Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

memory timings

Last response: in Overclocking
Share
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b } Memory
January 26, 2005 8:14:51 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclockers.amd,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

Hi

I am planning to upgrade my system memory. At the moment I have 2 unbranded
sticks of PC3200 512mb ddr. I was thinking about upgrading to OCZ's "2Gb
PC3200 Performance kit; the stats are as follows:

400MHZ DDR
CL3-3-3-7
2GB Kit (2x1GB modules)
ULN2 Technology
Unbuffered
Copper Heatspreaders
Lifetime Warranty
2.6 Volts
184 Pin DIMM
Part Number: OCZ4002048PFDC-K

The timings are a bit high, is that something that can be avoided on large
memory modules and should I go for it or wait until there is competition.
That set is going for about £310 at the moment.

any ideas?

Pete

More about : memory timings

January 26, 2005 3:55:56 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

"Pete Davidson" <turbulent.hair@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:fHFJd.17$Wq.0@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
> Hi
>
> I am planning to upgrade my system memory. At the moment I have 2
> unbranded sticks of PC3200 512mb ddr. I was thinking about upgrading to
> OCZ's "2Gb PC3200 Performance kit; the stats are as follows:
>
> 400MHZ DDR
> CL3-3-3-7
> 2GB Kit (2x1GB modules)
> ULN2 Technology
> Unbuffered
> Copper Heatspreaders
> Lifetime Warranty
> 2.6 Volts
> 184 Pin DIMM
> Part Number: OCZ4002048PFDC-K
>
> The timings are a bit high, is that something that can be avoided on large
> memory modules and should I go for it or wait until there is competition.
> That set is going for about £310 at the moment.
>
> any ideas?
>
> Pete
>

From what I've seen, 1 GB modules tend to have the slower timings. If you
manage to find them with 2 or 2.5 CAS, you'll certainly pay a premium for
it. I don't know what your budget allows, but it maybe it would be better to
get 4 512MB modules, and a new motherboard if your current board doesn't
have 4 slots for dual channel. Then you could benefit from some really fast
timings. Depending on your specific setup, it may be cheaper than CAS 2 or
2.5 1 GB modules.
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b } Memory
January 26, 2005 7:58:39 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

"Pete Davidson" wrote in message...
> I am planning to upgrade my system memory.

Is there any particular reason? What are you actually looking for out of the
upgrade, more performance, better multitasking, more gaming speed, better
overclocking potential, all of the above, what?

> At the moment I have 2 unbranded sticks of PC3200 512mb ddr.
> I was thinking about upgrading to OCZ's "2Gb PC3200
> Performance kit; the stats are as follows:

There are very few scenarios in which a typical home PC user will actually
benefit from more than a gig of memory, which is why I asked you above if
you've got a specific need for this amount. What sort of jobs does your PC
normally do?

> The timings are a bit high, is that something that can be avoided
> on large memory modules

That's a double edged question. Whether you can get large modules with low
timings is one part. Whether you'd be better off going for smaller modules
with very low timings is another part.

> and should I go for it or wait until there is competition. That set is
> going for about £310 at the moment.
>
> any ideas?

Your questions are largely impossible to answer as you haven't bothered to
tell us why you're thinking of upgrading, or indeed what you're hoping to
gain. If you're a pro photographer and spend all your day editing eight
megapixel raw image files, the memory will no doubt help. If all you do is
surf the web, write Word documents or play games, it probably won't make any
noticeable difference at all.
--


Richard Hopkins
Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom
(replace nospam with pipex in reply address)

The UK's leading technology reseller www.dabs.com
Related resources
January 26, 2005 9:30:05 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

Richard Hopkins wrote:
>> At the moment I have 2 unbranded sticks of PC3200 512mb ddr.
>> I was thinking about upgrading to OCZ's "2Gb PC3200
>> Performance kit; the stats are as follows:
>
> There are very few scenarios in which a typical home PC user will
> actually benefit from more than a gig of memory, which is why I asked
> you above if you've got a specific need for this amount. What sort of
> jobs does your PC normally do?
>
>> and should I go for it or wait until there is competition. That set
>> is going for about £310 at the moment.
>>
>> any ideas?

Another thing, how many memory banks does your mainboard have, and why are
you looking to replace your chips? If you have one or two empty spots, it's
of course cheaper to fill those with 1 x 1 Gb or 2 x 512 MB.

But, like Richard, I am very interested in the reason for going to 2 GB :-)

--
Thomas
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b } Memory
January 27, 2005 3:48:30 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

Hi there. Thanks for that, I wasn't aware that you could run dual channel on
4 slots - though it does make sense. I kind of like my mobo. At the moment
it is a SKt A DFI NfII ultra B. I use most of the features on it and I'm not
too sure if I can find one that'll OC as well.

