is known that above 256MB it doesn`t make a big difference but i was wondering if this is true also for WinXP that is a heavy resources consumer.

------------------
#!@$*%.....just format the damn C:

[YODA74]

I don't believe XP will run on less than 256mb so adding more will help the reason for adding more meme. would be for file shares I believe,I don't really know the full reason for adding more mem.I guess it would help in playing intensive games?as long as you don't go over cache ? I'm sure someone else has a more informatable answer as I am replacing my exterior door and can't really go into depth (just taking a break) http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

------------------
W/Me (memory eater)
Me Help (http://www.webtechgeek.com/center_Frame_win_me_tips.html)
BUDS TS. (http://www.geocities.com/~budallen/whatsnew.html)
answers (http://www.dewassoc.com/support/index.html)

[bassman]

Since everything you do passes thru Memory (L1 cache, L2 cache, RAM), the more you have the better. Of course there are situations where this is incorrect but, for the most part, todays machines and OSs will take all you can give them.
The processor pulls from L1, L1 pulls from L2, L2 pulls from RAM, if you don't have enough RAM, it pulls from your Swapfile on HDD(very slow).
How much RAM???? What are you doing with the machine? Audio and Video are very expansive and memory intensive. Give it all you can fit in it. Gaming is similar but I think most of gamings needs are handeled by your vid card(?). Word processing, address book, online, stay with a respectable minimum.

------------------
Please let us know if what we suggest helps. This helps us help you better.

[iisbob]

This has ben a highly debatable subject for many years ( especially after Bill's unfortunate statement that 640K of memory was all anybody needed! http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif ). Windows itself really only needs about 64mb's of memory to perform satisfactorily ( win2000 needs at least 128mb's ), it's the applications that have become the real memory hogs.

It doens't hurt to go as high as you want, just be ware that the Win9X kernel ( 95/98/ME ) really don't handle 512mb's > very well, in fact you have to edit the registry settings for 98 to not crash with 512mb's.

However, since W2000 is based on the NT kernel ( so is XP ), they were optimized for business use-specifically on servers, so adding more memory to them actually boosts performance. I recommend at least 256mb's with NT or 2000, i'm sure XP is no different.

If you'd like an example of how today's apps are pushing the envelope; take at look at the game specs for IL-2 Sturmovik (http://www.il2sturmovik.com/the_game/faq.php) and compare them to this old classic; Doom&Doom2 (http://www.doomcenter.com/oldschool/generalinfo.phtml).

Quite a bit of diff, wouldn't you say?! So the short answer to your question is:YES! more memory is better!. http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/biggrin.gif



------------------
iisbob
"Bachelors should be heavily taxed. It's not fair that some men should be happier than others."
-- Oscar Wilde

[andreadebiase]

very interesting and thank you for the advices. Well at this point I am wondering if I should first upgrade to more than 256MB (the cheap option) or should I upgrade the CPU that is a Duron 700 (the more expensive option), for example an Athlon Thunderbird 1GHz.
thanks


------------------
#!@$*%.....just format the damn C:

[BigBlue66]

Hey,

256mb of RAM is a respectable amount for run of the mill computing.

If it were my choice to make, I would opt for the Athlon processor, assuming that your motherboard will support it. The Duron only has a 64Kb L2 cache, whereas the Athlon has a 256Kb L2 cache. It will make a difference.

It's ironic that you should mention this and that I should stumble across this post at just this time. I am posting this on the wife's machine, in which I just now, in the last few minutes, replaced her Duron 750Mhz 200Mhz FSB, with an Athlon 1GHz 200Mhz FSB T-Bird. It boots so darn fast now, I can't even see most of the post screens. I'm at the Windows GUI in a flash.

Bottom line, replace the processor now. And with the price of SDRAM nowadays, it shouldn't take long before you can upgrade that, too.

Happy shopping.

Big Blue 66


------------------
Life = Karma, or is it, Karma = Life?

[This message has been edited by BigBlue66 (edited 11-17-2001).]

[rond36]

It says on the box for XP Pro 128MB of RAM or higher recommended(64MB minimum supported; may limit performance and some features) If I were you I would get as much as I could get.

------------------
Alright who messed it up this time!

[bunk]

Since the Level 2 cache is used to keep track of data in main RAM, the larger the amount of L2 cache on your processor will allow you take advantage of more main RAM. Thus the AMD Thunderbird is faster than the Duron since it can handle more main RAM due to its larger L2 cache. Intel Pentiums are faster for this reason than comparable Celerons. So a processor with faster and/or larger L2 cache will handle more main RAM with more noticable results. The OS's ability is also relevent. WinNT/XP is designed to handle more RAM efficiently than Win95/98. WinME is irrelevent since the amount of RAM doesnt has no effect on the number of bugs in this overpriced, worthless, clunky g*(fu#$TD of @E&)%((* of a wanna be ^$#(%^$ Operating system (bad day at school with ME and Novell)

Personally 128 megs is great for Win98, and more will help but have diminishing returns bang/$. With WinNT and WinXP more than 128 megs of RAM will have much much greater bang/$.

[not_fred]

XP is clearly managing memory better than the 9x kernel did. Running ME in idle, the OS was willing to utilize all but 3 - 5M of my lone 256M stick. XP typically leaves 130 or so free. Obviously does a better job of figuring out what it HAS to have, and leaving the rest for something else.

Given those types of numbers, it isn't too hard to figure out where the 128M minimum recommendation came from.

BTW - I don't run FastFind, either. That memory hog has nothing to do with the OS.