Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

G.skill memory only 5.7 in windows experience?

Last response: in Components
Share
June 2, 2008 2:39:32 AM

Ok, I know that wei doesn't really tell you anything about your system, but it bothers me that my g.skill 4 gb (2x2gb) memory is a 5.7, and all the other reviewers on newegg with the exact same ram have a 5.9? why is this?

here is the exact memory: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

all my other components got a 5.9, so the memory score of 5.7 ruins my base score.

I have vista x 64
a b } Memory
June 2, 2008 2:45:08 AM

What is CPU-Z reporting for your memory frequency and timings?
June 2, 2008 2:56:47 AM

uhh...well my cpu on the other computer is hitting 75c idle, so im waiting for zalman hsf before i start up the computer
Related resources
June 2, 2008 3:16:59 AM

Hmm, I have the G.Skill PC2-8000 (DDR2-500) 4GB kit and I'm at 5.9 on my index running at 1GHz effective. Anyhow, don't take their (M$) ratings to the heart. If others are getting the same index as I am with the PC2-6400 kit, then maybe they have theirs over-clocked.
a b } Memory
June 2, 2008 3:21:05 AM

ispy said:
uhh...well my cpu on the other computer is hitting 75c idle, so im waiting for zalman hsf before i start up the computer
Lack of a Zalman cooler is NOT the reason you're hitting 75C at idle!

June 2, 2008 3:26:53 AM

WR2 said:
Lack of a Zalman cooler is NOT the reason you're hitting 75C at idle!

And he would be better off and load/run things faster (and never any issues) with allot less RAM usage if he was using XP.

On the cooler issue....why get a Zelman if you can use a Thermalright which is better?
June 2, 2008 3:43:44 AM

ispy said:
Ok, I know that wei doesn't really tell you anything about your system, but it bothers me that my g.skill 4 gb (2x2gb) memory is a 5.7, and all the other reviewers on newegg with the exact same ram have a 5.9? why is this?

here is the exact memory: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

all my other components got a 5.9, so the memory score of 5.7 ruins my base score.

I have vista x 64



what kind of hd do you have have? The slowest rating in my setup is hard drive.
June 2, 2008 3:51:07 AM

umm its a seagate 7200.11 7200 rpm 500 gb. I partitioned it in two 250 gb partitions, one for documents, os, drivers, etc. and one for games music and movies.

with vista disc management you can only partition it in half, and you can use third party software like partition magic. blah

heres the link to the exact hd. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
June 2, 2008 4:24:41 AM

ispy said:
umm its a seagate 7200.11 7200 rpm 500 gb. I partitioned it in two 250 gb partitions, one for documents, os, drivers, etc. and one for games music and movies.

with vista disc management you can only partition it in half, and you can use third party software like partition magic. blah

heres the link to the exact hd. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...


That's why you partition it before you install Vista on it. I have mine in 4 partition's with Vista on a 25g partition..Anyway Im using A-Data pc-6400 4g 2x2g and im getting 5.9 as well.
June 2, 2008 4:40:54 AM

Have you adjusted your timings?
June 2, 2008 4:42:01 AM

Yeah Im using g skill pc2-8400(The same as you ) And I got a 5.9. But my base sorce is 5.6 for HDD its a WD 320gb 7200RPM. All the rest are 5.9s
June 2, 2008 4:45:51 AM

Really...it is Vista.
It does not matter if it reports 5.7 vs 5.9 after all.

If you really care about how good/fast things run reformat the drive and install XP and see how much faster things run.

Most people with a high end system that "upgraded" to Vista or always had Vista can't tell...but a reformate and install of XP gives most people a -noticeable- boost.
Software after all is written to run on XP and -will- use alot less RAM doing so at the same time.
June 2, 2008 4:50:16 AM

ZOldDude said:
Really...it is Vista.
It does not matter if it reports 5.7 vs 5.9 after all.

If you really care about how good/fast things run reformat the drive and install XP and see how much faster things run.

Most people with a high end system that "upgrade" to Vista or always had Vista can't tell...but a reformate and install of XP gives most people a -noticeabl- boost.
Software after all is written to run on XP and use alot less RAM doing so.


Please explain how having a "high end rig" makes RAM operate faster?
June 2, 2008 4:54:03 AM

i don't think he means it operates faster...i think what he meant is that vista is a resource hog compared to xp.
June 2, 2008 5:02:05 AM

aznguy0028 said:
i don't think he means it operates faster...i think what he meant is that vista is a resource hog compared to xp.



