memory

[Vic 970]

K7 m/b: AMD Duron 750mhz: (originally 64mb ram)

Originally DIMM 64 mb pc100 (CL3) SDRAM. Have added DIMM 128 mb pc133 (CL3) SDRAM

Thinking of adding another 128mb

Bus speed = 100

Should I go with this?
Is it worth adding more?
Whats the diff btwn CL2 & CL3?
pc 100 or pc 133 ?
How many pins? (have a ref no (7-1-1-1R 4-1-1-1W) does that give a clue)?

------------------
for every question there's an answer. Then a load more questions.
Definition of Upgrade "A means of introducing new bugs to a program to replace the ones that you have eventually found fixes for"

Regards..,
Vic.

[YODA74]

CL(CAS Latency) is related to how many clock cycles to wait before transfering a block of data.CL2 Is faster than CL3. This memory will work in any system that uses 168 PIN DIMM SDRAM Slot and operates at a system BUS of 133MHZ and under.As far as the referance # you have there ??? I havent a clue.

------------------
Death has come to our windows.

-- Jeremiah 9:21
(undoubtedly a Biblical reference to a Microsoft product!)

[hiredgoonz]

What OS are you running? If you're using 2000/ME/XP I would suggest 256mb...you won't see much performance increase after that...if you're using 95/98/98SE 128mb is a good number, but again not much difference above that...

------------------
When all else fails, read the instructions.

[Vic 970]

running w98se.

so from what you've said, I would assume 128 mb :

pc 100 or 133 ? (128mb PC133 & 64mb PC100 at the moment)
& should I go for another CL3 (as that's whats in already, or would there be an advantage in CL2 ?

------------------
for every question there's an answer. Then a load more questions.
Definition of Upgrade "A means of introducing new bugs to a program to replace the ones that you have eventually found fixes for"

Regards..,
Vic.

[hiredgoonz]

You might as well get the best memory (PC133 CL2) as long as there's not much of a price difference...it won't matter in your current system, since you're going to be running at 100 mhz and cl3 since you're limited by the memory you already have, but in the future you might need an extra stick of memory for a different system that has different requirements...

------------------
When all else fails, read the instructions.

[pentachris]

Consider this:

Suppose you wanted to use the memory in another system in a year or two. Why not spend an extra few pounds now so you can use it on a 133 mhz bus later? That was my reason for buying pc133 memory when pc100 would do.

hiredgoonz: no significant increase in performance on 98 above 128 MB, even with ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1 in system.ini?

------------------
Some mistakes are too much fun to make only once.

[hiredgoonz]

Even with that situation, I wouldn't call any potential performance increase significant...I guess it depends on your opinion...

Vic didn't provide any other information, and the advice I gave was for a typical setup...I guess if you turn off virtual memory altogether, you'd get even more bang with RAM above 128mb in Windows 98...

Of course 128mb is a moot point since he already has 192mb (unless he took out the 64 when he added the 128) so do you think he's going to see a big performance increase going from 192mb to 320mb under Win98?

There are a lot of hypotheticals that could be considered, is he doing photo/video editing or video capture? Does he want to turn off virtual memory altogether?

But none of that really has any bearing on the question he asked, so my question to you, pentachris, was your question genuine or do you feel the need to challenge my opinion for some reason?


------------------
When all else fails, read the instructions.

[This message has been edited by hiredgoonz (edited 02-15-2002).]

[pentachris]

hiredgoonz: genuine question. Sorry if I offended.

The reason I asked is I don't understand why at magic number X MB the performance increase drops off. Trusting that you aren't just making something up or passing on what you read in a chat room (and I really am giving you that benefit of the doubt without hesitation - you're obviously "above average" http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/wink.gif, I'm not just being a smart-a$$ here), I tried to reason why this is the case. I reasoned that there may be a memory usage amount that, when exceeded, causes Windows to rely more heavily on virtual memory. That would cause the diminishing performance. This sounds like something Micro$oft would do.

Maybe my reasoning is correct, but there are issues at play that I haven't considered. Maybe I should've just asked "why is it that way" instead of asking if a solution to the assumed flaw would cure the symptom.

------------------
Some mistakes are too much fun to make only once.

[Steve]

Hi Vic,

I have a PIII system, running Win98se, that came with 64MB of PC100 RAM. I just added 128MB more. Total of 192MB. I saw a nice increase in preformance.

I have tracked my RAM usage with Norton System Doctor. When I had just 64MB of RAM I routinely ran out of RAM and was working in the harddrive.

Now that I have 192 MB of RAM and using Norton System Doctor to monitor my RAM usage, I find I have about 60MB of RAM free in normal usage. Normal usage for me is Systray, explorer, Zone Alarm, Norton A/V, Norton System Doctor, Compuserve, IE5 and AIM running. I have about 60MB free. http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/smile.gif

I would suggest you find some sort of monitoring software and see just how much RAM is being used. You don't need more than you're using.

As far as PC100 verses PC133, I go for the idea that you buy whatever your machine uses. Although thinking ahead to a future machine is certainly an option.

IMHO, get some kind of RAM monitor. It will tell you what you need. http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
Peace and Love, brothers and sisters. Peace and Love

[This message has been edited by Steve (edited 02-15-2002).]

[iisbob]

There is a difference in system resources & memory-this is where the problem with 95/98 comes in-it has to do with area's in their coding called " heaps ".
When the 95 kernel was introduced { this includes 98/ME which are really upgrades to the original coding of 95 } no one thought that the average home user would ever get above 128 MB's-certainly not up to 512> so it was optimized to use it's resources at around the 384 MB limit.

