Tom's Guide | Tom's Hardware | Tom's Games
 |
 |
 |
Dear Friends,
I have K6 300, P5-AB and 128M RAM. Since it is running XP I am thinking about adding more RAM. But someone mentioned that more than 128M of RAM will actually slow down my system speed. Below is his explanation. What you guys think? Thank you very much for your help.
Jack
"The motherboard has 512K of 5 ns cache'. There are three, 168-Pin DIMM sockets on the board which can support up to 768 MB; however, the chipset/cache' limits the amount of memory which can be cached to 128 MB. 33 Mhz UDMA is supported."
Here's a bit of an explanation:
Because you have 3 memory slots which support a total of 768mb, the max per slot would be 256mb (768/3). However, that means that your board will not support "high density" RAM. Also, since the cache limit is 128mb, installing more than 128mb of memory will actually slow your system down...
disagree
the reason so is this...XP uses 128mb alone for the OS, that leaves you running all your programs off of VRAM off the hard drive, making your hard drive do double the work, at lease if you add another 128 you can open up internet explorer without using VRAM, i would suggest you putting in 256 extra, and i bet you will see quite a speed increase, in loading and opening programsComplete Computer Service Inc.
NW Indiana
0 
per:
100% agreed, but i look at the fact of how old his machine is, and why spend that much $$$ on the ram when it could be going to a new machine in the futureComplete Computer Service Inc.
NW Indiana
0
Have to agree about the cost of low density sdram in PC133 spec. Costs about $150 AUS a stick for 256mb. and almost nobody stocks it.
If you can get hold of even an extra stick of 128mb from a local computer fair or secondhand dealer then spend a little on that system. it will make a difference to XP's performance. Even if you don't see a dramatic speed increase it will still reduce the wear & tear on your harddrive caused by the current constant use of pagefile.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day.
Teach him to fish and his wife will never forgive you.
0
Dear Friends,
I too think that increase the RAM will decrease the system speed does not make sense to me. It is great that most people think the same way.
From price watch, it seems that I can buy a generic PC100 DIMM SDRAM for $12. It is not too bad.
0
I agree with everyone else, except your friends advise on cache on your MOBO.
The best way to think about RAM upgrades that I have have come across is the following.
For Windows XP.
128 just for the OS, 128 for each app running there after. Once you start to install a lot of RAM on a system you will get to a point of minimal returns for your hard earned dosh.
Typically 512 will allow you enough overhead room to run what you need and if you are running memory intensive stuff you may find a peroformance increase by going higher, but if you are just running the OS and one app, you will not notice any change in speed from about 256 and up.
0
I'm not 100% sure, but that quote looks like one of mine.
We're not talking about a modern machine here, we're talking about an old socket 7 board that has a limited capacity for handling RAM efficiently. Exceeding the cache limit of the chipset can hamper performance. Accessing cached RAM is MUCH faster than reading from physical RAM.
The problem is, Windows reads memory from the top down, memory is cached from the bottom up. If you stay within the cache limit, Windows will always read from cached RAM 1st...if you exceed the limit, Windows will always read from physical RAM 1st, & that will slow the system. In other words, if you install 256mb of RAM & the cache limit is 128mb, Windows will always access #256 first, & works it's way down toward #1. If you're not running memory intensive apps, you may never read from cache.
Think of the physical RAM as a huge phone book, & cached RAM as a small address book containing all the phone numbers you use most often. If you need to look up a friend's number, you'll find it much faster if you look in your small address book, rather than thumbing thru the huge phone book. But if you take the small address book out of the picture, you'll always have to look thru the huge book, & that will take longer.
There is one catch to all this however. If your cache limit is 128mb & you stay within that limit, then run a memory hog of an app that eats up more than 128mb, it has to go to the HDD & use "virtual RAM". Accessing virtual RAM is EXTREMELY slow when compared to either physical RAM or cached RAM.
http://www.intel.com/design/chipsets/applnots/memory.htm
Asus A7N8X-X
2500+ Sempron @ 2100mhz
10.5 x 200mhz @ 1.80v
512mb PC3200
Ti4200/8X 128mb
WDC 60GB
0
What I neglected to mention is that you may wanna consider "downgrading" your operating system. Win98SE or WinME will run fine on that setup as-is.
Asus A7N8X-X
2500+ Sempron @ 2100mhz
10.5 x 200mhz @ 1.80v
512mb PC3200
Ti4200/8X 128mb
WDC 60GB
0
I agree with Jam. Probably your best option is to downgrade to an OS that doesn't hog as much resource. Now I don't agree about downgrading to WinME as I personally think that is the worst OS ever made lol. I would say go down to Win98.
0
Honesty, I am using this old machine to run Bitcomet which require 50M RAM as virtual disk and I always find it running out of RAM. If what Jam said is true, it sounds like a bad design to me. Why isn't it designed to read from cached first no matter how many RAM you install?
0
"Why isn't it designed to read from cached first no matter how many RAM you install?"
You're gonna have to ask Micro$oft that question.
Remember, this isn't an issue with new machines, only older ones. At the time, they didn't anticipate a need for 256mb, 512mb, 1024mb or more RAM. The earliest socket 7 boards only cached 64mb.
Let me remind you of Bill Gates imfamous quote of 1981:
"640K of memory should be enough for anyone"
Asus A7N8X-X
2500+ Sempron @ 2100mhz
10.5 x 200mhz @ 1.80v
512mb PC3200
Ti4200/8X 128mb
WDC 60GB
0
Guess what Bill said when asked about 640K of memory should be enough for anyone. Look HERE.
i_XpUser
0
Very interesting...that "quote" has been passed around for over 20 years. Did he say it or didn't he? or is he just covering up for a comment that makes him look stupid?
Asus A7N8X-X
2500+ Sempron @ 2100mhz
10.5 x 200mhz @ 1.80v
512mb PC3200
Ti4200/8X 128mb
WDC 60GB
0  |
 |
 |
This post is quite old and has been locked from receiving new replies. Please create a new posting instead.
| Ads by Google |
