Memory overkill, is it possible?

[aaroncgi]

Along with many others, I can't believe the ridiculously low price on memory these days. It's less than half of what I paid just two and a half months ago when I built my system! I've got 128MB of PC133 right now, but it's just cheapo stuff and will only run at CAS3, and at 100 Mhz (though I am told the speed problem is a result of the asynchronous memory/fs busses on my KX133, not a fault of the memory module.) Anyhow..long story short:

Can you really have too much memory? I've seen 128M sticks for around $70, and even some 256M sticks for under $100. Crazy! Now I'm no overclocker when it comes to FSB or CPU, what concerns me most with regards to those are stability. As long as they work, I'm not really concerned whether I am getting the last few drops of performance out of the machine.

So if I can triple the amount of memory in my system for $100, is there any downside, because I sure don't see it!

Aaron


[This message has been edited by aaroncgi (edited 12 November 2000).]

[Gurm]

None. Buy the memory. The only downside is that later on you may run into trouble when you try to run the higher bus speeds with generic memory.

Or, you may not - your next CPU upgrade may also require a memory change, if you wait long enough... or you may just luck out and get high-quality memory.

I advised the people I consult for to go ahead and order - just make damn sure they'll let you return it for nothing if it turns out to be garbage memory.

- Gurm

------------------
Listen up, you primitive screwheads! See this? This is my BOOMSTICK! Etc. etc.

[aaroncgi]

I can't up the FSB speed on my current MB, so that certainly isn't an issue. The next CPU I get will definitely require a new MB, and more than likely new memory as well (DDR SDRAM), but that's hopefully at least a year or two down the road. I always only buy memory that comes with a lifetime memory and some sort of compatibility gaurantee, even if it is generic.

Thanks for the input!

[DentyCracker]

Just bought 2 128 MB of Generic PC-133 for $79.
Saw 128 MB Micron 7E for $91 at Crucial. If I had seen the crucial first I'd have bought it.
Sandra says I have bought PC133 CL3 memory (PC100 CL2)

[Greebe]

aaroncgi, the biggest problem you would see on an Athlon system using cheap/generic mem would be with either stability or it just flat out won't work.
Mixing memory parts is also not reccommended when OCing (I know, it's the KX133 chipset)

The Mushkin PC150 hsdram ALBPM mentioned in another thread is only rated to do that on BX based MB's. On Athlon systems they guarantee only PC133 spec.

[aaroncgi]

Hey Greebe,

Yeah, I have some of what I consider to be generic PC133 right now (was sold to me as 'name brand', right). It's completely stable at 100Mhz and CAS3. If I set memory bus to 133, I get lockups, but only in 3D games, and amount of time before that occurs is anywhere from a few minutes to an hour. Still, unacceptable. Come to think of it, I don't believe I've tried running it at CAS2 at 100 Mhz, which as I understood any PC133 should be able to do, right? Anyhow..

I've scoured the web for several hours tonight, and I'm amazed at how exceedlingly tough it is to find and good articles, or even posts on forums, discussing how useful or well used extra memory is! If anyone knows a truly good source of detailed info on the truths (heard enough myths) of how much memory Windows98 can actually make use of, and when you will and won't see a difference, it would be much appreciated! I guess it couldn't hurt to have more ram, but then on the other hand, if it won't help, I have other things I could spend $100 on.

Aaron

[Greebe]

http://www.crucial.com/library/rammatters.asp http://www.crucial.com/library/WindowsME_RAM.asp http://www.crucial.com/win2000/performance.asp

As far as old mem (used) vs. new... there is no real tangible difference. Mixing parts of different specs, will result with a the slowest speed part limiting the best.

I'm running Win98 on this machine and it has and uses all of it's 256 megs "7E" mem. It could use more but I won't see much if any appreciable difference in speed (other than not having to swap to me HD when loading large image files

My general rule of thumb is, Win9x 128 min. NT 128 min. 2K 256 min. then you add more depending on what specific demands you put on YOUR system (CAD/image editing/rendering/video editing, etc).

[paulcs]

I think there are several things to keep in mind here.

This might not be the problem it once was, but some motherboards acted erratically when all the RAM slots were filled. I've only seen it once, and it was with two boards of the same model and manufacturer (Dell/Intel). They were LX boards, by the way. Some motherboard manufacturers will provide an extra DIMM slot, despite the fact that the chipset doesn't support it. I doubt this is a problem with the KX-133 chipset, which is said to support 2 GB of RAM.

I haven't seen it myself, but I've heard of problems with some motherboards and 256 MB DIMMS.

How useful extra RAM will be depends on what you're doing with your computer. I find the jump from 128 MB to 256 MB RAM to be very noticable, while the jump from 256 to 384 a bit more subtle. Then again, I don't do much to tax this part of my machines.

Some applications just love RAM and will use as much as you can throw at them. Photoshop is like that. If you're not manipulating enormous images, you might find that after 256 MB, you're in a "law of diminishing return" situation with Windows 98/ME. Windows 2000 is more demanding, and I've found the jump to 256 and 384 MB is worth it.

Just keep in mind your needs. You can drink a cup of water from a bucket, but a glass will do just fine. If it's a decent size glass, and you never quite fill it up, then the bucket is just pointless.

If you give the folks here and idea of how you use your machine, I think here can give you some idea of the benefits of more RAM.

Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net

[Himself]

Rule of thumb, if you only need 256MB of swap file, that's probably as much ram as you would ever need to install. Basically if you find your swap file usage getting extreme on occasion, get more ram. Only things I really find use a lot of ram are some games and photoshop. But, in the end, you can never have enough ram, if all else fails, you can use it as a ram disk. If you use a multitasking OS like WinNT or Win2K, it will come in handy a lot more than a OS like Win9x, which only has marketing multitasking.

[aaroncgi]

Thanks for the Crucial links, Greebe, good info there though I've already read 'em.

I use my computer primarily for (not in any order really) email and web surfing, as well as gaming and image processing and web design. While I do scan some photos in and do a good deal of manipulation with them, I've never seen an image size larger than say, 10 mb, and that is rare as I don't scan in super high resolution or size. Normal scan I think comes out to 1 or 2 mb in BMP format. Who knows in the future though! My games are all at least a year old, except for Diablo II, so I doubt they're resource hogs. Someday though I may buy games that just come out. The new Star Trek Worlds game looks pretty cool!

In the future I plan on doing some audio editing and CD recording, not sure how much memory those kinds of things use.

I'm pretty naive about all this swap file stuff and how much memory various things are taking up, etc, I just try and gauge by when my system is noticeably slowing down. So far, I haven't noticed any slowdowns yet, except maybe when I start opening more than 15 copies of internet explorer at once, each viewing a different picture or something. But in normal use of my system, I'd never do that.

From the comments so far though, looks like and extra 128M should be useful. I think I've read that if you are using multiple DIMMS, it's better if they are all the same size, ie 3 x 128M is better than 1 x 128M + 1 x 256M. I know everyone says not to mix RAM brands, but this is probably what I will end up doing, as the stick I already have is going to be near impossible to find, and even if it wasn't, it's nothing special to begin with and not any cheaper than the 'good stuff'.

Sorry to ramble on again..

Aaron

[Nick L]

I think I read that your mb will only cache up to a certain amount of ram depending on your L2 cache size

[spoogenet]

aaroncgi,

I guess what kind of image manipulations you do will probably vary your file sizes. While you may have only experienced 10 MB file sizes. In my experiences, many of my files end up being 18-30 MB file sizes. Now keep in mind what I'm doing, I'm taking 1024x768 and 1600x1200 bitmaps then making PSD files out of them and applying filters, and have anywhere from 2-15 layers on them. So of course my file sizes will be bigger. Just something to keep in mind if you plan on doing more image manipulation with Photoshop on big images in the future.

For Windows2000, I just upgraded to 256 from 128 about 2 weeks ago. Good investment, in my mind. I think it made a very positive difference. I always hated only having 128. Does anybody think 256--->384 would be worth it? I haven't currently capped my memory yet, however the possibility still lurks. I use it for a little gaming, image manipulation, image rendering, digital and analog circuit simulation, math calculations, spreadsheets, etc.

Also, one thing about Win2k, the ole saying the more you give it the more it takes. With 128, upon a fresh boot, task manager reports ~70 MB in use. With 256, fresh boot, task manager reports ~112 in use. Feed it, and it will eat.

b

[Technoid]

As long as you have a P2 or higher/Athlon or higher it's going to cache all the mem your mobo can take!!

[Rags]

Technoid is partially correct.


How your L2 cache is programmed is what determines how much RAM is cached. On old socket 7 motherboards, as little as 32 MB was cached, and up to 512 MB cached, depending on the motherboard and how much L2 it had. Starting with the original P2, the motherboard was no longer the factor in how much RAM is cached since the L2 was placed on the processor's slot cartridge. The original P2 was capable of caching only 512MB, later that would change to 1GB then to 3GB I believe. The original celeron would benefit from extra RAM in unlimited amounts because it had no cache. Now, unless you have a server where you can have ungodly amounts of RAM, you cannot exceed your P3 or Athlon's cacheable amount, because the motherboards cannot hold that much memory.

Now, as far as what is beneficial, it depends on what you do. If you are doing streaming audio/video editing, 256MB to 1GB would be great. I think heavy gaming should have 128 to 512MB. With memory prices as low as they are now, 512MB should be the target, with 256 being the sweet spot.

Rags

[spoogenet]

To anybody, is there any substance to the "make them all the same size" idea?

I'm thinking of hitting up another 128, it's only $63 shipped assuming prices don't change this next week, which they probably will (hopefully lower). The 256 is $143 shipped.

Just wonderingn if maybe I should bump up to 512, hit 384, or just sit at 256.

I do gaming less frequently than other things. I honestly don't know how much I'll benefit from 384 over 256 because I haven't peaked my memory yet in the work I've been doing since I went up to 256, but before that I was the disk caching masta if ya know what I mean, vern?

Also is there any substance to the "don't fill up all the slots" idea? I'm running an Abit BM6 with a Celery 400@500.

My first 128 is PC100 CAS3, running at 83 FSB CAS2, and added PC133 CAS3 and still running it all at CAS2. Since I upgraded I've had a couple crashes of one program due to memory issues, but I upgraded it to a new version right when I upgraded my memory, and it's an unreliable memory hogging POS memory leaking app anyway. Other than that had no probs with my other memory-intensive apps.

Thanks for any info,
b