For you to really understand how windows handles meory, take a look at these two sites;

Window's heaps (http://www2.whidbey.com/djdenham/Window_memory.htm)

and
Window's resources (http://www.windows-help.net/techfiles/win-resources.html)- don't forget to peruse Charles on site { the PCGuide itself } for an excellant explanantion of how memory works in a PC.

Just remember that windows 95/98/ME were never designed to handle large amount's of memory-as i stated no one thought you'd ever get or need that much at home. Around 256MB's is about the pratical limit for the 95 Kernel to truely see any performance gain, but it really depends on the software you're runing and how well it handles the memory that is allocated to it.





------------------
iisbob

CPU= 5mhz
Memory= 16 K
Storage=10.2MB's
Video=Onboard S3 4K
Modem=14.4 baud
Sound=ISA Yamaha 8bit
Mouse=2 button MS
Monitor=ACER 12.5"
OS= { dual boot }DOS 2.1 & WIN 3.1

My ultimate gaming system :)

[mjc]

Hired, very valid point...but also price does have some bearing on it, when memory is high then getting a one or two point increase just doesn't seem worth it, but if the price is low then why not...you can always use it else where later or what if an upgrade in software happens...etc (all your hypotheticals, again... http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/biggrin.gif )(Hired not to pick on you....I know better than to pick on your branch of the Armed Forces.... http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/biggrin.gif)

Vic, if the price is right and you think you will need the extra for some reason, go for it. If you are planning on doing and music or graphics work then you just might see performance benefit, otherwise it is doubtful. Also if youare planning on going to an NT kerenl based version of Windows then it may be a good idea, or if you are planning to dual boot...Like has been mentioned before getting the better stuff would also be a good idea, it wil be more likely to be useful later.

pentachris....I used to have a link to one of the hardware sites that had a nice graph showing the relationship...how performance increases level off after a ceratin amount of RAM, this was compiled from running various benchmarks with the only variable being the amount of RAM...but I can't remember which one it was and can't find the link...tried a little searching..couldn't find it http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/frown.gif , but basically it showed that from 32Mb to 128MB there were fairly large increases in performance, from 128 to 256 very small increases and from 256 up 512 just about dead flat level.

------------------
mjc
Links list:Computer Links (http://www.dreamwater.org/tech/mjc/index.htm)

Celts are the men that heaven made mad, For all their battles are merry and their songs are all sad.

[Vic 970]

many thanks for the abundance of info. It will take a while for me to completely get my head around it (& I've got the pc guide disc to read yet) but I'm getting there (I think)

I'm having no probs aaat the moment, but I am preparing to do some music. The main reason for considering more ram was that I got a nice performance increase going from 64 - 192mb and every time I visit Pitstop it advises to add more, & given that memory is relatively cheap at the moment it seemed a reasonable consideration. I don't expect a huge difference in comparison with the last 128mb, but (I suppose) the satisfaction that I have my system as good as it can be without spending vast amounts of cash.

Another thing I suppose to consider, (based on what I think I've learned so far) would be to replace the 64mb of PC100 with 128mb of PC133 giving 256mb which could run at 133 (the board supports this) but I do not know of other implications, but that would seem to me a possible advantage.

I have d/l'd a monitor (tcolockex) from one of the links you posted & I will have a look at that for a better understanding of what's going on, together with having a look at pc guide & re-reading what you've given me so far.

------------------
for every question there's an answer. Then a load more questions.
Definition of Upgrade "A means of introducing new bugs to a program to replace the ones that you have eventually found fixes for"

Regards..,
Vic.

[hiredgoonz]

The problem here is Windows 98...With XP, I would say get as much memory as your system supports, turn off the pagefile (and system restore) and have fun...

From my experience with 98/ME (which ceased to exist on my systems when 2000 came out) 128mb was about the point where you started to plateau on performance...ME was a little different because of system restore running in the background...

And as of Feb 10th, I am a civilian again, 5 yrs in the Corps was enough...

http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/wink.gif

------------------
When all else fails, read the instructions.

[mjc]

Congrats for making it through your 5 years! http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/biggrin.gif
I have a couple of relatives and several college buddies who were also in the Corps....and yeah...some where around 128MB to 256MB is where it flattens out on just about every system I personally have dealt with, usually on the lower end (128MB)...

Vic,

If you are going to start transferring your record colletion to CD then a little extra memory may be of benefit, even though it won't do much to increase the overall pwerformance.

------------------
mjc
Links list:Computer Links (http://www.dreamwater.org/tech/mjc/index.htm)

Celts are the men that heaven made mad, For all their battles are merry and their songs are all sad.

[Vic 970]

from what you say it now looks like another 64mb would be enough (cheap enough) for a little in reserve.

I have resource meter on task bar now (together with the other app I d/l) so it will be interesting to see what happens in general usage. currently...,

System Resources = 60% free

User Resources = 60% free

GDI Resources = 75% free

Memory load = 92%


------------------
for every question there's an answer. Then a load more questions.
Definition of Upgrade "A means of introducing new bugs to a program to replace the ones that you have eventually found fixes for"

Regards..,
Vic.

[pentachris]

iisbob: thanks for those links! I feel like my Windows knowledge was just greatly expanded. Let me see if I can sum up:

Resource maps are basically address tables to show what memory is being used by what resource, and a simplified defintion of a resource is that it's anything Windows can manipulate (a window, a picture, etc...). Because Windows 9x uses 16 bit addresses in its resource maps, and based on the average size of these resources, you usually will run out of addresses for resources before these resources will use up more than about 128 MB of memory (give or take...) - even though the resources are split into 3 different categories, each with its own resource map.

Am I on the right track here?

It's great how understanding a new concept that's baffled you before can almost make you feel giddy... http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

------------------
Some mistakes are too much fun to make only once.