RAM Performance Gains

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

In article <w6CdndOSGZF7DsfcRVn-jw@comcast.com>, "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote:
>It certainly wouldn't add stability. It might improve your performance for
>rendering, but since you don't state the model or CPU, it's hard to say. It
>also depends on your operating system. If it is not 2000 or XP, 1GB would be
>bad, as Win9x/Me do not properly handle that much without a hack -- and even
>then not well.

Tom, how far will ME go out of the box? I presume it can handle up to
512MB okay, else why would Dell have sold it with the 4100?


Cheers, Phred.

--
ppnerkDELETE@THISyahoo.com.INVALID

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Windows 9x will use up to 2 Gigs of RAM.
The issue with over 512M of ram is that with Win9x you have
to limit vcache, in system.ini, to no more that 512MB.
Over in the M$ groups, the consensus
seems to be 70% of your available ram for less than 768MB.
It's specified in kilobytes.( NT based systems don't have the
problem.) Put this in your system.ini -----

[vcache]
MaxFileCache=524000

"S.Lewis" <stew1960@cover.bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:efz6d.65805$as2.19135@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Phred" <ppnerkDELETETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:2rvt91F1e72opU2@uni-berlin.de...
>> In article <w6CdndOSGZF7DsfcRVn-jw@comcast.com>, "Tom Scales"
>> <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote:
>>>It certainly wouldn't add stability. It might improve your
>>>performance for
>>>rendering, but since you don't state the model or CPU, it's hard to
>>>say. It
>>>also depends on your operating system. If it is not 2000 or XP, 1GB
>>>would be
>>>bad, as Win9x/Me do not properly handle that much without a hack --
>>>and even
>>>then not well.
>>
>> Tom, how far will ME go out of the box? I presume it can handle up
>> to
>> 512MB okay, else why would Dell have sold it with the 4100?
>>
>>
>> Cheers, Phred.
>>
>> --
>> ppnerkDELETE@THISyahoo.com.INVALID
>>
>
>
> It can handle 512mb fine, which, as you've pointed out is the maximum
> for the Dim4100.
>
>
> Stew
>

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Rendering is slow. No way around that. Honestly, I think the improvement
from another 512MB of very expensive RDRam wouldn't be worth the money.

Tom
"Mike" <Mike@SunnyOrlando.com> wrote in message
news:rp6ml0lh77sn4vso96cli9fphh6k8e2db6@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 06:52:32 -0400, "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net>
> wrote:
>
>>It certainly wouldn't add stability. It might improve your performance
>>for
>>rendering, but since you don't state the model or CPU, it's hard to say.
>>It
>>also depends on your operating system. If it is not 2000 or XP, 1GB would
>>be
>>bad, as Win9x/Me do not properly handle that much without a hack -- and
>>even
>>then not well.
>>
>>Tell us more about your configuration and the specific applications.
>
> Sorry Tom I forgot to list my system specs. I am running the
> following ...
>
> Dimension 8200
> 2.53 Ghz P4
> 512 Megs RDRAM (Non-ECC)
> GeForce FX5900XT
> Windows XP Home SP1
>
> The only rendering application I run at the moment is trueSpace well
> that and GMax. Things do slow to a crawl when rendering with
> radiosity turned on but that can be expected. My main gaming fun at
> the moment is directed at Doom 3, Unreal Tournament 2004, and Call of
> Duty. I was wondering if more RAM would help with a smoother overall
> gaming experience (and faster loading times) and if my rendering times
> would decrease. Thanks for the input.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Truespace is multithreaded ... your rendering ( but not your gaming) would
significantly benefit from a dual CPU system.

-NuTs

"Mike" <Mike@SunnyOrlando.com> wrote in message
news7iml0thf4c9brq3juuthh9lcomf7mmrup@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 18:39:01 -0400, "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Rendering is slow. No way around that. Honestly, I think the
improvement
> >from another 512MB of very expensive RDRam wouldn't be worth the money.
> >
> >Tom
>
> That's what I was beginning to think. Thanks for the input.
>
> Mike
>