Pete

"Pat" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:41f7e84b_2@127.0.0.1...
> "Pete Davidson" <turbulent.hair@virgin.net> wrote in message
> news:fHFJd.17$Wq.0@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
>> Hi
>>
>> I am planning to upgrade my system memory. At the moment I have 2
>> unbranded sticks of PC3200 512mb ddr. I was thinking about upgrading to
>> OCZ's "2Gb PC3200 Performance kit; the stats are as follows:
>>
>> 400MHZ DDR
>> CL3-3-3-7
>> 2GB Kit (2x1GB modules)
>> ULN2 Technology
>> Unbuffered
>> Copper Heatspreaders
>> Lifetime Warranty
>> 2.6 Volts
>> 184 Pin DIMM
>> Part Number: OCZ4002048PFDC-K
>>
>> The timings are a bit high, is that something that can be avoided on
>> large memory modules and should I go for it or wait until there is
>> competition. That set is going for about £310 at the moment.
>>
>> any ideas?
>>
>> Pete
>>
>
> From what I've seen, 1 GB modules tend to have the slower timings. If you
> manage to find them with 2 or 2.5 CAS, you'll certainly pay a premium for
> it. I don't know what your budget allows, but it maybe it would be better
> to get 4 512MB modules, and a new motherboard if your current board
> doesn't have 4 slots for dual channel. Then you could benefit from some
> really fast timings. Depending on your specific setup, it may be cheaper
> than CAS 2 or 2.5 1 GB modules.
>
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b } Memory
January 27, 2005 4:46:42 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

Thanks Thomas and Richard for your replies.

Appologies for my lack of provided information;
In answer to your questions the general day to day tasks of the PC i wish to
upgrade are:

1. It is essentially a file server on a workgroup (XP pro). I also VNC into
it from other computers on my workgroup (mixture of Linux and XP PCs).
2. I wouldn't quite call myself a 'pro' photographer, but I do wourk with
Hi-res digital media, and quite often scan images at 1200x2400dpi and tidy
them up. I also do a lot of artwork with Macromedia's studio.
3. I like to tweak and overclock and I'd like to get the FSB up to 220 x 11
for my own satisfaction.
4. Along with the tweaking I partake in gaming, LAN's etc.
5. Other things I use that seem to eat my memory are when I am using my PC
to watch TV, Visual Studio and Office get quite hungry when doing anything
heavy on either of them, less often I use music creating/editing software.

I'm not trying to justify 2 1gb sticks; I'm asking for advice, it just seems
like a sensible idea.

> That's a double edged question. Whether you can get large modules with low
> timings is one part. Whether you'd be better off going for smaller modules
> with very low timings is another part.

I imagine you swing towards recommending the latter: would it be better to
go for 2 high performance 512mb sticks and OC them (or 3)? I only have 3
slots on my mobo.

Thanks very much

Pete



"Richard Hopkins" <richh@dsl.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:41f7cc7e$0$16585$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
> "Pete Davidson" wrote in message...
>> I am planning to upgrade my system memory.
>
> Is there any particular reason? What are you actually looking for out of
> the
> upgrade, more performance, better multitasking, more gaming speed, better
> overclocking potential, all of the above, what?
>
>> At the moment I have 2 unbranded sticks of PC3200 512mb ddr.
>> I was thinking about upgrading to OCZ's "2Gb PC3200
>> Performance kit; the stats are as follows:
>
> There are very few scenarios in which a typical home PC user will actually
> benefit from more than a gig of memory, which is why I asked you above if
> you've got a specific need for this amount. What sort of jobs does your PC
> normally do?
>
>> The timings are a bit high, is that something that can be avoided
>> on large memory modules
>
> That's a double edged question. Whether you can get large modules with low
> timings is one part. Whether you'd be better off going for smaller modules
> with very low timings is another part.
>
>> and should I go for it or wait until there is competition. That set is
>> going for about £310 at the moment.
>>
>> any ideas?
>
> Your questions are largely impossible to answer as you haven't bothered to
> tell us why you're thinking of upgrading, or indeed what you're hoping to
> gain. If you're a pro photographer and spend all your day editing eight
> megapixel raw image files, the memory will no doubt help. If all you do is
> surf the web, write Word documents or play games, it probably won't make
> any
> noticeable difference at all.
> --
>
>
> Richard Hopkins
> Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom
> (replace nospam with pipex in reply address)
>
> The UK's leading technology reseller www.dabs.com
>
>
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b } Memory
January 27, 2005 10:55:55 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclockers.amd,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

"Pete Davidson" <turbulent.hair@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:fHFJd.17$Wq.0@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
> Hi
>
> I am planning to upgrade my system memory. At the moment I have 2
unbranded
> sticks of PC3200 512mb ddr. I was thinking about upgrading to OCZ's "2Gb
> PC3200 Performance kit; the stats are as follows:

What CPU are you running? What chipset? If you don't have Dual Channel, it
probably won't make much difference if you get a memory upgrade. And if
you're running an Athlon XP, and want to use the new memory later on an
Athlon 64, then it will matter what memory you purchase. Tom's Hardware did
a review of high-end memory, and only the Crucial Ballistix was able to run
on both the XP and 64. It uses Micron memory instead of Samsung. A 1GB kit
runs about $260US from Crucial's site. It runs at 2-2-2-5 at DDR400.

