Do you think more RAM would help?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

OK, here's a question for those of you in the know. Do you think if I
increased my RAM from 512 MB to a Gig that I'd see a big performance boost
in the Y2K3 mod and OFP in general?

I see tigerdirect's got SIMMs for about $60 each. I'm thinking of plunking
down $120 and moving up to a Gig, but I don't want to spend that money if
it's really not going to help me much.

Opinions?
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

"Communique" <Communique@NOSPAMev1.net> wrote in message
news:10js8uvtelkbq63@corp.supernews.com...
> OK, here's a question for those of you in the know. Do you think if
> I
> increased my RAM from 512 MB to a Gig that I'd see a big performance
> boost
> in the Y2K3 mod and OFP in general?
>
> I see tigerdirect's got SIMMs for about $60 each. I'm thinking of
> plunking
> down $120 and moving up to a Gig, but I don't want to spend that
> money if
> it's really not going to help me much.
>
> Opinions?
>
>
Simms? Man, what board have you got? You're using dual ddr yes?
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

> Simms? Man, what board have you got? You're using dual ddr yes?

Yeah, I've got DDR. I'm learning, I'm learning. Just since I wrote that
post, I've investigated--I've got DDR SDRAM PC2100 266Mhz, and my board
max's out at 2 Gigs.

Back when I changed out my memory on my old 486 years ago, they were called
SIMMs--heck, I didn't they changed it!

:)
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

"Communique" <Communique@NOSPAMev1.net> wrote in message
news:10jsf3lphnvldce@corp.supernews.com...
> > Simms? Man, what board have you got? You're using dual ddr yes?
>
> Yeah, I've got DDR. I'm learning, I'm learning. Just since I wrote that
> post, I've investigated--I've got DDR SDRAM PC2100 266Mhz, and my board
> max's out at 2 Gigs.

Oooooooh, you're in for a nice surprise.

Don't go for anything lower than PC2700 (333Mhz). What's your CPU? I have a
Barton AMD 2500+ (333Mhz) running with 768MB (333Mhz) and it's dead nippy
for OFP and the like. I also have an Athlon 3000 (400Mhz) with 1GB of DDR
3200 (400Mhz), and that's even nippier!

PC2700 is v. v. v. cheap nowadays, and is probably the best that your system
can take - and well worth the jump!

--

Liddle Feesh
*fap fap fap fap*
<>< <>< <>< <>< ><>
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

> Oooooooh, you're in for a nice surprise.
>
> Don't go for anything lower than PC2700 (333Mhz). What's your CPU? I have
a
> Barton AMD 2500+ (333Mhz) running with 768MB (333Mhz) and it's dead nippy
> for OFP and the like. I also have an Athlon 3000 (400Mhz) with 1GB of DDR
> 3200 (400Mhz), and that's even nippier!
>
> PC2700 is v. v. v. cheap nowadays, and is probably the best that your
system
> can take - and well worth the jump!

I read on the Intel site about my board that it's rated for 200Mhz or 266Mhz
chips. I know the PC2100 has something to do with the bus speed.

If Intel says that 266Mhz is the max, should I look into faster chips?
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

"Communique" <Communique@NOSPAMev1.net> wrote in message
news:10jsr4vr3ua4d3a@corp.supernews.com...
> > Oooooooh, you're in for a nice surprise.
> >
> > Don't go for anything lower than PC2700 (333Mhz). What's your CPU? I
have
> a
> > Barton AMD 2500+ (333Mhz) running with 768MB (333Mhz) and it's dead
nippy
> > for OFP and the like. I also have an Athlon 3000 (400Mhz) with 1GB of
DDR
> > 3200 (400Mhz), and that's even nippier!
> >
> > PC2700 is v. v. v. cheap nowadays, and is probably the best that your
> system
> > can take - and well worth the jump!
>
> I read on the Intel site about my board that it's rated for 200Mhz or
266Mhz
> chips. I know the PC2100 has something to do with the bus speed.
>
> If Intel says that 266Mhz is the max, should I look into faster chips?

The faster RAM will just run at the max your board will, so if you put a
PC3200 DIMM into a PC2100 board it'll run at PC2100 speeds. However, faster
rated DIMMs will give you more headroom for overclocking if you feel up to
it. And if you upgrade your motherboard in the future, having faster RAM now
will mean you don't have to bother replacing that at the same time, you can
just put it straight in. The price difference between each speed of RAM is
pretty small now anyway, you might as well get the fastest you can afford
ready for when you switch motherboard.

