Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

512MB vs 1GB of RAM

Last response: in Memory
Share
July 19, 2003 7:37:46 PM

People here recommend taking a gig of RAM and I think for no reason. I think I should list the personal computer usses that require half a gig of RAM or less: gaming, Office applications, amateur image editing (less the 2000x2000 pixals in Photoshop), editing small video clips and of course browsing the web. About gaming, I havn't seen a game take up more than 370MB (SimCity 4, the heaviest game there is). Also, users should learn to close all working processes that aren't required for the system to run before playing a game or running a resource eating software (like kazaa non-lite, hehe) - on XP, most of the processes that belong to the user can be closed, including explorer.exe which can be run later, by doing "new task -> explorer".
Users who need a gig of Ram are usualy experienced users that know exactly how much memory they need.
Today, I think that 512MB is usualy the standard when buying a new computer, 1GB may become the standard in 6 months.
You can say that you want your computer to be as future proof as possible, but then it's better to add another stick or 2 when you need it when you need it and when the memory is cheaper.
Now that there is Dual-Channel DDR, I don't think it's recommened to compermise and get 2 sticks of 256 and 2*128 since you just usued up all your DIMM slots and cannot upgrade anymore without throwing away sticks. So it's better to take 2*256 and add 2 more sticks later (of 256 or even 512). Don't forget to place the sticks so on DIMMs that share a channel there is an identicle stick. For example, in the example above and using my board which is an Abit IS7-E you should place the sticks this way: DIMM1-256, DIMM2-512, DIMM3-256 and DIMM4-512, since DIMM1&3 and 2&4 share a channel.

Coppermine, Banias, Opteron, Prescott, Barton... How 'bout investing less in the CPU and more in its name?

More about : 512mb 1gb ram

July 19, 2003 8:51:10 PM

Dude man then you need to crank up your res settings. URT2003 take 600megs on my machine and it is excelent to have some spare to use imediately while the reset is cleaning out, to enhance performance. The big issue when getting a gig of ram is that the quality and CL become more important than ever. When getting a gig now these days, you gotta go for at least pc3200 and cl no lower than 2.5 (2 is perfered). But you are correct right now the industry standard is 512mb since the majority will not break that limit but there are some that will easily break that. My CAD work sometimes taps out my ram on some projects even with a gig. Another thing you are correct is that when getting ram, always try to setup mirrored pairs. Same make, size, speed and CL rating. Dual Channel DDR doesnt increase storage efficency to where you can get smaller ram amount specifically. It just increases the transfer rate, making watever is put into ram run faster.
July 19, 2003 11:13:05 PM

600MB for UT, are you sure? That's A LOT! had no idea it took so much... Anyway, my point is, don't get a gig unless you nead it. To check if I need a gig I turned off my paging file a few days ago on my machine (512MB) to see if it is needed sometimes. So far I havn't needed it, but even if I will use it a bit I don't think it's worth buying a gig or worse, buying more memory but that isn't so good.

Coppermine, Banias, Opteron, Prescott, Barton... How 'bout investing less in the CPU and more in its name?
Related resources
a b } Memory
July 20, 2003 2:28:52 AM

I got a noticeable performance increase in WinXP by moving up to 1024MB from 512MB on my old system. XP bases how much memory it uses on how much is available.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
July 20, 2003 7:03:04 PM

Quote:
XP bases how much memory it uses on how much is available.

Now i understand why i had about 128MB free when i was using 256MB memory and why i have about 256MB free when i am using 512MB memory. (I use a program - Free RAM XP Pro to check how much memory is being used.)

<b>thinking of a good sig. till then...</b>
a b } Memory
July 20, 2003 9:09:31 PM

That also explains why my neighbor's computer would simply stop responding for half an hour at a time with 128MB (32MB shared for video, 96MB available!) under XP! I just sold her an additional 128MB module today, it runs...well, at least it doesn't lock up anymore.

This also explains why "experts" claim XP is just as fast as 98SE while more stable, while those of us in the field noticed older machines run VERY slow with XP. The "experts" use 1024MB rutienly, while typical older PC's use at most 256MB!

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
July 20, 2003 10:23:12 PM

Quote:
...as fast as 98SE while <b>more stable</b>...

Thats quite true. So far i have never had the system "Hang" due to anye application. Earlier with 98, if any application did not respond i had to restart inevitably. not with XP though. Just takes a few seconds to close the application but then works fine. Plus, i have the option of Hibernate with XP (of course ME had this option too but i felt 98 was better than ME, so i have not used ME much)

<b>i wish i had a <font color=red>million</font color=red> <font color=green>$$$</font color=green>...</b>
a b } Memory
July 21, 2003 2:32:24 AM

Well, I learned how NOT to destablize 98SE. Used the most stable parts. Used only solid programs, added a memory manager.

