-
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.
any point in upgrading from 1GB rambus to 1.5GB rambus in win xp pro?
- Thread starter kendogg
- Start date
Siddhartha
Lifer
What applications do you run?
HendrixFan
Diamond Member
Most likely not. Try and monitor your memory usage, and I would guess you never really go over 400MB, if even that much. I know I was doing some hard core video editting and audio editting at the same time, and I maxed out at 800MB ONCE. Unless you are constantly getting *close* to using up all gig of RAM you have, I would say that anymore would just be useless.
Barnaby W. Füi
Elite Member
thats exactly what i was going to say.
Woodchuck2000
Golden Member
That's my traditional response to "Do I need dual CPUs?" threads.
It works well here though so I'll let you off 😉
WarmAndSCSI
Banned
No, unless you're running 10+ enterprise server applications with medium-high load you don't need anything more than 512 MB.
bigshooter
Platinum Member
I noticed a difference with win2k going from 512megs to 1gig. I wasn't doing anything especially demanding, and i know i never took advantage of the full gig, but it did allow me to multitask like i had nothing open. XP flew too. When I went down to 512 megs so I could sell the other ram to a friend, I noticed a slowdown at times. Mainly its when I'm trying to leave everything open, but i like to do that. 1.5gigs of ram would be complete overkill though. Go buy a new mouse or something.
Chadder007
Diamond Member
You don't need it. 1gb is enough ....for now for 95% of the worlds PCs'. And the ones who need it is Servers, Server farms, and Industrial Light and Magic.
1 Gig memory isnt that much. For normal home computing/office work 512 is enough. But to say that only servers and ILM people need 1GB + is rediculous. I have a Dell Precision dual Xeon with 4GB of RDRam and the ram usage is near full capacity, and I dont do any of those things. There are plenty of science applications that can gobble away memory that dont have anything visually flashy.
10 Enterprise applications at medium load? No single server (or Node) I know runs 10 different serving applications at once. Running 10 seperate instances of an "enterprise" Oracle database at "medium load" would take well over 1/4 TB of memory for efficient operation.
I look forward to getting past this 32bit memory addressing limitation (31bit per process in win2k/winXP Pro).
CloudsShinji
Member
Am I missing something? 😕
The only way I can see you having 1.5 GB of RDRAM would be to use 256x6, since RDRAM has to be installed in pairs. And what mobo has six RIMM slots? (Unless we're talking 32-bit RDRAM, but that only comes in 256 MB sticks AFAIK, and also the P4T533 only has 2 RIMM slots anyways).
So you'd have to go for 512x4 for a full 2 GB I guess, which would really start to run up the bill...
Unless, again, I'm completely missing something here...
The only way I can see you having 1.5 GB of RDRAM would be to use 256x6, since RDRAM has to be installed in pairs. And what mobo has six RIMM slots? (Unless we're talking 32-bit RDRAM, but that only comes in 256 MB sticks AFAIK, and also the P4T533 only has 2 RIMM slots anyways).
So you'd have to go for 512x4 for a full 2 GB I guess, which would really start to run up the bill...
Unless, again, I'm completely missing something here...
CloudsShinji
Member
Ahh, thanks. I forgot that the two pairs didn't have to use the same size of module, as long as each two paired modules were the same size. 😉
Correction, that's 99% of the world. I guarantee you that there's at least 99 home and business computers to every 1 ILM computer and server farm out there.
Also, I actually saw a benchmark once that tried to answer just this question. It tested the typical 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, and 1 GB configurations and found that while performance increased up to 512MB, there was a slight (yet consistent) decrease in performance, across all benchmarks, from the 512MB to the 1GB. The reviewer hypothesized that this was because the system (XP a while back) needed at least 128MB to run properly, above 512MB, for most users, it was spending more time trying to fill up some of the extra space than it was spending to actually just use what it needed. I don't really care if you like his explaination or not (it's not mine and I don't personally care either), but the fact is, in Quake III, Sandra, Sysmark, WinBench, and a bunch of the other standard benches for the time (Jan. or Feb. of this year), 1GB of RAM actually slowed down common applications. This obviously doesn't mean that many science programs (HUGE memory leeches) and video editing programs - as well as many others - don't benefit from more RAM, it just means that most common programs don't.
dullard
Elite Member
Also there are companies that sell memory risers. Place the riser into your memory slots and you turn 4 RIMM slots into 8 RIMM slots. Dell uses it in their workstations:
"To reach the maximum 4-GB memory total, you must install the optional memory riser boards and use eight 512-MB modules that each have a maximum of 16 memory devices. See 'Memory Module Label' for the location of the label on a module that identifies the number of memory devices it contains. You can also determine the number of memory devices installed through the System Memory option in system setup. "
Basically a riser will turn a RIMM slot into multiple RIMMS.