Well that's a totally different argument there. People who actually know about how Vista uses Ram and such know it's not a resource hog.

It is far more intelligent than XP at using system resources to carry out task's. That is why i can play Crysis on ultra high in a window and surf tom'shardware at the same time.

Just becuase it allocates ram and such different doesnt make it bad people are just misunderstood...

June 2, 2008 5:03:28 AM

what is your cpu are you using and what are your overclocks if any?
Higher fsb speeds mean more memory performance. This could explain why certain people will have a better score then you...they might be using faster cpu.
June 2, 2008 5:10:06 AM

xx12amanxx said:
Please explain how having a "high end rig" makes RAM operate faster?

It doesn't and I never said it did.
The point I was trying to make is that people with a "high end" computter that "upgraded" to Vista may not have noticed the drop in overall preformance...and those who started with Vista would never have the chance to notice at all.

The facts are that Vista can never run anything -as fast- as XP can.
It is a DRM bloated P.O.S. that attempts to load as much of the OS as it can based on amount of RAM...and at any amount of RAM can -never- run anything as fast as XP.

Now if you have Vista and you are happy with it then I am happy for you and we have no problems with each other.
The facts however remain that it is bloated/slower and the systems I build are for performance and that rules out Vista.

With XP and 2GB of RAM I run 4 stand alone security programs,run 6 torrents and play Frontlines:Fuel of War all at the same time with 49% of physical RAM use.
Vist with 4GB of RAM uses almost the same amount -just- to load the OS...and it reacts slower as well.
June 2, 2008 5:14:15 AM

ZOldDude said:
It doesn't and I never said it did.
The point I was trying to make is that people with a "high end" computter that "upgraded" to Vista may not have noticed the drop in overall preformance...and those who started with Vista would never have the chance to notice at all.

The facts are that Vista can never run anything -as fast- as XP can.
It is a DRM bloated P.O.S. that attempts to load as much of the OS as it can based on amount of RAM...and at any amount of RAM can -never- run anything as fast as XP.

Now if you have Vista and you are happy with it then I am happy for you and we have no problems with each other.
The facts however remain that it is bloated/slower and the systems I build are for performance and that rules out Vista.

With XP and 2GB of RAM I run 4 stand alone security programs,run 6 torrents and play Frontlines:Feul of War all at the same time with 49% of physical RAM use.
Vist with 4GB of RAM uses almost the same amount -just- to load the OS...and it reacts slower as well.


Well then i agree to disagree....I used XP for year's and built 3 system's with it. I recently decided to go out on a limb and try Vista 64bit and was totally blown away everything was faster and i cant understand why some people bash it to the ground?

Oh well it's all good though.
June 2, 2008 5:22:41 AM

1824721,15,298970}People who actually know about how Vista uses Ram and such know it's not a resource hog.[/quotemsg said:


The only people who -claim- Vista is NOT a reasource hog are people who either really know nothing or are MS meat puppets who troll forums to spread false info/propaganda.

Test after test from many review sites show Vista can NOT run anything AS FAST as XP and it ALWAYS uses more RAM.
Don't take thier word for it....test Vista,reformate with XP and retest. The results prove it all.

Like I said befor if your using Vista and your happy with it then I am happy for you....but I build game systems and I know better and do not use Vista.
June 2, 2008 5:47:19 AM

xx12amanxx said:
Well then i agree to disagree....I used XP for year's and built 3 system's with it. I recently decided to go out on a limb and try Vista 64bit and was totally blown away everything was faster and i cant understand why some people bash it to the ground?

Oh well it's all good though.


Others have said the same.

Most people who "upgrade" have reformated the HD and that alone with any OS makes a noticable boost.

However...the ONLY way to test is to use the -same- HD with a fresh install of each OS and the same installed testing programs in the same order.
One after the other with a fresh reformat...never a dual boot

On fresh installs with the same hardware test after test from countless review sites show Vista to load/run everything slower than XP and always use more RAM while doing so.
Granted on todays high/top end systems it may be hard for a human to tell....but the same human used to the Vista install seems to notice the improved boost when the reformat and go to XP while the benchmarks show a greater boost.
Lower end systems seem to show the most improvement to a user without the aid of benchmarks.

In any event MS has seen what the sales of Vista/XP and user comments/buying trends say to them.
MS has posted press as reported by CNET that all support for Vista ends at years close in 2008 while it has extended support for XP to years end 2010.

MS also reports that OS 7 sales will start in 2011.
That does not to say OS 7 will be as good as XP or better than Vista...but lets hope for in between them.
Most of us old timeres and power users could live with that.

June 2, 2008 5:52:27 AM

Oh...and any 64 bit OS that runs a 32 bit program slows down so it can translate/emulate it.
Your Vista 64 bit would in fact run faster if it was just Vista 32 bit....and even use less RAM at the same time.
Also when Vista 64 bit OS runs a 32 bit program it has lost any so called "security benifits". See www.grc.com/securitynow podcast on it for the reasons why this happens.
June 2, 2008 6:07:08 AM

I hope I have answered any questions here about XP vs Vista.
June 2, 2008 6:11:14 AM

Also Vista may seem faster because its coded to use a quad while XP is designed for single/dual cores(acheived via dual processors or hyperthreading at the time). So even if Vista uses more resources it knows where to find more.
a b } Memory
June 2, 2008 6:38:46 AM

ZOldDude said:
I hope I have answered any questions here about XP vs Vista.
Not at all.

June 2, 2008 6:50:29 AM

to xX12amanXx
btw a higher end rig may have a faster fsb. faster fsb means better memory performance because in most cases the fsb is slower then the memory bus.

An earlier post talked about how he imporved his score by OC'ing his q6600 which goes to prove the point. stock fsb on a q6600 is 1066mhz, while ddr2 800 in dual channel provides up to 1600mhz. if he oc'ed to 3.0Ghz his new fsb would be 1332mhz. The new fsb makes better use of his memory.
a b } Memory
June 2, 2008 1:34:38 PM

ZOldDude said:

The only people who -claim- Vista is NOT a reasource hog are people who either really know nothing or are MS meat puppets who troll forums to spread false info/propaganda.

Test after test from many review sites show Vista can NOT run anything AS FAST as XP and it ALWAYS uses more RAM.
Don't take thier word for it....test Vista,reformate with XP and retest. The results prove it all.

Like I said befor if your using Vista and your happy with it then I am happy for you....but I build game systems and I know better and do not use Vista.



Answer: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2302495,00.a...



And this is no less than the FIFTH time I'm posting the official life cycle for the Windows product lines in response to your bullsh*t. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/default.mspx

http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifeselectindex

http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?p1=12534



Last time I called you a liar, and you had no response... This time I simply invite you to prove your bullsh*t claims.
June 2, 2008 1:40:42 PM

ZOldDude said:
Others have said the same.


In any event MS has seen what the sales of Vista/XP and user comments/buying trends say to them.
MS has posted press as reported by CNET that all support for Vista ends at years close in 2008 while it has extended support for XP to years end 2010.

MS also reports that OS 7 sales will start in 2011.
That does not to say OS 7 will be as good as XP or better than Vista...but lets hope for in between them.
Most of us old timeres and power users could live with that.


Stop spreading FUD. I want a link.
a b } Memory
June 2, 2008 1:57:46 PM

Wow. All I can say is that I used to game with XP Pro 32 bit.
I upgraded to Vista 32 and you know what? I think it is great.
I have not noticed any issues at all? I personally think it is an improvement over XP.
June 2, 2008 2:07:57 PM

From a performance standpoint I have no problems with Vista. You say it runs slower than XP? Well gee, I wonder why? Could it be that XP is six years old! The same FUD flew around back in '02, people calling XP a resource hog and saying that 2k was far superior. Get over it, its called progress.

Now, from a UI standpoint, Vista sux horribly IMO, but thats another argument. Just another facet of progress I guess. And its not the looks, Areo looks great, its the fact that nothing has the same name or location as it did in XP.
June 2, 2008 2:08:41 PM

I love when someone rants about something they have no clue about.
June 2, 2008 2:20:22 PM

I actually like Vista.
I hated XP, my last PC I had downgraded to 2kpro. That was... 2006 I think. If anyone was lucky to get their hands on one of these "stable, reliable" copies of XP, let me know. My Vista machine has had far less driver problems than my XP.
June 2, 2008 2:21:24 PM

Oooh! while I think of it...

@OP

Check you're giving the RAM enough juice and check frequency and timings in the BIOS.
June 2, 2008 2:21:37 PM

I'm pretty happy with Vista 64bit.

Although, I was disappointed at first since I had allot of problems getting it to run good, not to mention I had to pay an extra 10 bucks for the 64bit DVD. :lol: 

That took allot of patience and reading to get it to run right. As of now, since I have the right hardware, my V64 is running just as good as my XP in my opinion, even with running all the Eye Candy effects, and I am running my Q6600 at stock for now, since my bedroom is sitting 83-85F at times. :sweat: 

Since I've went through allot of years using windows, it was something I usually adjusted well with. (Windows 3.1 to Win95/98 to WinME to Win 2000 to Win XP to Vista)

But then again, it wouldn't be something I'd advise having like my dad to upgrade to, since XP is basically all he needs at this time. My system is pretty much a ginnea pig for Vista 64bit, and I still have XP on another HD for backup OS for things that can't be ran on Vista (really old stuff, 16bit :lol: ).
June 2, 2008 2:33:57 PM

You know, XP is a resource hog compared to Win2K...which is a resource hog compared to WinNT...which is a resource hog compared to Win98...which is a resource hog compared to Win 3.1...which is a resource hog compared to DOS 6.22.


If you want to have your machine be blazing fast with 512mb of RAM use WinNT or Win2K. However, I don't think that means the rest of the world should stay with those operating systems to avoid the newer that take more resources. Vista is 1-1.5 years old and I think its progressing just fine. Vista64 on a contemporary rig runs just fine when configured properly.

It's 2008, I wouldn't call a machine with 2GB of RAM exactly cutting edge.
June 2, 2008 3:10:00 PM

Well, all I can say is that I like vista a lot more than my old xp. It looks fresher and edgier.

Just wondering, did people say the same things about xp when it debuted?
June 2, 2008 3:15:36 PM

ispy said:
Well, all I can say is that I like vista a lot more than my old xp. It looks fresher and edgier.

Just wondering, did people say the same things about xp when it debuted?


Oh yes, when XP debuted many said it was too slow to be allowed to live and that MS should have been hung by their toenails for even releasing it, "Long live Windows 2000!". Baaaaah!
a b } Memory
June 2, 2008 3:19:29 PM

halcyon said:
Oh yes, when XP debuted many said it was too slow to be allowed to live and that MS should have been hung by their toenails for even releasing it, "Long live Windows 2000!". Baaaaah!



To add: You haven't experienced "buggy" unless you lived through Pre~Service~Pack XP. Or "Lack of Drivers" during the same time period. By comparison Vista at Release is and has always been *hugely* better than XP was at the same point in it's development.
June 2, 2008 3:30:38 PM

ispy said:
Well, all I can say is that I like vista a lot more than my old xp. It looks fresher and edgier.

Just wondering, did people say the same things about xp when it debuted?


Thing is.. you can make XP look as good as Vista. With the help of WindowBlinds, you can petty much satify any Eye Candy looks as you want. Although the start menu stuff wouldn't act the same, which took me by suprise when I first installed Vista. :lol: . o O (what da..)


June 2, 2008 3:40:07 PM

well why would you dress up windows to look as good as vista when you can just get vista?
June 2, 2008 3:43:20 PM

I had WindowBlinds before Vista came out. :p 
June 2, 2008 3:51:33 PM

ooh.

so what are the major disadvantages of vista x64
a b } Memory
June 2, 2008 3:55:25 PM

What is it XP users are afraid of when Vista 64 is mentioned? I mean, dude...gather yourself and get 64 man. No need to run. What is it you are are afraid of. It's your imagination man.




June 2, 2008 3:56:11 PM

There are a few more driver & compatibility issues with the 64 bit version. I don't think it can run 16-bit applications. It also doesn't like unsigned drivers.

I've only found 2 apps that don't work on Vista 64; vmware server (which is supposedly going to have support in an upcoming release), and my work vpn software, though there is support for Vista 64 in the latest release but we haven't installed it yet.
June 2, 2008 5:06:23 PM

ispy said:
well why would you dress up windows to look as good as vista when you can just get vista?


