• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

868+256 megs of ram or 933+128 megs?

From 868 mhz to 933 there's not much difference.

But going from 128megs to 256 is a very noticable difference.🙂
 
Is there a huge difference for gaming between 256MB and 128MB? I haven't seen it, and I don't recall ever seeing benchmarks that show one. I think extra RAM starts to help a bit at about 512MB under Win2000, but I can't remember exactly (could have just been system performance benchmark).

If there's a price advantage to going with just 128MB, I'd definitely do that. Plus, if you're mixing RAM modules for the 256MB, I'd stick with 128MB for system stability in a single DIMM. The difference is going to be negligible either way, but at least at 933MHz, your bus is running at a normal speed.
 
I can see big difference from 128 to 256.
Windows starts up faster, less hd swapping,
IE or Netscape runs faster,
scrolling is smoother,
can load 127.5M soundfonts for sb live now,
Windows shuts down faster,
lots of application program - office, photoshop, etc run faster.
 
Yes if you're a gamer then you NEED more than 128megs.

128 is just basic windows stuff,when you really start to play games it get's a lot smoother,no more jerky screen because it doesnt need to swap to hd & can all load into Ram.

Personaly i see a nice difference in games going from 128 to 256,heck even from 128 to 192 there's a nice little boost.
 
AndrewR, have you played multiplayer diablo 2 on a 128 mb machine and then a 256 mb machine? Yes there is huge gaming difference.
 
Have you people ever heard of benchmarks? Hmm, doesn't look like it. Here is the comparison I was thinking of, a fairly exhaustive one done by Firingsquad.com: 128MB v. 256MB.

Other than 2-3% differences, the largest gain for upgrading from 128MB to 256MB is with Office applications under Windows 98. Otherwise, the improvement is unnoticeable except in benchmarks. Since shawn_16 says he's a gamer under Win98, the necessity of 256MB is just not there. Sure, Office might work a few seconds faster, but if you only use it once a week, who cares? Some games might show an improvement with more memory, but FPS ones do not.

Try backing your statements up with some real information instead of just assuming bigger is better. Yes, there are applications that benefit from greater memory (Photoshop runs noticeably faster), but if the person in question doesn't use those applications, then the difference is pointless. My upgrade from 128MB to 256MB (and even Cas-3 to Cas-2) showed no perceptible increase in framerates for the games I play (CS, UT, Q3, some strategy games, Sims).

As I mentioned, if cost or system stability are issues, 128MB is the wiser choice (unless matching DIMMs, obviously, which doesn't exhibit problems that mixing memory manufacturers seems to sometimes). Plus, leaving the PCI bus speed at 33MHz and leaving AGP at 66MHz is going to show a greater increase in speed along with 933MHz than if you underclock those for 868MHz (using 1/4 divider on 124MHz = 31MHz and 62MHz).

I have two systems, one with 256MB and one with 128MB (first one runs Win98, second Win2K). The only difference that seems to make a great impact when running Windows operations is the fact that the first computer has a 7200rpm drive while the second is at 5400rpm. Boot times are skewed because the first computer uses SCSI components (and has three optical drives total).
 


<< Here is the comparison I was thinking of, a fairly exhaustive one done by Firingsquad.com >>



You call 6 applications exhaustive? 3 of which, are only benchmarks and not real applications? Last time I checked, I have more than 3 programs and 3 benchmarks installed on my system. Do you seriously think that just those 5-6 programs are representative of overall real world usage?



<< Sure, Office might work a few seconds faster, but if you only use it once a week, who cares? >>



What if he decides to use Office and do cd burning at the same time? What if he decides that he needs to do research on the web, use office, and burn a cd on the side? How about throwing in SETI and ICQ in there? Winamp? You do listen to music right? Suddenly, your piddling 128 megs of ram doesn't seem enough.



<< Try backing your statements up with some real information instead of just assuming bigger is better. >>



And who is the one who assumed that those benchmarks are representative of realworld usage? Who assumed that shawn will only play FPS? Who is the one that assumed that people use their computers to run benchmarks, one at a time? Or is it only ok for you to assume and not the rest of us? That test makes no mention of multitasking either. I don't know about you, but I do more than one thing at a time on my computer. I sure don't use it to run just benchmarks, one at a time. Just because a publication printed something doesn't mean that it is representative of the real world. But you knew that already right? Or were you just checking to see if we were paying attention?

 
868 and 256MB

I noticed quite a difference even in Win98SE when I moved up from 128MB...

I don't think that the difference between 868 and 933 is that significant.

 
Actually, I don't understand shawn_16's question. Makes no sense whatever.

No one should be answering his quesion, lol. We don't know what OS, cpu, mobo, etc. he's referring to. I think he needs to fill out Zero's form.

Zero's Form
 
When I went up to 256 in Win98SE I saw no real difference, even in multitasking, but in Win2K, a whole different story. Everything seems quicker. Better memory management.

