Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is more and faster memory always better?

Tags:
Last response: in Memory
Share
August 4, 2005 10:03:09 PM

It’s really a hypothetical question since I know that more and faster is almost always better. For example, once I doubled my existing memory and experienced a significant increase in performance when playing 3D-games, but according to the discussion about cache above, it should not have been possible…should it? But that is not what I would like to bring up now.

Should one get faster or more memory, or should one maybe don’t care about the memory issue at all?

I was just thinking about the potential (almost none existing) gain in speed that should be the result of a memory upgrade. The reason for my thinking is the fact that the cache memory often has a hit ratio of over 90%. Doesn’t that mean that the speed and size of the RAM only come into play every 10th time the processor needs some info. Hence when more or faster (and of course more expensive) memory is bought it is only beneficial to the user in 10% of the cases.

Right or wrong?

More about : faster memory

August 5, 2005 12:22:37 AM

There is such a thing as too much memory. Back in the day, when memory was scarce, did people believe you could never get enough. Today, too much memory will cost you too much, and often, adding a stick of 512MB to 1GB will decrease your system's performance.

Quote:
Should one get faster or more memory, or should one maybe don’t care about the memory issue at all?

It is an age-old issue.

Systems need both large and fast memories- but it has never been possible to have both. And so it remains a balance between speed, size, distance to CPU, cost, etc.

Quote:
Hence when more or faster (and of course more expensive) memory is bought it is only beneficial to the user in 10% of the cases.

Cahces are very efficient. 90%+ hit rate. But to say memory is beneficial in 10% of the cases is not correct, especially when your CPU is loading programs or exchanging data memory becomes more significant.

<font color=blue>******
<font color=green>"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and common sence." -The Buddha
<font color=blue>AIM BrentUnitedMem
August 5, 2005 12:46:36 AM

I have a Prescott 3200 with 4-512MB RAM modules running 2-2-2-5 which is the lowest timings my board supports.
So I have 2-gigs of the quickest RAM I can get for this rig.

<pre><font color=red>°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°`°¤o \\// o¤°`°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°
And the sign says "You got to have a membership card to get inside" Huh
So I got me a pen and paper And I made up my own little sign</pre><p></font color=red>
Related resources
August 5, 2005 5:00:29 AM

One other thing =) ..

You want to get the right amount of fast memory. (I should mention buying quality memory of course!)

For WIN XP 1GB is optimal. In rare cases would you benefit from more than 1GB.

Most sources recommend 2 sticks of double-sided memory modules.

<font color=blue>******
<font color=green>"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and common sence." -The Buddha
<font color=blue>AIM BrentUnitedMem
August 5, 2005 12:48:46 PM

I agree 100% with brent. 1-gig is the sweet spot for gaming, but video editing and graphics design can benifit from more than 1-gig.


<pre><font color=red>°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°`°¤o \\// o¤°`°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°
And the sign says "You got to have a membership card to get inside" Huh
So I got me a pen and paper And I made up my own little sign</pre><p></font color=red>
!