After doing those minor things, I had 0 stability problems with 98SE. I don't have stability problems with XP, but it HAS been slower, and when I do something silly that corrupts the install (like overclocking too far), about 1/2 the time a repair installation is unable to fix it. Didn't have that problem under 98SE.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
July 21, 2003 4:47:34 AM

In one of your other threads, a while back u were talking about something to do with the English Grammar and may be a tough time ur English Teacher had given u (right???)

I just wanted to pick on you so here it goes...

Quote:
I don't have stability problems with XP

Wudnt it be more appropriate if you said "I dont have instability problms with XP"?

OK, on a more serious note though, u said:
Quote:
about 1/2 the time a repair installation is <b>unable</b> to fix it. Didn't have that problem under 98SE

So, u mean u were unable to fix it with REPAIR INSTALLATION and had to do a RE-INSTALL???
Or do u mean u cud REPAIR in Win98 when the OS went corrupt due to heavy overclocking and not able to do in XP?
But i think it was a typo and u meant u r ABLE to do the REPAIR successfully in XP.



<b>i wish i had a <font color=red>million</font color=red> <font color=green>$$$</font color=green>...</b>
July 21, 2003 4:55:17 AM

Quote:
u r ABLE to do the REPAIR successfully in XP

Given the context, how could you possibly think that's what he meant?
July 21, 2003 4:58:48 AM

Well, as far as i know, between 98 and XP, only XP offers to do a REPAIR. Hence my thot.

<b>i wish i had a <font color=red>million</font color=red> <font color=green>$$$</font color=green>...</b>
a b } Memory
July 21, 2003 6:12:50 AM

"Don't" is a contraction, of Do Not, therefor since the second "o" is removed, you use a hyphen instead.

Now, you're looking at the second thing from a "Is the glass half full or half empty" viewpoint. I'm saying that 1/2 of my XP repair installs are UNable to correct the problem, you're saying that the other half the time they are ABLE to correct the problem. But in 98SE, they were ALWAYS able to repair the problem for me.

So yes, I was able to REPAIR 98SE by "installing over" the original files, loosing nothing. But 1/2 the time that didn't work with XP, for me.

So no, I'm NOT able to repair XP, 1/2 the time I corrupt files within it. And yes, I AM able to repair XP the other half of the time.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
a b } Memory
July 21, 2003 6:15:43 AM

Hehe, you repair 98SE by replacing the files by installing over the original. You loose none of your other programs or data, everything works fine. This is as close to an XP repair installation as you can have.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
July 21, 2003 6:33:07 AM

aah, now u have me confused all the more :wink:
Quote:
"Don't" is a contraction, of Do Not, therefor since the second "o" is removed, you use a hyphen instead

Don't - Dont; that was not what i was picking u on.
U said - "I don't have <b>stability</b> problems with XP"
And what i was picking u on - "I don't have <b>instability</b> problems with XP" ..... dont u think the second one is more appropriate?

Quote:
Now, you're looking at the second thing from a "Is the glass half full or half empty" viewpoint. I'm saying that 1/2 of my XP repair installs are UNable to correct the problem, you're saying that the other half the time they are ABLE to correct the problem. But in 98SE, they were ALWAYS able to repair the problem for me.

I never thot in the Half-Empty-Half-Full way. My thot was more like 1s and 0s. either u cud do it all in XP and not in Win98 or the other way round. but good that u made it more clear :smile:

Quote:
I was able to REPAIR 98SE by "installing over" the original files

I remember how easy it was in 98. Run SFC and extract the files that were corrupt.

Quote:
But 1/2 the time that didn't work with XP, for me.

So the other half times it did work? :wink: how do u check for corrupt files in XP and how do u replace them with original files??

<b>still</b> thinking of a good siggy. till then...
a b } Memory
July 21, 2003 10:46:12 PM

In XP, I've tried a repair install, 1/2 the time it works, the other 1/2 the time it doesn't. And a "new" install fixes the "problem" by making a new OS copy, you have to reinstall all your programs and manually hunt down all your saved files.

I haven't had stability problems with XP, just that when I do something to cause a severe crash, I only have a 50% chance of getting it working again.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
July 22, 2003 9:35:11 AM

Quote:
manually hunt down all your saved files.

This is one area where i liked 98 better. I have a back-up of all the software i need to do a fresh install in my hard disk, right from the OS to all the mobo drivers, add-on card drivers , drivers for the peripherals and all the junkie that i've installed.

All i do is copy the My Documents folder to another drive along with a few folders from Program Files. Then i format C-Drive and do a fresh install. With XP, there is a pain of activating it everytime i want to do a format-and-reinstall. So i live with not formatting my C-Drive at all now.

<b>still</b> thinking of a good sig. till then...
July 22, 2003 4:47:51 PM

Hey, check out the title of my thread...

Coppermine, Banias, Opteron, Prescott, Barton... How 'bout investing less in the CPU and more in its name?
July 22, 2003 4:55:47 PM

You can use norton ghost. Do a fresh install, make a ghost image of drive c. Then, every time ypu want to install windows again just load the image, it'll take you a fraction of the time.
Note: Just don't do any major hardware changes to your computer or XP won't boot

Coppermine, Banias, Opteron, Prescott, Barton... How 'bout investing less in the CPU and more in its name?
July 22, 2003 5:28:06 PM

one more reason to stick w/ 98 or 2k pro...

There is no smell better than fried silicon :evil: 
July 22, 2003 7:25:29 PM

hahahaa. i still feel more comfortable with 98 than XP.

when did u become a OLD HAND? hows my new siggy? i am changing it in a couple of days though.

<b>Take my advice, I don't use it anyway.</b>
July 22, 2003 7:29:35 PM

LOL, never bother about such things, it happens all the time.

<b>Take my advice, I don't use it anyway.</b>
July 22, 2003 8:00:19 PM

You have to love 2000 PRO. Stable OS.
a b } Memory
July 22, 2003 9:22:59 PM

Yes, if you're running XP you'll see a noticeable improvement in performance by running 1024MB. If you're running 9x, you'll have similar performance running 512MB, which is the limit for 9x anyway.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
July 23, 2003 2:11:08 AM

well i just became one today, it was actually quite a surprise cause i thought you had to have 800posts to be nominated not 700...
LOL looks like ya got yourself a keeper (siggy)...

There is no smell better than fried silicon :evil: 
July 23, 2003 3:19:05 AM

It just occured to me. I don't know either of you guys, and you prolly don't know me, although none of us are newbies.

There's lots of little clubs in this place I don't know of. :smile:

<b><font color=blue>~ <A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=32..." target="_new">System Specs</A> ~<font color=blue></b> :wink:
July 23, 2003 4:00:16 AM

I have never used Norton Ghost. May be i'll give it a try too.

<b>Take my advice, I don't use it anyway.</b>
July 23, 2003 4:05:57 AM

LOL....and i am pretty sure that ppl with in these little clubs dont know about each other more than their names and what they do.

<b>Take my advice, I don't use it anyway.</b>
July 23, 2003 6:05:41 AM

I heard of you...the only names i know are peoples usernames...hehe...


There is no smell better than fried silicon :evil: 
July 23, 2003 1:04:38 PM

Nice piece of post I must say but I still have some questions.
I had 1 Gig or ram in my old PC running Win98, and it was really slow when playing Simcity and freeze (the HD is spinning like crazy but the screen is not updated) a lot of the time. Why?
Should I work with photoshop with many layers and large dpi, hence in PS it reports the size of the file is few hundred Mb. I always wondered about this value if it is the file size or the page size. Anyway, in the above case isn't 512Mb ram not enough and?
Then would all this also related to graphic card ram? How much ram would you need for that then? Shall I invest more ram in the graphic card than the ram for MoBo?
July 23, 2003 3:11:44 PM

When working in PS on a large file consumes a lot of memory, you can check to see in Taskmgr how much memory is being used but it could happen that Photoshop would have been using more memory if you had it (and you would've felt an improvement in performance). Since images are usually stored in the memory raw, uncompressed you might be able to calculate how much an image would take, photoshop alone probably takes about 15-20 megs, so add that. An image would take up in the memory height*width*depth/8 Bytes (divide by 8 because the depth is in bits) things get more complicated with layers, if all the layers fill the entire canves then it's the number of layers (including the background) times the image size if it were one layer.

PS isn't the only one storing images in the memory. If you have a desktop wallpaper it's also constantly stored in the memory a 1152x864 @32bit image takes up 3888KB, ain't that a waste?

Coppermine, Banias, Opteron, Prescott, Barton... How 'bout investing less in the CPU and more in its name?
July 23, 2003 7:02:01 PM

wow...1gb in win 98...that yout problem right there...install windows 2000 and you will see a noticable improvment...98 has trouble with large amounts of memory

So easy to fry yet tastes so good...
Silicon: The other, other, other white meat :evil: 
July 23, 2003 7:08:41 PM

Jack,

I suppose it depends on the motherboard. I have heard of people running Windows 98 stable with 756 MB of Ram but never 1GB.

I tried too on an Abit BH6 and only managed 640 with any stability. Over that (up till my board limit of 756MB) it would behave very poorly indeed and crash whenever it felt like it.

If you check out the net you will find that the practical limit for W98 is 512MB. Be sure you have lots of paging space. Preallocate it, don't let windows decide because it will just fragment the disk. Allocate like 1 or 2GB and make sure it is contiguous on the disk for optimum performance.

The loving are the daring!
!