Mei-o said:You know what's funny? I don't even have SP1!Cermage said:
... you might want to update to sp2, its where a majority of the improvements came from....
... you might want to update to sp2, its where a majority of the improvements came from....
it could also be that you have too little RAM. I have a older desktop in this room which sucked at internet, I trew in one new RAM chip and now it is faster in interneting than my own pc.
Dude, your running Vista; you need atleast 2 GBs of RAM if you want it to run smooth.
Vista needs 1 GB just for itself..
Vista needs 1 GB just for itself..
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2008
- Messages
- 5,716
- Trophies
- 1
- Age
- 35
- Location
- London, UK
- Website
- metalix.deviantart.com
- XP
- 1,904
- Country
It's not all false. Windows is not so inflexible to say that you MUST have certain specs to run them. It just happens to be the case that Windows XP can take up to 1GB of RAM for system functions (leaving the rest in a 4GB setup to go to any other applications), and (if I remember correctly - it's been ages since reading related magazines) Vista can take up 2GB for system functions, making 3GB the ideal amount for running Vista. If only 2GB is present, it'll use up around 1GB (probably by running prefetch less often). If you've only got 512MB of RAM, then it'll prolly use 320MB of RAM for system functions (guessing here, but I assume it's scaled in a similar manner).
The first laptop I bought (as opposed to inherited from my Dad) had a 299Mhz Pentium with 160MB of RAM, yet through extensive tweaking, I got it to run XP smoothly. It could even play some movies, although some more compressed movies tended to break up. I mostly used it for MSN and playing Age of Empires 2 and Heroes of Might and Magic 3 (aside from doing homework). 8MB of graphics memory went such a long way in those days...
The first laptop I bought (as opposed to inherited from my Dad) had a 299Mhz Pentium with 160MB of RAM, yet through extensive tweaking, I got it to run XP smoothly. It could even play some movies, although some more compressed movies tended to break up. I mostly used it for MSN and playing Age of Empires 2 and Heroes of Might and Magic 3 (aside from doing homework). 8MB of graphics memory went such a long way in those days...
you know differences in frequencies go a long way. its likely that ms use some pretty low end stuff to rate their requirements probably DDR333, or DD266. most people these days are pumping DDR2 800 or at least 667, mei-O is running 533.
the main problem with vista at the beginning was that it used the ram really poorly and manufacturers got away with using slower freq. ram because of a majority of people saying stuff like more ram = better when its not entirely true. didnt help manufacturers were selling low end-single core machines with vista on them before the service packs came out.
the main problem with vista at the beginning was that it used the ram really poorly and manufacturers got away with using slower freq. ram because of a majority of people saying stuff like more ram = better when its not entirely true. didnt help manufacturers were selling low end-single core machines with vista on them before the service packs came out.
A lot of people don't realize that most of vista's memory usage is for superfetch... and that superfetch's ram usage doesn't actually slow anything down because if the ram used by superfetch is needed by an active program, it's simply overwritten, it doesn't need to be paged because it's a copy of what already exists on the harddrive.Joe88 said:
Actually no, memory frequency's effect on performance is pretty minimal at best.Cermage said:
Despite what people want to believe, there's never a single bottleneck.
In each instance of slowdown, you first need to find the problem before you can fix it.
thats comparing ddr3, which right now has some pretty minimal improvements right now over decent ddr2 (800). right now ddr3 is fairly limited by hardware (people buying ddr3@2000 when they aren't even using its full frequencies). give it a bit of time and it will flesh out. the improvement isn't anywhere near as big as the jump from ddr400 to ddr2 800 though.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/1991/4
thats some pretty low timings as well. you get 800 freq sticks timed at 5-5-5 and higher, (my ocz sticks are timed at 5-5-6 and they're considered as "value" sticks). not as fast, but still quite fast, the main downfall of ddr3 is the higher latencies (i think average for ddr3 is 9-9-9?)
http://www.anandtech.com/show/1991/4
thats some pretty low timings as well. you get 800 freq sticks timed at 5-5-5 and higher, (my ocz sticks are timed at 5-5-6 and they're considered as "value" sticks). not as fast, but still quite fast, the main downfall of ddr3 is the higher latencies (i think average for ddr3 is 9-9-9?)