Dan
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

"Communique" <Communique@NOSPAMev1.net> wrote in
news:10js8uvtelkbq63@corp.supernews.com:

> OK, here's a question for those of you in the know. Do you think
> if I increased my RAM from 512 MB to a Gig that I'd see a big
> performance boost in the Y2K3 mod and OFP in general?
>
> I see tigerdirect's got SIMMs for about $60 each. I'm thinking of
> plunking down $120 and moving up to a Gig, but I don't want to
> spend that money if it's really not going to help me much.
>
> Opinions?

Since no one else has mentioned it ... Only go above 512 if you are
using Windows XP. I know you probably are, but thought I'd say it just
in case.

--
ICQ: 8105495
AIM: KeeperGFA
EMail: thekeeper@canada.com
"If we did the things we are capable of,
we would astound ourselves." - Edison
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

.. The price difference between each speed of RAM is
> pretty small now anyway, you might as well get the fastest you can afford
> ready for when you switch motherboard.

Dan the man has spoken, and is indeed correct.

To put it another way - avoid the false economy of buying "cheap" (esp. when
2100->2700 is not that great a price diff.)


--

Liddle Feesh
*fap fap fap fap*
<>< <>< <>< <>< ><>
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

"Kevin 'Keeper' Foster" <thekeeper@canada.com> wrote in message
> Since no one else has mentioned it ... Only go above 512 if you are
> using Windows XP. I know you probably are, but thought I'd say it just
> in case.

Or Windows 2000 Pro - can handle 2GB of RAM.


--

Liddle Feesh
*fap fap fap fap*
<>< <>< <>< <>< ><>
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

Liddle Feesh wrote:
>> Since no one else has mentioned it ... Only go above 512 if you
>> are using Windows XP. I know you probably are, but thought I'd say
>> it just in case.
>
> Or Windows 2000 Pro - can handle 2GB of RAM.

768 was the limit IIRC. -But it is still an issue in XP/2K since going
above that increases the resource usage (including RAM) for
administering the memory. I have been told that (at least in a server
enviroment) going from 768 to 1024 wasn't worth it as one "lost" as much
memory as one gained.

Another issue for the original poster though: Make sure you haven't used
up all your RAM-channels. (!= RAM-slots) Many boards uses 3 slots but
only have 2 channels for the DDR-memory, meaning that one can only use 2
doubleside (normal) RAM-modules. In order to use all three one would
need to use 1 doubleside module + 1 pair of singleside modules = 3
modules in total.

Oh, -and buying RAM that is "to fast" for your board, thus forcing you
to "underclock" it will often allow you to lower the CAS-timings.

--
mvh / Regards
Bjørn Halvor Bergtun / Xenu <TZW>
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

> 768 was the limit IIRC. -But it is still an issue in XP/2K since going
> above that increases the resource usage (including RAM) for
> administering the memory.

That's plain silly. The entire NT line has been designed, from day one, to
manage the whole 32-bit addressable range. That's 4 gigs. Advanced
Server/Datacenter are capable of more.

Besides, which one do you think is most costly: the overhead of managing
additional memory, or swapping to disk because you don't have enough?

> I have been told that (at least in a server
> enviroment) going from 768 to 1024 wasn't worth it as one "lost" as much
> memory as one gained.

Whoever told you that, get your information elsewhere. You're getting
seriously misinformed, and you sound ridiculous repeating this
misinformation.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

Bjørn Halvor Bergtun wrote:
> Liddle Feesh wrote:
>
>>> Since no one else has mentioned it ... Only go above 512 if you
>>>are using Windows XP. I know you probably are, but thought I'd say
>>>it just in case.
>>
>>Or Windows 2000 Pro - can handle 2GB of RAM.
>
>
> 768 was the limit IIRC. -But it is still an issue in XP/2K since going
> above that increases the resource usage (including RAM) for
> administering the memory. I have been told that (at least in a server
> enviroment) going from 768 to 1024 wasn't worth it as one "lost" as much
> memory as one gained.
>
> Another issue for the original poster though: Make sure you haven't used
> up all your RAM-channels. (!= RAM-slots) Many boards uses 3 slots but
> only have 2 channels for the DDR-memory, meaning that one can only use 2
> doubleside (normal) RAM-modules. In order to use all three one would
> need to use 1 doubleside module + 1 pair of singleside modules = 3
> modules in total.
>
> Oh, -and buying RAM that is "to fast" for your board, thus forcing you
> to "underclock" it will often allow you to lower the CAS-timings.
>
Actually, Win 2K supports up to 4 gigs of memory, and there is no loss
of performance with that amount. The performance will come from what
you have as a virtual drive, and how much of that virtual drive you have
allotted.