I've heard some say that Vista's not as stable as XP. Well okay, XP is ...like 8 years old...it should be stable by now. Vista is not a freshened up version of XP...its a new beast. I expected there would be growing pains (though I've not experienced too many). Even Creative has released decent drivers for Vista.
June 2, 2008 5:09:42 PM

VMWare Workstation works beautifully in Vista64...I can't imagine how it could work better. ...and in it you can install Win3.11-Vista64 and have all the wrinkly 10-15 year-old 16-bit Depends-wear'n drudgery you can dream of.
a b } Memory
June 2, 2008 5:15:33 PM

My Xerox P12 parrellel port so fine laser printer circa 1997 is not compatible with Vista 64. Vista 64 has a lot of issues like this. I think probably XP rules man.
June 2, 2008 5:17:43 PM

halcyon said:
VMWare Workstation works beautifully in Vista64...I can't imagine how it could work better. ...and in it you can install Win3.11-Vista64 and have all the wrinkly 10-15 year-old 16-bit Depends-wear'n drudgery you can dream of.


Yes, vmware workstation works great. vmware server does not. It doesn't have signed drivers so it will not run unless you specifically disable driver signing every time you reboot the host.
a b } Memory
June 2, 2008 5:24:31 PM

Oh. VISTA 64 DOES NOT support SBC Yahoo Browser. It's SBC/Yahoo's fault. Vista 64 sucks big time over this issue. I guess it's lame. I have 4 gigs installed on XP Pro and it says i have 3.2gigs? wtf?
a b } Memory
June 2, 2008 5:33:45 PM

ispy said:
ooh.

so what are the major disadvantages of vista x64



Besides having to put up with idiots?? :lol: 




(1) If you're too impatient to suffer an extra mouse click now and again, User Access Control is annoying for the few minutes it takes to shut it off.

(2) It has a pathological hatred of apps/drivers with unsigned digital certificates. So if you like playing with a lot of shareware and freeware then you won't be able to run.

(3) If you have old components and accessories (say, more than 2 yrs), then you might have trouble finding drivers. The reason for this is the creators of said devices want to sell you a new one, instead of spending company resources on things which don't contribute to upcoming revenues.


Neutral stuff:

(1) It isn't XP - You will have to buy a book and do some reading/learning to reach the same level of expertise you may now have with the older OS. There are individuals for whom this fact alone amounts to a Kiss of Death.

(2) Explorer still sucks, and Flash doesn't run in 64 bits, so you have to use a 32 bit browser (Firefox) to run Flash.

(3) Vista is highly aggressive about using system resources - It constantly indexes, caches, reads your behavior and caches some more. More HDD churning for a bit after start up (a lot at first, less later as it learns what to cache and what not to cache), and since so much gets cached, RAM "usage" is higher than on XP. The reward is faster launching programs. And Yes, it's smart enough to know if you work from 8 to 5, and game on weekends, and it will cache the start up routines for the things you use when you use them. And YES, memory used for caching is available/surrendered to active programs just as if it were empty should it be needed. I put this in the 'neutral' category because a lot of people don't (want to??) understand what the extra resource usage is and rail against the larger RAM total like Beelzebub himself was stealing their everlasting souls.


Nice:

(1) Much better tools than XP for performance monitoring and error logging. You can see what, when, and can reference this information for months and months and months.

(2) The Search function is VERY VERY nice. Screw navigating menus and sub menus. If you know the name: Start, enter the name in the search, and Vista displays results as fast as you can type.

(3) It runs your 32 bit programs just as if it were a 32 bit OS. It behaves exactly the same whether a 64 or 32 bit app, and has run everything I have installed on it. No exceptions.




Bottom line: If you have an older computer, Vista lacks an "OMG THIS IS COOL" Killer App to bother upgrading. But by the same token: XP also lacks an "OMG THIS IS COOL" app to make you stay with it. I wouldn't recommend installing Vista on an old box, for sure. But there's no reason to not use it on a new one, either.
June 2, 2008 5:57:13 PM

I upgraded an old xp machine to Vista Ultimate 32bit for giggles when the XP installation caught a nasty virus.It runs a bit better than its XP conterpart.System rates at a 1.0 specs are as follows

MSI kt6v motherboard
Amd Athlon XP 2200+
1gb DDR400 Corsair XMS Ram
Geforce 2MX video card with 64mb Ram
160gb Western Digital SATA Hard Drive
200gb Samsung Spinpoint IDE hard Drive
1 Liteon DVD/RW DL burner IDE

The lowest score is the video card,the highest score is the hard drive which is a 5.7 and the CPU and RAM rate at 3.1 and 3.7 respectivly. Of course Aero is turned off by default and im using the drivers that Vista came with for my hardware, worked right out of the box, I just installed Service pack 1 ran windows update and I was ready to go.
!