Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Windows95B, Memory & VX Chipset ?

Last response: in Windows 95/98/ME
Share
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
April 29, 2004 1:09:35 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion (More info?)

My question regards PC performance as it relates to the amount of memory
installed on a Windows 95b system with a motherboard utilizing Intel's 430VX
Chipset.

I have read that one should not exceed 64MB EDO on systems with the 430VX
since that is the chipset's caching limit however my Biostar motherboard is
capable of supporting up to 128MB of memory.

Does anyone know how severe of a performance hit is taken should I increase
RAM?

Calculations and benchmarks are one thing but I was looking for real world
experience.

I appreciate this general discussion news group and hope my question is
relevant. Thanks, Frank
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
April 29, 2004 4:26:22 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion (More info?)

"Frank W. Uebersax" <f-uebersax@msn.com> wrote:

>I have read that one should not exceed 64MB EDO on systems with the 430VX
>since that is the chipset's caching limit however my Biostar motherboard is
>capable of supporting up to 128MB of memory.
>
>Does anyone know how severe of a performance hit is taken should I increase
>RAM?

Not very.

Your machine will access RAM over 64MB more slowly than if it could
cache it. But that is still *much* faster than accessing the virtual
memory (disk space) it will have to use if the RAM doesn't exist.

--
Tim Slattery
MS MVP(DTS)
Slattery_T@bls.gov
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
April 29, 2004 9:51:22 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion (More info?)

"Frank W. Uebersax" <f-uebersax@msn.com> wrote:

>My question regards PC performance as it relates to the amount of memory
>installed on a Windows 95b system with a motherboard utilizing Intel's 430VX
>Chipset.
>
>I have read that one should not exceed 64MB EDO on systems with the 430VX
>since that is the chipset's caching limit however my Biostar motherboard is
>capable of supporting up to 128MB of memory.
>
>Does anyone know how severe of a performance hit is taken should I increase
>RAM?
>
>Calculations and benchmarks are one thing but I was looking for real world
>experience.
>
>I appreciate this general discussion news group and hope my question is
>relevant. Thanks, Frank
>

If your system is actually using the swap file to any significant
extent (check this with the System Monitor utility in Windows - look
at "Memory Manager - Swap File In Use") then going beyond 64 mb of RAM
will result in improved performance.

Accessing RAM, even uncached RAM, is hundreds if not thousands of
times faster than accessing the hard drive.



Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."
!