>
> 400MHZ DDR
> CL3-3-3-7
> 2GB Kit (2x1GB modules)
> ULN2 Technology
> Unbuffered
> Copper Heatspreaders
> Lifetime Warranty
> 2.6 Volts
> 184 Pin DIMM
> Part Number: OCZ4002048PFDC-K
>
> The timings are a bit high, is that something that can be avoided on large
> memory modules and should I go for it or wait until there is competition.
> That set is going for about £310 at the moment.
>
> any ideas?

You don't need 2GB. You'd be better off with a higher speed 1GB kit. Very
few applications will ever use anything over 1GB. Unless you're doing
AutoCAD work or other Engineering apps, or major video editing, you don't
need 2GB.


Bill G
January 27, 2005 11:00:07 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

> 1. It is essentially a file server on a workgroup (XP pro). I also VNC
> into it from other computers on my workgroup (mixture of Linux and XP
> PCs).
> 2. I wouldn't quite call myself a 'pro' photographer, but I do wourk with
> Hi-res digital media, and quite often scan images at 1200x2400dpi and tidy
> them up. I also do a lot of artwork with Macromedia's studio.
> 3. I like to tweak and overclock and I'd like to get the FSB up to 220 x
> 11 for my own satisfaction.


2GB of RAM is still unnecessary. 1GB will do just fine.
I currently run a dual-boot system (XP, FC3) with 1 GB of RAM (2, 512
sticks) on my NF7-S. I run it in dual-channel mode at 200Mhz (sync w/FSB)
with very tight timings (7, 3, 3, 2.0). It's paired with an XP2800+ OC'd to
3200+. Even though my vid card is aging (OC'd 9700 Pro) I can still run
games and apps lightning quick and with all the eye-candy turned up.

Also, remember that Windows LOVES to use the swap file (even if you have
more then enough RAM) so a fast hard drive will be a must for your setup,
especially when dealing with huge pics.
--


"I don't cheat to survive. I cheat to LIVE!!"

- Alceryes


"Pete Davidson" <turbulent.hair@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:6KXJd.1539$hv1.1057@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
> Thanks Thomas and Richard for your replies.
>
> Appologies for my lack of provided information;
> In answer to your questions the general day to day tasks of the PC i wish
> to upgrade are:
>
> 1. It is essentially a file server on a workgroup (XP pro). I also VNC
> into it from other computers on my workgroup (mixture of Linux and XP
> PCs).
> 2. I wouldn't quite call myself a 'pro' photographer, but I do wourk with
> Hi-res digital media, and quite often scan images at 1200x2400dpi and tidy
> them up. I also do a lot of artwork with Macromedia's studio.
> 3. I like to tweak and overclock and I'd like to get the FSB up to 220 x
> 11 for my own satisfaction.
> 4. Along with the tweaking I partake in gaming, LAN's etc.
> 5. Other things I use that seem to eat my memory are when I am using my PC
> to watch TV, Visual Studio and Office get quite hungry when doing anything
> heavy on either of them, less often I use music creating/editing software.
>
> I'm not trying to justify 2 1gb sticks; I'm asking for advice, it just
> seems like a sensible idea.
>
>> That's a double edged question. Whether you can get large modules with
>> low
>> timings is one part. Whether you'd be better off going for smaller
>> modules
>> with very low timings is another part.
>
> I imagine you swing towards recommending the latter: would it be better to
> go for 2 high performance 512mb sticks and OC them (or 3)? I only have 3
> slots on my mobo.
>
> Thanks very much
>
> Pete
>
>
>
> "Richard Hopkins" <richh@dsl.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:41f7cc7e$0$16585$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
>> "Pete Davidson" wrote in message...
>>> I am planning to upgrade my system memory.
>>
>> Is there any particular reason? What are you actually looking for out of
>> the
>> upgrade, more performance, better multitasking, more gaming speed, better
>> overclocking potential, all of the above, what?
>>
>>> At the moment I have 2 unbranded sticks of PC3200 512mb ddr.
>>> I was thinking about upgrading to OCZ's "2Gb PC3200
>>> Performance kit; the stats are as follows:
>>
>> There are very few scenarios in which a typical home PC user will
>> actually
>> benefit from more than a gig of memory, which is why I asked you above if
>> you've got a specific need for this amount. What sort of jobs does your
>> PC
>> normally do?
>>
>>> The timings are a bit high, is that something that can be avoided
>>> on large memory modules
>>
>> That's a double edged question. Whether you can get large modules with
>> low
>> timings is one part. Whether you'd be better off going for smaller
>> modules
>> with very low timings is another part.
>>
>>> and should I go for it or wait until there is competition. That set is
>>> going for about £310 at the moment.
>>>
>>> any ideas?
>>
>> Your questions are largely impossible to answer as you haven't bothered
>> to
>> tell us why you're thinking of upgrading, or indeed what you're hoping to
>> gain. If you're a pro photographer and spend all your day editing eight
>> megapixel raw image files, the memory will no doubt help. If all you do
>> is
>> surf the web, write Word documents or play games, it probably won't make
>> any
>> noticeable difference at all.
>> --
>>
>>
>> Richard Hopkins
>> Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom
>> (replace nospam with pipex in reply address)
>>
>> The UK's leading technology reseller www.dabs.com
>>
>>
>
>
January 27, 2005 12:08:30 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

