Vista Memory

[KeypoX]

I have some older DDR sitting around 512 but its pretty slow i think i can push it to 2.5 4 4

Is that a decent trade off or would i see a performance hit? I am thinking its worth it any thoughts?

 

[Billb2]

Originally posted by: KeypoX
I have some older DDR sitting around 512 but its pretty slow i think i can push it to 2.5 4 4

Is that a decent trade off or would i see a performance hit? I am thinking its worth it any thoughts?

Which is bigger, Red or blue?
See, you don't have enough information to answer...neither do we.

 

[Nothinman]

I doubt you'll notice the difference either way unless you spend all of your time running benchmarks.

 

[KeypoX]

Originally posted by: Billb2

Originally posted by: KeypoX
I have some older DDR sitting around 512 but its pretty slow i think i can push it to 2.5 4 4

Is that a decent trade off or would i see a performance hit? I am thinking its worth it any thoughts?

Which is bigger, Red or blue?
See, you don't have enough information to answer...neither do we.

What ??? you make no sence. Your mom is bigger. I guess you didnt understand the concept of adding more memory but having to relax the timings.
Here is your additional information if you need to learn more about timings:
http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=873

Anyways i just tried to play BF2 on vista with my 1gig and it ran horrible unplayable at low settings yet in XP it runs on high with very high frame rates


Is the issue really memory? I really doubt it as well nothinman and i havent ran a benchmark in years lol.

So i guess i will try the additional 512 and see what happens

 

[TwYsTeD]

go with the 1.5, though i think that's still not enough ram for vista. You wont notice the difference in timings.

Edit: I wasn't happy with vista performance even at 2 gb, which is why im up to 4 now, and I couldn't be happier.

 

[BD2003]

More memory is almost always better.

 

[Billb2]

Originally posted by: KeypoX

Originally posted by: Billb2

Originally posted by: KeypoX
I have some older DDR sitting around 512 but its pretty slow i think i can push it to 2.5 4 4

Is that a decent trade off or would i see a performance hit? I am thinking its worth it any thoughts?

Which is bigger, Red or blue?
See, you don't have enough information to answer...neither do we.

What ??? you make no sence. Your mom is bigger. I guess you didnt understand the concept of adding more memory but having to relax the timings.
Here is your additional information if you need to learn more about timings:
http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=873

Anyways i just tried to play BF2 on vista with my 1gig and it ran horrible unplayable at low settings yet in XP it runs on high with very high frame rates


Is the issue really memory? I really doubt it as well nothinman and i havent ran a benchmark in years lol.

So i guess i will try the additional 512 and see what happens

Different memory controllers handle the installation if odd numbers of memory sticks differently. Intell..not a problem, AMD E6 controllers...a problem.

If you need further info pleas post your specs.

 

[Kenshin911]

Also, don't forget about dual channel. You might be dropping back to single channel by adding a third stick.

 

[KeypoX]

Originally posted by: TwYsTeD
go with the 1.5, though i think that's still not enough ram for vista. You wont notice the difference in timings.

Edit: I wasn't happy with vista performance even at 2 gb, which is why im up to 4 now, and I couldn't be happier.

Are you serious you had gamming problems with 2GB ... i really cannot image that this is a memory issue atleast i hope...

Also i would lose dual channel with that 3rd stick which i cannot find anyways 🙁

"There is a common perception that new OSes run games slower than older ones. This was certainly the case with the move to Win2000 for a while. But unlike the move to 2k, Vista is built with gaming in mind, and there are a lot of under the hood improvements that should lead to *faster* gaming....once the drivers are sorted out." From sticky here

It has lead me to believe it is a driver issue of ATI. My main problem is the huge difference in performance i run high settings of BF2 no problem yet in Vista on low settings it is really really choppy. But Vista is only using about 20 more mb of memory.

I really can't believe this is a memory issue and why do all the reviews sites have no performance problems in vista?


Full Specs
3500 OCed to 2.5GHz
1GB 2 3 3 Mushkin
AMD / ATI x850 XT PE slight overclock 20 mhz or so on each
120 GB hd WD
160 GB WD

 

[KeypoX]

new error too:

Saying i do not have room or write access to the temp folder when trying to install adobe reader

error fixed man VISTA IS A PAIN

installing adobe it first extracts to a temp file, then trys to run setup yet it wont run for the error above so after it extracted i had to grab the new files and put somewhere else to install 🙁

anyone know why? i have UAA disabled and i am admin

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: KeypoX

Originally posted by: TwYsTeD
go with the 1.5, though i think that's still not enough ram for vista. You wont notice the difference in timings.

Edit: I wasn't happy with vista performance even at 2 gb, which is why im up to 4 now, and I couldn't be happier.

Are you serious you had gamming problems with 2GB ... i really cannot image that this is a memory issue atleast i hope...

Also i would lose dual channel with that 3rd stick which i cannot find anyways 🙁

"There is a common perception that new OSes run games slower than older ones. This was certainly the case with the move to Win2000 for a while. But unlike the move to 2k, Vista is built with gaming in mind, and there are a lot of under the hood improvements that should lead to *faster* gaming....once the drivers are sorted out." From sticky here

It has lead me to believe it is a driver issue of ATI. My main problem is the huge difference in performance i run high settings of BF2 no problem yet in Vista on low settings it is really really choppy. But Vista is only using about 20 more mb of memory.

I really can't believe this is a memory issue and why do all the reviews sites have no performance problems in vista?


Full Specs
3500 OCed to 2.5GHz
1GB 2 3 3 Mushkin
AMD / ATI x850 XT PE slight overclock 20 mhz or so on each
120 GB hd WD
160 GB WD

2gb is fine for gaming....even oblivion itself doesnt eat up more than 1gb of memory at a time, and vista itself doesnt take more than 500-600. Throw in another 2gb of memory and you can take advantage of another 2gb of disk cache, which can be a pretty major boost at times.