Memory Speed

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Conor Turton wrote:
>
> The whole system takes a fraction longer to load because Windows XP
> uses a different configuration for computers with large
memory..shoves
> a bit more of the system files in RAM. The speed up in Excel shows
> this.

Oh, would it be beneficial for me to upgrade my memory? I've got 512Mb
333MHz Samsung, but Windows (2000) never seems to use all of it, would
this be because it's holding back? I'm also gonna put Win XP Pro on
here soon, am I likely to see a drop in performance and an increase in
memory usage?

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Conor wrote:
> In article <1113571429.277010.117930@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> says...
> >
> > Conor Turton wrote:
> > >
> > > The whole system takes a fraction longer to load because Windows
XP
> > > uses a different configuration for computers with large
> > memory..shoves
> > > a bit more of the system files in RAM. The speed up in Excel
shows
> > > this.
> >
> > Oh, would it be beneficial for me to upgrade my memory?
>
> Depends on what you do with your PC.

lol, I knew somebody would say that. I was gonna put it in my last
post, and then realised that I don't actually know what I'm gonna be
using it for. When I finish uni my usage will change. I may even move
to Linux on my other machine. I won't be doing much heavy weight stuff
though, Internet, programming, and a bit of gamming probably.

> > I've got 512Mb
> > 333MHz Samsung, but Windows (2000) never seems to use all of it,
would
> > this be because it's holding back?
>
> Its because you don't use apps that need it.
>
> > I'm also gonna put Win XP Pro on
> > here soon, am I likely to see a drop in performance and an increase
in
> > memory usage?
> >
> A little increase but you shouldn't notice a drop in performance.

I'll stick with 512Mb then.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

In article <o7vt51ta17g5lalovfcht67q9gip7k1ela@4ax.com>, D.T says...
> I have a AMD 2500+ Computer in which I have just added an additional
> 512mb of memory to total 1 gig.
>
> I have a Gibabyte GA 7VT600 motherboard running at 167/333 FSB
>
> The orginal 512 mb of memory was PC2700. The new memory is PC3200.
>
> I realise that the PC3200 should run at the same speed as the PC2700
> ie underclocked. But I have some questions
>
> SiSoft Sandra 2005 shows one bank @ 333 & the other at 400.
> Is that just the inbuilt chip in the memory or are each memory bank
> actually running at different speeds.
>
> I have changed the Bios timing for the memory to 333 from auto with
> the same result.
>
> The whole system takes a fraction longer to load intially, is that
> just taking longer to sort out where the software loads in memory, as
> the computer on whole is much more responsive when changing from one
> program to another.
>
> Also my 36 mb Excel file now takes less than the 2 minutes it used to
> take to load. Changing between the 40 pages loaded in Firefox is a lot
> quicker too. This why I got the additional memory but I want to make
> sure that everything is as it should be
>
Yes, SiSoft Sandra reports what it finds on the SPD chip.
The whole system takes a fraction longer to load because Windows XP
uses a different configuration for computers with large memory..shoves
a bit more of the system files in RAM. The speed up in Excel shows
this.



--
Conor

"Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most." O.Osbourne.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Your RAM will not be running at differnt speeds , they cant run at
different speeds infact. They will both run @ 270Mhz (or what ever it
is) and there is no way they are running @ 400mhz unless youv
overclocked it.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

In article <1113571429.277010.117930@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
says...
>
> Conor Turton wrote:
> >
> > The whole system takes a fraction longer to load because Windows XP
> > uses a different configuration for computers with large
> memory..shoves
> > a bit more of the system files in RAM. The speed up in Excel shows
> > this.
>
> Oh, would it be beneficial for me to upgrade my memory?

Depends on what you do with your PC.

> I've got 512Mb
> 333MHz Samsung, but Windows (2000) never seems to use all of it, would
> this be because it's holding back?

Its because you don't use apps that need it.

> I'm also gonna put Win XP Pro on
> here soon, am I likely to see a drop in performance and an increase in
> memory usage?
>
A little increase but you shouldn't notice a drop in performance.


--
Conor

"Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most." O.Osbourne.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 10:22:33 +0100, Conor Turton
<conor@conorturton.com> wrote:

>In article <o7vt51ta17g5lalovfcht67q9gip7k1ela@4ax.com>, D.T says...
>> I have a AMD 2500+ Computer in which I have just added an additional
>> 512mb of memory to total 1 gig.
>>
>> I have a Gibabyte GA 7VT600 motherboard running at 167/333 FSB
>>
>> The orginal 512 mb of memory was PC2700. The new memory is PC3200.
>>
>> I realise that the PC3200 should run at the same speed as the PC2700
>> ie underclocked. But I have some questions
>>
>> SiSoft Sandra 2005 shows one bank @ 333 & the other at 400.
>> Is that just the inbuilt chip in the memory or are each memory bank
>> actually running at different speeds.
>>
>> I have changed the Bios timing for the memory to 333 from auto with
>> the same result.
>>
>> The whole system takes a fraction longer to load intially, is that
>> just taking longer to sort out where the software loads in memory, as
>> the computer on whole is much more responsive when changing from one
>> program to another.
>>
>> Also my 36 mb Excel file now takes less than the 2 minutes it used to
>> take to load. Changing between the 40 pages loaded in Firefox is a lot
>> quicker too. This why I got the additional memory but I want to make
>> sure that everything is as it should be
>>
>Yes, SiSoft Sandra reports what it finds on the SPD chip.
>The whole system takes a fraction longer to load because Windows XP
>uses a different configuration for computers with large memory..shoves
>a bit more of the system files in RAM. The speed up in Excel shows
>this.

Thanks for that. I thought that that was the case but I was getting
conficting infromation from the PC