"Pete Davidson" <turbulent.hair@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:yTWJd.1519$hv1.827@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
> Hi there. Thanks for that, I wasn't aware that you could run dual channel
> on 4 slots - though it does make sense. I kind of like my mobo. At the
> moment it is a SKt A DFI NfII ultra B. I use most of the features on it
> and I'm not too sure if I can find one that'll OC as well.
>
> Pete
>
> "Pat" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:41f7e84b_2@127.0.0.1...
>> "Pete Davidson" <turbulent.hair@virgin.net> wrote in message
>> news:fHFJd.17$Wq.0@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> I am planning to upgrade my system memory. At the moment I have 2
>>> unbranded sticks of PC3200 512mb ddr. I was thinking about upgrading to
>>> OCZ's "2Gb PC3200 Performance kit; the stats are as follows:
>>>
>>> 400MHZ DDR
>>> CL3-3-3-7
>>> 2GB Kit (2x1GB modules)
>>> ULN2 Technology
>>> Unbuffered
>>> Copper Heatspreaders
>>> Lifetime Warranty
>>> 2.6 Volts
>>> 184 Pin DIMM
>>> Part Number: OCZ4002048PFDC-K
>>>
>>> The timings are a bit high, is that something that can be avoided on
>>> large memory modules and should I go for it or wait until there is
>>> competition. That set is going for about £310 at the moment.
>>>
>>> any ideas?
>>>
>>> Pete
>>>
>>
>> From what I've seen, 1 GB modules tend to have the slower timings. If you
>> manage to find them with 2 or 2.5 CAS, you'll certainly pay a premium for
>> it. I don't know what your budget allows, but it maybe it would be better
>> to get 4 512MB modules, and a new motherboard if your current board
>> doesn't have 4 slots for dual channel. Then you could benefit from some
>> really fast timings. Depending on your specific setup, it may be cheaper
>> than CAS 2 or 2.5 1 GB modules.
>>
>
>


Many motherboards won't allow dual channel with 3 or 4 sticks of RAM. when I
suggested that I wasn't sure which board you had. I've got an 865PE chipset
that does allow 4 sticks for dual channel. I'm not sure if there are n-force
/ amd chipset boards that allow it or not.

Pat
January 27, 2005 1:08:58 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

Pete Davidson wrote:
> Hi there. Thanks for that, I wasn't aware that you could run dual
> channel on 4 slots - though it does make sense. I kind of like my
> mobo. At the moment it is a SKt A DFI NfII ultra B. I use most of the
> features on it and I'm not too sure if I can find one that'll OC as
> well.

Hey Pete,
Pls reply UNDER the quoted text, that keeps things readable.

The nice thing about the NForce 2 solution, is that it runs the dual channel
RAM asymmetrically. Theoretically, it can run one stick of PC2100, and one
stick of PC3200 in dual channel mode. In practice, I dont have much
experience.

What I am trying to say, is that if I were you, I'd add memory to what you
have already got. That can be 512 MB or 1 GB...

I still think 2 GB is overkill, but you're the only one who can judge this.
When working with your system, check the task manager to see how much memory
you're using at the moment.

--
Thomas
January 27, 2005 3:31:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

I have the Gold EL PC3200...you may not get it beyond 205 mhz...I have it in
an A7N8X-deluxe rev 2.0. The Platinum 3200 rev 2.0 is the ram they say can
hit 300 mhz. Hit a few OC'ing sites and see if that version has beat the
200+ barrier. I am pretty sure it will not do 220 when the Gold EL doesn't
seem to in most setups.
January 27, 2005 7:11:23 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

Pat wrote:
> Many motherboards won't allow dual channel with 3 or 4 sticks of RAM.
> when I suggested that I wasn't sure which board you had. I've got an
> 865PE chipset that does allow 4 sticks for dual channel. I'm not sure
> if there are n-force / amd chipset boards that allow it or not.

NForce chipsets support asymmetric dual channel. Anyway the dual channel
solution in AMD systems is not that important. The performance gain is much
smaller than in the P4 systems.

--
Thomas
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b } Memory
January 27, 2005 7:53:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

Many motherboards won't allow dual channel with 3 or 4 sticks of RAM. when I
suggested that I wasn't sure which board you had. I've got an 865PE chipset
that does allow 4 sticks for dual channel. I'm not sure if there are n-force
/ amd chipset boards that allow it or not.

Pat
_____________________-----------------------------__________________

The Nforce 3 boards allows dual channel with 4 dimms,but the speed drops from
400 to 333.
DOUG
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b } Memory
January 27, 2005 9:10:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

"Pete Davidson" wrote in message...
> 1. It is essentially a file server on a workgroup (XP pro).

You're not going to profitably use more than a gig on a small workgroup
fileserver, unless of course you're using it as a workstation as well.

> 2. I wouldn't quite call myself a 'pro' photographer, but I do wourk
> with Hi-res digital media, and quite often scan images at 1200x2400dpi
> and tidy them up.