9-9-9 is still common, but there's more 8-8-8 and 7-7-7 combined on newegg.Cermage said:
Those are synthetic benchmarks that only measure a given part by itself, what I am showing and talking about is real-world performance, which is what what actually matters.
whats being compared on your link on toms are all very similar sticks. looser timings, higher freqs being compared with lower freqs with tighter timings. you've got extremes of DDR2 800 timed at 3-4-3-9 being compared to DDR2 1280 timed at 5-5-5-18. 3-4-3-9 is a huge improvement over 5-5-5-18, you can see this when you've got the OCZ reapers at 1066 timed at 4-4-4-12 beating the Patriot sticks at 1280 timed at 5-5-5-18.
compare, you know more common freq ram at the same timings. flip a page on that anandtech link i had before.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/1991/5
3-6fps is a worlds difference when you're struggling to even reach 20-30fps in a game.
compare, you know more common freq ram at the same timings. flip a page on that anandtech link i had before.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/1991/5
3-6fps is a worlds difference when you're struggling to even reach 20-30fps in a game.
3-6FPS is welcome for 20-30FPS, but that's not what the benchmarks show. You can't think of improvement in concrete FPS numbers across ranges, it's percentage increases.
The best average improvement for the same type of memory on those benchmarks you linked is a 10% improvement. For high framerates, that can mean an 11 FPS improvement (such as going from DDR2-400 to DDR2-800 in Serious Sam 2), but for 20FPS, that's only a 2FPS improvement.
The only graph that shows a better improvement is Far Cry, and that's misplaced seeing all the other graphs that we've seen... furthermore, that article is from 2006 and states...
The article I got my first benchmark from is 2009 and shows a 10% improvement at the max, sometimes going down to 1% improvement, and the second article I posted is a year and two months newer than yours, showing an absolutely pathetic increase.
The best average improvement for the same type of memory on those benchmarks you linked is a 10% improvement. For high framerates, that can mean an 11 FPS improvement (such as going from DDR2-400 to DDR2-800 in Serious Sam 2), but for 20FPS, that's only a 2FPS improvement.
The only graph that shows a better improvement is Far Cry, and that's misplaced seeing all the other graphs that we've seen... furthermore, that article is from 2006 and states...
QUOTE said:
The article I got my first benchmark from is 2009 and shows a 10% improvement at the max, sometimes going down to 1% improvement, and the second article I posted is a year and two months newer than yours, showing an absolutely pathetic increase.
Really?? You guys ran it on 512, and it worked fine??
It never works for me, its sooooo sloww.
Maybe your processor then?
It never works for me, its sooooo sloww.
Maybe your processor then?
completely ignoring my point about comparing frequencies and timings right? your company of heroes bench also does that. also minimum framerates are also an enitrely different story which can be seen from the same page you pulled that CoH bench from.
from the anandtech page you've got 1600 CAS6 beating 1866 CAS7 in most if not all.
also from that anandtech comparison you've got a multitasking bench, which shows on average an 8% improvement on just frequencies alone, where timings don't have as much of an effect.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2792/7
from the anandtech page you've got 1600 CAS6 beating 1866 CAS7 in most if not all.
also from that anandtech comparison you've got a multitasking bench, which shows on average an 8% improvement on just frequencies alone, where timings don't have as much of an effect.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2792/7
And an 8% increase from 20FPS is about 22.25FPS.Cermage said:
I'm not saying there's never any differences, what I'm saying is that they're small and erratic enough to not fucking matter.
Money spent on better memory could be spent elsewhere for a bigger performance improvement for the money spent.
I severely doubt his laptop is running L4D slow on an ATI Radeon Xpress 1100 because of bad memory timings.
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2008
- Messages
- 860
- Trophies
- 0
- Location
- Somewherewherewhere
- Website
- Visit site
- XP
- 114
- Country
Similar threads
- No one is chatting at the moment.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@
BigOnYa:
Caller -"Everytime I start a Pc game on my S24, playing on a external monitor, someone calls or texts me, n it kicks me out of the game." Customer Support - Click (hangs up) -
-
-
-
-
-
-
@
BigOnYa:
I found it funny cause many many years ago, had a roommate in college that did this same dumbass branding of the school logo, but it didn't look anything like it after it healed. Just looked like a birthmark.
-
