TR Forums

fc34 · Sun Dec 22, 2002 4:25 am

Which do u think runs faster??

Maedhros · Sun Dec 22, 2002 10:52 am

You are taling about a 3% difference in bus speed versus a 256Mb difference in size. In that case the more memory you got, the better off you are.

Vrock · Sun Dec 22, 2002 11:05 am

This is a no brainer.

If you're running an app that has to read from the swap file because you only have 128mb of RAM, then obviously 384mb will make things run faster and smoother.

If you're running an app that fits in 128mb, you will see a small performance increase due to the increased memory speed.

fc34 · Sun Dec 22, 2002 8:16 pm

Sorry, just double checking to see if the recommendation that i gave my uncle is correct. I myself voted on the 384mb @ 100mhz.

Also, Vrock, seeing as that XP requires 128mbs of RAM to begin with, there wont usually be much RAM left if u have a 128 chip.

Zenith · Sun Dec 22, 2002 8:57 pm

XP takes up about 60MBs in memory on average, having more then 128 is good with ANY memory.

Sun Dec 22, 2002 11:06 pm

Yeah, what they said. But on another note:

I found it surprising how much my 3D Mark score increased when I went from 768Ram at 100mhz to 512 at 110mhz. :wink:

Zenith · Sun Dec 22, 2002 11:26 pm

zeriohex, XP doesn't really see the difference between 768MBs and 512MBs of RAM, see how it never takes more then 100MBs on a regular basis. i bet if you had alot of programs or backround services running (you would need alot of em to fill 768MBs) , the 768MB would be fast in games.

I myself have 256MBs of PC2100 DDRram. windows on averge takes up around...oh say, 90MBs of ram doing nothing special, but with cacheman i can get it down to 60MBs of space taken. i do that when i wanna play a game that will drain my boxen (UT2k3, Ghost recon, other)

so

mattsteg · Mon Dec 23, 2002 12:06 am

Zen: windows takes plenty good care of itself clearing memory. I can't imagine cacheman doing anything but wasting your time.

eckslax · Mon Dec 23, 2002 12:27 am

Those "performance enhancing" programs are way overrated. The little that I have used them have resulted in no real performance gain. I personally stay away from all of those programs and view them as bloatware.

getbornagain · Mon Dec 23, 2002 12:39 am

well cacheman i think is an ok program...mostly a waste in xp or 2k but in 9.x i believe it does a good job as win 9.x suck and needs some help

Zenith · Mon Dec 23, 2002 1:11 am

Cacheman DOES help with some things, i do use it to pull away mem from stuff...helps a bit.

eckslax · Mon Dec 23, 2002 2:21 am

Ok, so it may have some uses if you are still running a 9x based Windows. If you are though, you should really consider snagging a copy of XP as 9x can't really utilize more than 128MB of ram.

fc34 · Mon Dec 23, 2002 8:14 am

Actually, i find that these programs that are made to optimize RAM are useless. At least for me, they dont seem to increase performance in anyway.

DiMaestro · Tue Dec 24, 2002 12:22 am

9x can't really utilize more than 128MB of ram.

Yes it can. The 9x kernal has issues with *large* amounts of ram, however it can utilize more than 128. The biggest problem with 9x was that it wasn't designed to run with large amounts of ram, but it can and will. Generally you need to do some vcache tuning. Cacheman is a good program, and I've used it on some low memory 9x systems. But anytime I was over 128 megs, I really didn't need it.

On the other hand, the NT based OS's, such as NT 4.0, 2000, and XP, do not require any type of 'memory management' software. In all reality it will most likely be detrimintal to system performance. The NT kernal does a wonderful job of managing memory, and I'd prefer to use that over any 3rd party hack.
In essence, sure, some memory management software works fine on 9x, but I'd avoid the 'ram doubler' programs or anything that promises something along those lines. But I prefer to avoid them for the NT kernel.

eckslax · Tue Dec 24, 2002 12:43 am

I was under the impression that once you got over 128MB of ram in 9x that anything over would be treated as virtual memory. As we all know, virtual memory is slower than mollases. Correct me if I am wrong.

mattsteg · Tue Dec 24, 2002 12:46 am

Zen: does cacheman under XP actually help, or does it just make you feel warm and fuzzy? I have a feeling the second option the correct one.

DiMaestro · Tue Dec 24, 2002 12:49 am

eckslax wrote:
I was under the impression that once you got over 128MB of ram in 9x that anything over would be treated as virtual memory. As we all know, virtual memory is slower than mollases. Correct me if I am wrong.

Virtual memory is slow, primarily because it's on the HD. That's pretty much the only reason it's slow. Virtual memory is a way to take information that is in normal memory and store it on a physical medium, thereby freeing up memroy.

And I feel I should clarify something here. 9x generally pukes on >512 MB, but under that it runs fine. ( I think it's 512, not 100% sure )

fc34 · Tue Dec 24, 2002 12:26 pm

I have a comp which dual boots XP and 98. 98 has no problems with 512 RAM when I boot to it.

eckslax · Tue Dec 24, 2002 2:58 pm

Ok, now I am remembering. Thanks for the refresher. Reguardless, 9x is a rather poor choice of an OS when the much superior XP is in wide usage. I'll never go back to the error messages and BSOD ever again.

DiMaestro · Tue Dec 24, 2002 5:43 pm

eckslax wrote:
Reguardless, 9x is a rather poor choice of an OS when the much superior XP is in wide usage. I'll never go back to the error messages and BSOD ever again.

I agree 100%.

Which do u think runs faster??

Which do u think runs faster??

Which do u think runs faster??

Who is online