Now that, as the other guys have said, is where you may be able to use the
extra.

> 3. I like to tweak and overclock and I'd like to get the FSB up to
> 220 x 11 for my own satisfaction.

If that's what you've got in mind, PC3200 is not what you want. PC3700, at
the very least.

> 5. Other things I use that seem to eat my memory are when I am using my PC
> to watch TV,

Strange, there's no obvious reason why that should swallow enormous amounts
of RAM.

> Visual Studio and Office get quite hungry when doing anything heavy on
> either of them, less often I use music creating/editing
> software.

Fair comment about VS and MSOffice, but even multitasking quite intensively
you'd be hard pushed to spot the difference between one gig and two.

> I'm not trying to justify 2 1gb sticks; I'm asking for advice, it just
> seems like a sensible idea.

Seems like a lot of money to shell out on gains that won't altogether be
hugely noticeable.

> I imagine you swing towards recommending the latter: would it be better
> to go for 2 high performance 512mb sticks and OC them (or 3)? I only
> have 3 slots on my mobo.

Tricky. If it was me I'd probably stick as I am, and save the money towards
my next major hardware upgrade, or maybe get one extra stick of reasonable
branded memory. As things stand, spending quite a bit on memory you may have
to chuck the next time you upgrade your motherboard, doesn't seem like a
particularly good exchange. As always though, it's your money, so don't take
our word for it!
--


Richard Hopkins
Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom
(replace nospam with pipex in reply address)

The UK's leading technology reseller www.dabs.com
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b } Memory
January 28, 2005 4:04:03 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

Alceryes wrote:
>> 1. It is essentially a file server on a workgroup (XP pro). I also
>> VNC into it from other computers on my workgroup (mixture of Linux
>> and XP PCs).
>> 2. I wouldn't quite call myself a 'pro' photographer, but I do wourk
>> with Hi-res digital media, and quite often scan images at
>> 1200x2400dpi and tidy them up. I also do a lot of artwork with
>> Macromedia's studio. 3. I like to tweak and overclock and I'd like to get
>> the FSB up to
>> 220 x 11 for my own satisfaction.
>
>
> 2GB of RAM is still unnecessary. 1GB will do just fine.

It depends critically on #2. A normal 9x5 photo at that sort of resolution
will eat up ~500mb of RAM before you even start doing anything with it.
Start actually editing it or using layers and the memory usage will go up
very quickly (undo buffer, etc). If you've got more than one photo like that
open at a time, having more than a gig of memory is essential, especially
with XP's background usage of close to 150-180Mb (assuming a typically
configured software dev system, given the OP mentioned VS). However,
restricting yourself to one photo open, and not trying to have lots of apps
open at once, you could get away with 1GB of RAM. Check on Task Manager to
see how much RAM is being used when you've got a "typcial" set of
applications running. If it's over 1GB, then you'd probably see an increase
by going to 2GB.

As for the question of what to get ... that depends on what you have and how
much money you are willing to spend :)  If you've already got 1GB in the form
of 1 512MB sticks, then just pick up another two 512MB sticks. If you've
already used up more than two slots, then there's a bit of a tradeoff
between getting 2x1024 vs 4x512. The 2-stick configuration will leave you
room to upgrade, but will probably have slightly slower timings. The 4-stick
configuration will possibly overclock less, since you're now limited by the
lowest of 4 sticks as opposed to the lowest of two (but also the 1GB sticks
probably have less headroom to start off with ...).

I wouldn't worry TOO much about getting RAM with the absolute fastest
timings. There's very little real-world difference between tightest-timings
CAS2 and "average" timings CAS2.5, though by CAS3 with loose timings you may
be seeing 5% or so.

As you said that you're aiming for a 220MHz FSB, it may be better (and
possibly cheaper even) to go for four 512MB PC3500 sticks as opposed to two
1GB PC3200 sticks.

[...]

PS: I think my news-server is dropping a lot of posts, so I've quite
possibly missed something (such as what you currently have, or why you can't
go 4-sticks, etc).

--
Michael Brown
www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more :) 
Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz ---+--- My inbox is always open
January 28, 2005 4:04:04 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

Michael Brown wrote:
> As you said that you're aiming for a 220MHz FSB, it may be better (and
> possibly cheaper even) to go for four 512MB PC3500 sticks as opposed
> to two 1GB PC3200 sticks.
>
> [...]
>
> PS: I think my news-server is dropping a lot of posts, so I've quite
> possibly missed something (such as what you currently have, or why
> you can't go 4-sticks, etc).


He has an NForce 2 mainboard, with 3 slots, one free. I also suggested
adding 1 module to his existing 512 MB modules...