From the Microsoft webstite:

Windows 2000 Professional is faster than either Windows NT® Workstation
or Windows 98. How fast? With 64 megabytes of memory, Windows 2000
performs, on average, 25 percent faster than Windows 98. And it doesn't
lag under a heavy load. Because it is entirely based on a 32-bit
architecture, users can run more programs and perform more tasks
concurrently. Adding extra memory and an additional processor improves
performance even more. Windows 2000 supports up to four gigabytes of RAM
and two-way symmetric multi-processing. Achieving a comparable level of
performance in Windows 98 isn't possible.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

Bjørn Halvor Bergtun wrote:

> Liddle Feesh wrote:
>>> Since no one else has mentioned it ... Only go above 512 if you
>>> are using Windows XP. I know you probably are, but thought I'd say
>>> it just in case.
>>
>> Or Windows 2000 Pro - can handle 2GB of RAM.
>
> 768 was the limit IIRC. -But it is still an issue in XP/2K since going
> above that increases the resource usage (including RAM) for
> administering the memory. I have been told that (at least in a server
> enviroment) going from 768 to 1024 wasn't worth it as one "lost" as
> much memory as one gained.

Afaik that was only the case with win9x, and even there were workarounds
for this.
cu,

Markus
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

Thx guys - I stand corrected. Not 2GB - but 4GB. Anyway, in those days I
never had more than 1GB in a 2k workstation, never mind 4 GB !!!

Move with the times. Wait until you can afford it, and get something in
todays current mid range. Don't waste your money on PC2100 anymore.


--

Liddle Feesh
*fap fap fap fap*
<>< <>< <>< <>< ><>
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

> Move with the times. Wait until you can afford it, and get something in
> todays current mid range. Don't waste your money on PC2100 anymore.

Yeah...but, Intel's web site says that's all my board will handle: PC2100.

I went to the Crucial site to look up RAM, and their little thingy-ma-jig
pointed me to their PC2100 DIMMs too.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

"Markus Holzapfel" <frefoli@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:5k2612xkm7.ln2@ID-38143.news.dfncis.de...
Bjørn Halvor Bergtun wrote:

> Liddle Feesh wrote:
>>> Since no one else has mentioned it ... Only go above 512 if you
>>> are using Windows XP. I know you probably are, but thought I'd
>>> say
>>> it just in case.
>>
>> Or Windows 2000 Pro - can handle 2GB of RAM.
>
> 768 was the limit IIRC. -But it is still an issue in XP/2K since
> going
> above that increases the resource usage (including RAM) for
> administering the memory. I have been told that (at least in a
> server
> enviroment) going from 768 to 1024 wasn't worth it as one "lost" as
> much memory as one gained.

Afaik that was only the case with win9x, and even there were
workarounds
for this.
cu,

Markus

Yep, all it took was editing a few files. More ram is always better,
as is more cache.....
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

"Communique" <Communique@NOSPAMev1.net> wrote in message
news:10k1jprm7sajv74@corp.supernews.com...
> > Thx guys - I stand corrected. Not 2GB - but 4GB. Anyway, in those days I
> > never had more than 1GB in a 2k workstation, never mind 4 GB !!!
> >
> > Move with the times. Wait until you can afford it, and get something in
> > todays current mid range. Don't waste your money on PC2100 anymore.
>
>
> I just spoke online with one of the techs at Crucial.com. She said that I
> wouldn't be able to tell a difference, and that moving above PC2100 (what
my
> board is rated at) would be a waste of money.

Except that she seems to have failed to mention that (a) faster RAM can be
overclocked higher and remain stable, and (b) if you decide later to upgrade
your motherboard you'll have to also get new RAM. The price difference isn't
that high - looking at 1GB sticks, it's £164 ($246) for PC2100, £164 ($246)
for PC2700, and £168 ($253) for PC3200. You should have at least taken the
PC2700 as it's the same price. Sounds like the Crucial "tech" talked you
into taking the PC2100 sticks to get rid of old stock. BTW, I use Crucial
myself, always have for RAM for both home and at work, it's good quality
RAM, just looks like you fell foul of the sales banter.

Dan
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

> Except that she seems to have failed to mention that (a) faster RAM can be
> overclocked higher and remain stable,

I've read that Crucial doesn't support overclocking--which is probably why
she didn't mention it.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

"Communique" <Communique@NOSPAMev1.net> wrote in message
news:10k3nv48lqr6v4c@corp.supernews.com...
> > Except that she seems to have failed to mention that (a) faster RAM can
be
> > overclocked higher and remain stable,
>
> I've read that Crucial doesn't support overclocking--which is probably why
> she didn't mention it.

Most companies don't support it. However, it doesn't change the fact that
faster RAM is generally of better quality than lower speed RAM, which is why
it's always worth buying RAM at least one speed rating higher if you are
thinking of overclocking.

She also didn't mention that PC2700 was exactly the same price as PC2100 and
would work exactly the same, but would also run faster if you went to a
PC2700 board in the future.

Dan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom