1. You are viewing our forum as a guest. For full access please Register. WindowsBBS.com is completely free, paid for by advertisers and donations.

Over 512 MB RAM

Discussion in 'Windows XP' started by Christer, 2003/01/12.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. 2003/01/12
    Christer

    Christer Geek Member Staff Thread Starter

    Joined:
    2002/12/17
    Messages:
    6,585
    Likes Received:
    74
    In a number of threads RAM has been discussed and it seems like the consensus is that 128 MB is okey, performance gets significantly better with an increase from 128 MB to 256 MB and slightly better with an increase from 256 MB to 512 MB.

    However, one post said that more than 512 MB actually slows the system down.

    Is there an explanation for this?

    Is it valid for all types of RAM?



    TIA,
    Christer
     
    Christer,
    #1
  2. 2003/01/12
    mflynn

    mflynn Inactive

    Joined:
    2002/08/14
    Messages:
    4,141
    Likes Received:
    9
    There are many things concerning this that are confused with/by the 512 limitation of win98.

    You will have to research your specfic processor and BIOS because these are the issues. In W2k and XP the OS can handle it.

    Most BIOS updates now state fixes for "performance over 512k" etc. Check your BIOS revision. Almost the same applies to processors some of the older 800-1000g processors had some problems. The newer ones today I believe are good to go!

    So research your processor and BIOS!

    Type of Ram should have no bearing on this.

    Mike
     
    Last edited: 2003/01/12
    mflynn,
    #2


  3. to hide this advert.

  4. 2003/01/12
    Christer

    Christer Geek Member Staff Thread Starter

    Joined:
    2002/12/17
    Messages:
    6,585
    Likes Received:
    74
    My mainboard can support up to 1.5 GB RAM and since it´s compatible with my 1 GHz Athlon Thunderbird it should work well with more than 512 MB.

    If it´s worth it, is a different matter though.
    I found this webpage:

    http://www.crucial.com/windowsxp/RAM.asp

    It containes several links, the two links below are of interest:

    http://www.crucial.com/windowsxp/benchmark.asp

    http://www.crucial.com/windowsxp/upgrades_difference.asp

    It seems to me like I´ll do well with my 256 MB but when or if memory prices go down again, and hit a new low record, I could add another 256 MB.

    My conclusion is that more than 512 MB cover special needs that the average user doesn´t have.



    Christer
     
    Last edited: 2003/01/12
    Christer,
    #3
  5. 2003/01/12
    mflynn

    mflynn Inactive

    Joined:
    2002/08/14
    Messages:
    4,141
    Likes Received:
    9
    Uhhh!

    Yes this is what I said. All the links confirm what I said. These links only say there is a diminishing return above 512 but there is no slow down.

    I answered your question "more than 512 MB actually slows the system down ".

    No it does not on "most new cpu's and BIOS's!

    Mike
     
    mflynn,
    #4
  6. 2003/01/13
    reboot

    reboot Inactive

    Joined:
    2002/01/07
    Messages:
    831
    Likes Received:
    0
    Over the past 2 years, I've benchmarked my system with different OS's and different amounts of RAM.
    Win98 ran great at about 340 meg, more than that required a vcache setting. Win2k, ran best with about 512 meg, and XP runs best with a gig. Noticable difference in XP between 512 and 768 (or more). All this on a P3B-F/P3 600.
     
    reboot,
    #5
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Accept Learn More...