--
Thomas
January 28, 2005 4:04:05 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

"Thomas" <thomas_@lycos.nl> wrote in message
news:35sbqrF4pb0scU1@individual.net...
> Michael Brown wrote:
>> As you said that you're aiming for a 220MHz FSB, it may be better (and
>> possibly cheaper even) to go for four 512MB PC3500 sticks as opposed
>> to two 1GB PC3200 sticks.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> PS: I think my news-server is dropping a lot of posts, so I've quite
>> possibly missed something (such as what you currently have, or why
>> you can't go 4-sticks, etc).
>
>
> He has an NForce 2 mainboard, with 3 slots, one free. I also suggested
> adding 1 module to his existing 512 MB modules...
>
> --
> Thomas
>



Yes, with the new information coming to light, and since the OP said he's
pretty happy with his existing motherboard, I'd also recommend adding 1
stick o' Ram. Memory timings are a bit overrated in my mind, but they do
make a small difference.

Once you start adding a bunch of stuff up, like dual channel, tight timings,
high FSB, each which will give you a few percent performace gain, suddenly
you're looking at a noticable performance gain.

Another random thought would be go get a second or faster hard drive. Raid
will add a few more percent performance to the system when you're swapping
to the hard disk. Or just use the second disk as a file store/swap space.
And like someone in this thread said, it just seems Windows loves to cache
to the hard drive, even when there's all kinds of ram available.

Hope the advice here helps you a bit, please post back your final decision,
We'd like to hear which way you went.

Pat
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b } Memory
January 28, 2005 9:57:14 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

Thanks for the advice

In regards to raid, I can do a software RAID with my current motherboard.
Would striped be the faster or mirrored. Also from what I have heard if the
MOBO was o die on a software striped system the config info is held on the
mobo rather than the HD so I would lose any data on the HDs, it that correct
or inaccurate.

What sort of average cost are we looking at for a SCSI hardware RAID?

regards

Pete

"Pat" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:41f9041f$1_2@127.0.0.1...
> "Thomas" <thomas_@lycos.nl> wrote in message
> news:35sbqrF4pb0scU1@individual.net...
>> Michael Brown wrote:
>>> As you said that you're aiming for a 220MHz FSB, it may be better (and
>>> possibly cheaper even) to go for four 512MB PC3500 sticks as opposed
>>> to two 1GB PC3200 sticks.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> PS: I think my news-server is dropping a lot of posts, so I've quite
>>> possibly missed something (such as what you currently have, or why
>>> you can't go 4-sticks, etc).
>>
>>
>> He has an NForce 2 mainboard, with 3 slots, one free. I also suggested
>> adding 1 module to his existing 512 MB modules...
>>
>> --
>> Thomas
>>
>
>
>
> Yes, with the new information coming to light, and since the OP said he's
> pretty happy with his existing motherboard, I'd also recommend adding 1
> stick o' Ram. Memory timings are a bit overrated in my mind, but they do
> make a small difference.
>
> Once you start adding a bunch of stuff up, like dual channel, tight
> timings, high FSB, each which will give you a few percent performace gain,
> suddenly you're looking at a noticable performance gain.
>
> Another random thought would be go get a second or faster hard drive. Raid
> will add a few more percent performance to the system when you're swapping
> to the hard disk. Or just use the second disk as a file store/swap space.
> And like someone in this thread said, it just seems Windows loves to cache
> to the hard drive, even when there's all kinds of ram available.
>
> Hope the advice here helps you a bit, please post back your final
> decision, We'd like to hear which way you went.
>
> Pat
>
>
January 28, 2005 9:57:15 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

"Pete Davidson" <turbulent.hair@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:eWvKd.197$te7.24@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
> Thanks for the advice
>
> In regards to raid, I can do a software RAID with my current motherboard.
> Would striped be the faster or mirrored. Also from what I have heard if
> the MOBO was o die on a software striped system the config info is held on
> the mobo rather than the HD so I would lose any data on the HDs, it that
> correct or inaccurate.
>
> What sort of average cost are we looking at for a SCSI hardware RAID?
>
> regards
>


Wow, now we're getting way off topic but here's some tips. Stripping is way
faster than mirroring (by way faster, I mean milli-seconds, if that. Hey,
its all relative right?). The more drives you stripe, the more throughput
you'll get. Any RAID setup usually increases seek times. You've got to wait
for all of the drives to respond instead of just one.

If you're looking at SCSI RAID, get a dedicated controler. Software raid
will eat up processor cycles.

But really, its hard to start offering RAID advice other than to do some
research. When doing that research, you'll notice that SCSI hard drives are
really expensive. I think you'll find that a few decent sized drives, plus a
decent raid controller will quickly cost you into the low thousands of
dollars.

If you're looking for low cost, get yourself a add-on SATA RAID Controller.
Not an onboard motherboard thing.

If you're having serious performance problems with what you've got now,
start by adding that Gig of RAM. Then go from there.

If the bottom line on this entire thread is that users are sick of waiting
for files because the file server is too slow, I'd recommend a few things.

1. Use a dedicated file server.
2. Have multiple, independant drives, on multiple, independent controllers.
3. Only have people map to the drives they need/use.

Think about this. 10 users all lined up in a queue waiting their turn to get
through the controller, then waiting for the drive to read the data. That's
slow and unefficient.

Now think about 5 users going to one controller/drive, and 5 others going to
another controller/drive. Assuming your not CPU bound, you just cut the wait
time in half.