Go with the RAM!
 


<< You call 6 applications exhaustive? >>


When the results are that consistent, it's exhaustive enough. I don't see any information from you. Hmm, let's see -- blanket assertions versus actual benchmarks.


<< What if he decides to use Office and do cd burning at the same time? What if he decides that he needs to do research on the web, use office, and burn a cd on the side? How about throwing in SETI and ICQ in there? Winamp? You do listen to music right? Suddenly, your piddling 128 megs of ram doesn't seem enough. >>


If he needs to do that stuff, then he should put that in the post. You assume everyone uses their computer the same as you. He said he's a gamer. I assume he also uses other apps such as light Office usage. I just love the CD burning crap -- so many people are constantly burning CDs all the time they are on the computer. You forgot printing and scanning at the same time, also. LMAO!

And, BTW, I've done all that with a &quot;piddling 128MB of RAM&quot;, and it was fine.

Sure, I listen to music, but I actually buy it and use a STEREO SYSTEM. Ever heard of those? They blow any computer audio system out of the water.


<< Just because a publication printed something doesn't mean that it is representative of the real world. >>


Just because you state that something is such, doesn't make it so.

Like I mentioned, FOR GAMING, IT WOULD DEFINITELY APPEAR THAT THE BENEFITS OF AN EXTRA 128MB OF RAM ARE MINIMAL UNDER WIN98. My experience is similar with FPS games and a few others. Care to refute that with some actual facts?
 
Let's all play nicely together, boys &amp; girls! (Flames off, please) Can't we all just get along? I know, &quot;frag you, Mike!&quot;. Seriously, everyone has valid points, but there's no need to get nasty about it.

Benchmarks are great. They are also cold, hard, irrefutable (sp?) facts. In my book, however, &quot;seat of the pants&quot; carries weight as well. To the uncompromisingly scientific folks out there, seat of the pants might seem stupid. To me it isn't.

Benmarks aside, when I switched from 128 to 256 it was like night and day. Windows DOES boot up faster. Applications open faster and games run smoother.

To get back to the man's original question; you're overclocking a 700, right? Hmm. Peltiers and A/C duct from the house schemes aside, I'd say 868 w/256mb ram. Reason is at a slightly slower clock speed, you're stressing your CPU less which results in a more stable system, plus the additional ram will stress the system even less. Less swapfile usage.

On a different note, I'd say in the next 3 months or so, Intel will be dropping prices quite a bit to compete with The New Man (AMD). You'll probably be able to pick up a PIII 1 Gig for around $250-300. Then you can OC from there. 😉
 
866 w/ 256MB.

That is what I have, there is a bigger performance diff. between 128 and 256 (that is double) then 866 to 933 (that is hardly anything). I noticed large diff. between 128 and 256 in 98SE
 


<< When the results are that consistent, it's exhaustive enough. >>



Did you overlook the fact that half of those are benchmarks and not actual real world applications?

So what next, are you going to say macs are faster than PCs because quicktime, bytemark and photoshop says so? Well damn, the results are consistent so it must be true.

What next, the P4 is faster than the P3 cause intel's iCOMP benchmark says so? Benchmarks mean jack dick in the real world.



<< Hmm, let's see -- blanket assertions versus actual benchmarks. >>



You should reword this to something like

Hmm, let's see -- what everyone else here is saying vs my meaningless benchmarks.



<< He said he's a gamer >>



Have you EVER played Diablo 2 multiplayer? If you have, you would know that 128 megs is not enough.



<< And, BTW, I've done all that with a &quot;piddling 128MB of RAM&quot;, and it was fine. >>



-sniff- -sniff- I smell exaggeration. Oh wait, that's just the pile of BS you are standing in.



<< Sure, I listen to music, but I actually buy it and use a STEREO SYSTEM. Ever heard of those? They blow any computer audio system out of the water. >>



Weren't you the one who said not to make assumptions? Oh wait that's right, only you can make assumptions. I do have a stereo. Except that I have a brain big enough to figure out how to hook up my computer to it.

Oh, just so you know, the music I listen to is very hard to buy in the US. And yet, didn't you earlier say;



<< You assume everyone uses their computer the same as you >>



Maybe you shouldn't do the same thing. Or is it too hard for you to think consistently?



<< Just because you state that something is such, doesn't make it so. >>



I could say the same to you. But that's right, only what you say is true. And everyone else here is wrong.




<< Care to refute that with some actual facts? >>



Diablo 2 req's

&quot;Open Battle.net game Creators and TCP/IP game Hosts: 128MB RAM recommended (256MB RAM in games with over 4 players)&quot;

It must suck to be wrong.
 
Maybe you can overclock the 868 a lil more to like 933 maybe with a different cooler. than get an extra 128 megs of ram
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top