• 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.

Is there a big difference between 128 and 256?

N

NakaNaka

Diamond Member
AMD 1.2 ghz thinking about buying
Pretty big gamer but not extreme

is there a big difference between the two, and is it worth payign the extra 200 bucks.

Same with AMD TBird 1ghz to 1.2 ghz
is it worth the extra 200? Thanks.
 
Extra $200 for RAM? Get some Kingmax PC150 at mwave for $90.
As for the TBird, I'd stick with the 1gig, but it depends on your budget.
 
You could have searched the messages or the archives for this. It's been asked several times. The answer depends alot on your operating system. Win2K DEFINITELY sees a noticeable reduction in HD paging with 256. Win98 does not derive as much benefit as it has inferior memory management and a smaller memory footprint.

However with current prices 256 is the way to go.
 
When I went from 128MB to 384MB in Win98SE I noticed a bit of a difference.

Not a huge difference but it's a bit more responsive and no disk thrashing.

(I'm sure that 256MB would be the same, but I've never had that amount, I went from 128MB to 384MB, Win98 does NOT need 384MB, I got that much for Win2000)
 
I just went from 128 to 192, and don't notice too much of a difference in Win98SE. I use the ConservativeSwapFileUsage flag that was discussed recently, so I do get a larger disk cache without having to hit the swap file. But overall it's not too much faster.
 
My test software was Deus Ex (a game that will use GOBS of memory!)

When I was running 98, then Me. I had 128 megs.. I then configured using the ConservativeSwapFile=1 setting... small difference..
I bumped it up to 256 and BIG difference.. I tried to run Me with VM disabled.. Everything went fine until I loaded Deus Ex, and it was almost done loading and errored out (out of Virtual Memory).. bla bla..
I bumped it up to 384 (with VM still disabled) and I could run Dues Ex all night long! and WOW! Takes a while to load (I guess it loads almost the whole game into RAM?) but man did it play smooth as silk!

I'm not running 9x anymore because of stability issues... but if I were, I recommend getting GOBS of memory and just disabling VM. HD swapping is just LAME! that was for the days when systems didn't have much memory, AND it was REALLY REALLY Expensive! MS needs to realize systems don't need to swap memory to disk now and optimize their crappy OS's to run like this "WELL" if us users want to.
 
same experience here. I didn't notice much difference going from 128 to 256 in Windows Me, but it was like night and day in Windows 2000. Win2k would kill my hd when loading games. It would start reading like crazy, but now with 256mb, it has come down a lot.
 
I noticed a fair difference in 98se with games going from 128 to 256. WinME is essentially Win98te (third edition), and AFAIK the memory management is the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top