And my last peice of advice, don't use a server as a workstation, and don't
use a workstation as a server. Go get yourself a Penitum 200 and slap a few
drives in it. You'd be amazed at what little power it takes to have a great
file server.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b } Memory
January 29, 2005 5:08:07 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

Pete Davidson wrote:

> In regards to raid, I can do a software RAID with my current
> motherboard. Would striped be the faster or mirrored. Also from what
> I have heard if the MOBO was o die on a software striped system the
> config info is held on the mobo rather than the HD so I would lose
> any data on the HDs, it that correct or inaccurate.

I suggest that you do some more reading about what RAID actually is before
taking the plunge. The difference between striped and mirrored is rather
more fundamental than "which is faster". The former is about speed, the
latter security.

Whether what you're referring to is 'software' or 'hardware' RAID is
debatable. I'm assuming that you've bought a motherboard that incorporates a
RAID controller, and in my book that's hardware RAID, as opposed to the
software RAID offered by some operating systems. It's true that it uses more
local processing than a 'real' RAID controller with local intelligence
though.

Be wary of onboard RAID controllers and how you recover your data [from
striped sets] if your motherboard dies. I did recently manage to salvage my
setup after my old Gigabyte board died, using a PCI RAID controller card
from a different manufacturer (using a different RAID controller chipset
even!), but I put that down to luck rather than skill.

> What sort of average cost are we looking at for a SCSI hardware RAID?

Lots.

Summary: striping is risky, mirroring is good but costs, decent true
hardware controllers cost LOTS.

Is it really worth the hassle?

--

/mel/

np: Astral Projection - Zero
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b } Memory
January 29, 2005 10:08:36 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

"Pete Davidson" wrote in message...
> In regards to raid, I can do a software RAID with my current
> motherboard.

Does your motherboard have a built-in RAID controller? If it does, that's
really hardware level RAID. Sure, it does need a certain amount of CPU
involvement, but nowhere near as much as the pure software RAID offered by
Windows 2000 and Windows XP.

> Would striped be the faster or mirrored.

Striping (RAID 0) is the performance strategy. It allows two (or more)
drives to be read from or written to more or less in parallel. The capacity
will be equal to both drives added together, but the downside is that if one
of the drives fails, you lose all the data.

Mirroring is normally slightly slower than a single disk, but does offer
data redundancy in the event that one of the drives in the set fails.
However, the array you create will have a capacity equal to one of the two
drives.

If you do consider creating a RAID 0 array, bear in mind that to get the
largest performance boost you will need another disk identical to the one
you currently have. If your current drive model isn't still available new,
this would then have a big influence on your decision. The other thing if
you go striping, as mentioned above, is the even stronger need to back up
your important information.

> Aso from what I have heard if the MOBO was o die on a software
> striped system the config info is held on the mobo rather than the
> HD so I would lose any data on the HDs, it that correct or
> inaccurate.

If we're really talking about a (hardware level) integrated RAID controller,
what you have heard is totally inaccurate. Every IDE/SATA RAID controller
I've ever seen stores its array metrics on the drives themselves. If your
motherboard fails, just get another one with the same sort (or make) of
controller, and the array should start straight back up.

> What sort of average cost are we looking at for a SCSI
> hardware RAID?

Jeesh, loadsamoney, at least in comparison to ATA/SATA. A lot depends on
whether you're talking about a basic controller and cheap drives or a
full-on PCI-X controller with its own processor and buffer RAM, an SCA
chassis and four 15K rpm disks. Either way, SCSI just isn't worth the cost
in a home PC/workstation environment. Its advantages only really become
apparent when there are loads of users accessing loads of information at
once.
--


Richard Hopkins
Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom
(replace nospam with pipex in reply address)

The UK's leading technology reseller www.dabs.com
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b } Memory
February 1, 2005 4:41:57 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

Thanks Richard you have been especially helpful. My Mobo does have a built
in RAID controller for SATA. I have a matching pair of HDD's so I think I
might arrange a RAID 0 setup. I am aware of the risk with regards to that.

With regards to the memory issue, I have been running RAM idle and it was
reporting occasional moments of next to nothing memory, I think at the
moment I will keep one of my unbranded 512 sticks in the machine, move one
along to one of the lower spec computers and get a decent set of branded 2
512mb sticks of RAM. I am presuming that that will be sufficient memory for
all that I need my computer to do. I will also be taking the advice given in
regards to setting up a dedicated file server, though if I am doing that I
might make it a web server also.

Thanks again

Pete


"Richard Hopkins" <richh@dsl.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:41fc272e$0$16572$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
> "Pete Davidson" wrote in message...
>> In regards to raid, I can do a software RAID with my current
>> motherboard.
>
> Does your motherboard have a built-in RAID controller? If it does, that's
> really hardware level RAID. Sure, it does need a certain amount of CPU
> involvement, but nowhere near as much as the pure software RAID offered by
> Windows 2000 and Windows XP.
>
>> Would striped be the faster or mirrored.
>
> Striping (RAID 0) is the performance strategy. It allows two (or more)
> drives to be read from or written to more or less in parallel. The
> capacity will be equal to both drives added together, but the downside is
> that if one of the drives fails, you lose all the data.
>
> Mirroring is normally slightly slower than a single disk, but does offer
> data redundancy in the event that one of the drives in the set fails.
> However, the array you create will have a capacity equal to one of the two
> drives.
>
> If you do consider creating a RAID 0 array, bear in mind that to get the
> largest performance boost you will need another disk identical to the one
> you currently have. If your current drive model isn't still available new,
> this would then have a big influence on your decision. The other thing if
> you go striping, as mentioned above, is the even stronger need to back up
> your important information.
>
>> Aso from what I have heard if the MOBO was o die on a software
>> striped system the config info is held on the mobo rather than the
>> HD so I would lose any data on the HDs, it that correct or
>> inaccurate.
>
> If we're really talking about a (hardware level) integrated RAID
> controller, what you have heard is totally inaccurate. Every IDE/SATA RAID
> controller I've ever seen stores its array metrics on the drives
> themselves. If your motherboard fails, just get another one with the same
> sort (or make) of controller, and the array should start straight back up.
>
>> What sort of average cost are we looking at for a SCSI
>> hardware RAID?
>
> Jeesh, loadsamoney, at least in comparison to ATA/SATA. A lot depends on
> whether you're talking about a basic controller and cheap drives or a
> full-on PCI-X controller with its own processor and buffer RAM, an SCA
> chassis and four 15K rpm disks. Either way, SCSI just isn't worth the cost
> in a home PC/workstation environment. Its advantages only really become
> apparent when there are loads of users accessing loads of information at
> once.
> --
>
>
> Richard Hopkins
> Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom
> (replace nospam with pipex in reply address)
>
> The UK's leading technology reseller www.dabs.com
>
>
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b } Memory
February 1, 2005 4:48:32 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclockers.amd,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

Thanks to everyone for the advice.

With regards to the memory issue, I have been running RAM idle and it was
reporting occasional moments of next to nothing memory, I think at the
moment I will keep one of my unbranded 512 sticks in the machine, move one
along to one of the lower spec computers and get a decent set of branded 2
512mb sticks of RAM. I am presuming that that will be sufficient memory for
all that I need my computer to do. I will also be taking the advice given in
regards to setting up a dedicated file server, though if I am doing that I
might make it a web server also. (Probably a 500Mhz machine, I seem to have
plenty of those bloody AMD processors and motherboards lying around; might
as well get the use out of them...

I am going to backup my data, wipe the matching hard drives and arrange a
RAID 0 setup. I think it's about time the machine had a rebuild anyway, I
was lazy when tying the cables the first time. :-P

Thanks again

Pete

"Pete Davidson" <turbulent.hair@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:fHFJd.17$Wq.0@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
> Hi
>
> I am planning to upgrade my system memory. At the moment I have 2
> unbranded sticks of PC3200 512mb ddr. I was thinking about upgrading to
> OCZ's "2Gb PC3200 Performance kit; the stats are as follows:
>
> 400MHZ DDR
> CL3-3-3-7
> 2GB Kit (2x1GB modules)
> ULN2 Technology
> Unbuffered
> Copper Heatspreaders
> Lifetime Warranty
> 2.6 Volts
> 184 Pin DIMM
> Part Number: OCZ4002048PFDC-K
>
> The timings are a bit high, is that something that can be avoided on large
> memory modules and should I go for it or wait until there is competition.
> That set is going for about £310 at the moment.
>
> any ideas?
>
> Pete
>
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b } Memory
February 15, 2005 5:14:28 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

Why is that?
"Thomas" <thomas_@lycos.nl> wrote in message
news:35sekkF4np494U1@individual.net...
> Pat wrote:
>> Many motherboards won't allow dual channel with 3 or 4 sticks of RAM.
>> when I suggested that I wasn't sure which board you had. I've got an
>> 865PE chipset that does allow 4 sticks for dual channel. I'm not sure
>> if there are n-force / amd chipset boards that allow it or not.
>
> NForce chipsets support asymmetric dual channel. Anyway the dual channel
> solution in AMD systems is not that important. The performance gain is
> much
> smaller than in the P4 systems.
>
> --
> Thomas
>
>
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b } Memory
February 15, 2005 5:14:29 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

Pete Davidson wrote:

> Why is that?

Because the FSB on AMD 32 bit systems is already the same as a single
memory channel (so where is the extra memory bandwidth to go?) whereas a P4
800 Mhz (QDR) FSB is twice the bandwidth of a single DDR400.


> "Thomas" <thomas_@lycos.nl> wrote in message
> news:35sekkF4np494U1@individual.net...
>
>>Pat wrote:
>>
>>>Many motherboards won't allow dual channel with 3 or 4 sticks of RAM.
>>>when I suggested that I wasn't sure which board you had. I've got an
>>>865PE chipset that does allow 4 sticks for dual channel. I'm not sure
>>>if there are n-force / amd chipset boards that allow it or not.
>>
>>NForce chipsets support asymmetric dual channel. Anyway the dual channel
>>solution in AMD systems is not that important. The performance gain is
>>much
>>smaller than in the P4 systems.
>>
>>--
>>Thomas
>>
>>
>
>
>
!