1.5 gigs of DDR - worth it?

ShortyShorty Manchester, UK Icrontian
edited August 2003 in Hardware
I have been running my NF7-S with 2 x TwinMOS PC3200 256mb but I really wanted to get up to a gig :)

I picked up a matching TwinMOS 512mb stick from a buddy.. but then....

Mackanz (Short-Media resident bargain hunter extraordinaire) found me 2 x 512mb of the same stick as above on Ebay. I got the 3 x 512mb sticks in total for £140 in two deals.

I've already sold the current 2 x 256's to someone else for £60. This means, 1.5gig of DDR has cost me the grand sum of £80 (about $120).

The question here is..

Is 1.5gig really gonna make a difference? I use flash, photoshop and other heavy apps alot and I know the difference taking it from 512mb to 1gig does make in that scenario.

Suppose I could make the swap file just in ram now :)

What do you guys think? or know.. from experience :)

Comments

  • WuGgaRoOWuGgaRoO Not in the shower Icrontian
    edited July 2003
    from what ive been told...i dont think u need 1.5gigs...unless ur doing graphical work AND want to run videogames at the same time..it seems to be a tad overkill...but why not see if there is aa difference...once u get the stix...use them and bench them..see if there is a significant difference.
  • TheLostSwedeTheLostSwede Trondheim, Norway Icrontian
    edited July 2003
    Shorty said

    Is 1.5gig really gonna make a difference? I use flash, photoshop and other heavy apps alot and I know the difference taking it from 512mb to 1gig does make in that scenario.

    Suppose I could make the swap file just in ram now :)

    What do you guys think? or know.. from experience :)

    That´s exactly why you of all would need 1.5 gigs. You normally run pretty serious apps and have them opened all the time. With LESS usage of the swapfile, your puter will therefore be faster.
    You can now dedicate at least half a gig to Vpc without worrying about having P-Shop, Flash mx and the occasional bible library up at the same time. You can´t even say to Trin that you´re out of memory to chat with her. Bugger, everything has it´s downsides as well.
    WuGgaRoO said
    from what ive been told...i dont think u need 1.5gigs...unless ur doing graphical work AND want to run videogames at the same time..

    Shortster IS teh Short-Media multitask punk.
  • WuGgaRoOWuGgaRoO Not in the shower Icrontian
    edited July 2003
    seems the 1.5gigz is definatly worth it
  • a2jfreaka2jfreak Houston, TX Member
    edited July 2003
    As long as it's not flakey RAM and the NF7-S doesn't have stability problems with all three DIMMs being populated, then 1.5 shouldn't hurt you.

    Since the O/S is having to manage more memory you may experience a slow-down, but that should be minimal, especially with a fast CPU and fast HD. The gains of having the extra RAM outweight the negatives.
  • ShortyShorty Manchester, UK Icrontian
    edited July 2003
    The DDR is gonna sit in :

    NF7-S // XP2500+ @ 11x200 // 2x WD 80gb (raid-0) // Radeon 9700pro

    Just considering whether to actually ditch that and get a dualie MPX board. Then bribe someone like Mud to hardwire a couple of 2500+ bartons for it :)

    Coupled with the 64-bit RAID controller I have coming & some ebay SCSI kit, it'd be a serious monster performer.

    What do you think?? overkill??
  • TheLostSwedeTheLostSwede Trondheim, Norway Icrontian
    edited July 2003
    Im not sure a dual amd board will allow 3200 memory´s buddy. I might be wrong though.
  • primesuspectprimesuspect Beepin n' Boopin Detroit, MI Icrontian
    edited July 2003
    Here's what I think:

    You know damn well that a) 1.5gigs is not nearly enough, if you could cram 3gb in there that would be nice, and b) yes, of course that would be a monster performer.

    I think you're using this space to RUB IT IN OUR FACES ;D:D
  • a2jfreaka2jfreak Houston, TX Member
    edited July 2003
    I think a single processor board running the chip @ really high speeds, like 2.3GHz or better would be faster most of the time than a dually board.
    Shorty said
    The DDR is gonna sit in :

    NF7-S // XP2500+ @ 11x200 // 2x WD 80gb (raid-0) // Radeon 9700pro

    Just considering whether to actually ditch that and get a dualie MPX board. Then bribe someone like Mud to hardwire a couple of 2500+ bartons for it :)

    Coupled with the 64-bit RAID controller I have coming & some ebay SCSI kit, it'd be a serious monster performer.

    What do you think?? overkill??




    I think you are correct!
    Even if he could run the Bartons at 133x16 or more, I think a single CPU solution would be best in most situations because of the bandwidth.
    Mackanz said
    Im not sure a dual amd board will allow 3200 memory´s buddy. I might be wrong though.




    3GB ain't enough! :D
    It's never enough!

    Yeah, he's rubbing it in, but that's OK. I like hearing/seeing what other people have, or might get. :)
    primesuspect said
    Here's what I think:

    You know damn well that a) 1.5gigs is not nearly enough, if you could cram 3gb in there that would be nice, and b) yes, of course that would be a monster performer.

    I think you're using this space to RUB IT IN OUR FACES ;D:D
  • ShortyShorty Manchester, UK Icrontian
    edited July 2003
    Mackanz said
    Shortster IS teh Short-Media multitask punk.

    ;D;D Quite possibly mate :D
    Mackanz said
    Im not sure a dual amd board will allow 3200 memory´s buddy. I might be wrong though.

    Doh. Foiled again :(
    primesuspect said
    Here's what I think:

    You know damn well that a) 1.5gigs is not nearly enough, if you could cram 3gb in there that would be nice, and b) yes, of course that would be a monster performer.

    I think you're using this space to RUB IT IN OUR FACES ;D:D

    Awwwww Im not! Im asking a genuine question! :wave: cause I wasn't sure :ninja:
  • SpinnerSpinner Birmingham, UK
    edited July 2003
    I don't think it would be overkill, but I think you'll struggle to see much of a difference in performance. At least when compared to 1GIG. When I upgraded my system to 1GIG from 512MB last year, the difference initially was only slight, but in retrospect after running a host of different apps etc etc since then, I do actually notice the extra memory helping me out. Don't know how much another 512MB on top of that though would be noticeable.
  • ShortyShorty Manchester, UK Icrontian
    edited July 2003
    Well the memory is in. Clean install. Memory tweaks etc done.

    Now got an open VMware running Linux operating in it's own 512mb memory space ;) with nearly a gig of memory still free :D

    How many windows can one person have open?? ALOT! :D
  • Geeky1Geeky1 University of the Pacific (Stockton, CA, USA)
    edited July 2003
    Didn't have time to read the whole thread since I have to leave the house in a minute, but to answer your original question Shorty, 1.5GB will help... HOWEVER, I've run XP on 128MB, 160MB, 256MB, 384MB, 512MB, 1GB and 1.5GB. 128MB is unuseable. 256 is fine. 256 -> 384 I can't comment on since the computers in question are so slow (650MHz and lower). 256 -> 512 is a big increase, as is 512 -> 1gb. 1gb -> 1.5gb makes no noticeable difference. However, I don't do photoshop work much, and the most multitasking I do on a regular basis is 20 IE windows, word and/or excel, and maybe dreamweaver...
  • TheLostSwedeTheLostSwede Trondheim, Norway Icrontian
    edited July 2003
    Shorty said
    Well the memory is in. Clean install. Memory tweaks etc done.

    Now got an open VMware running Linux operating in it's own 512mb memory space ;) with nearly a gig of memory still free :D

    How many windows can one person have open?? ALOT! :D

    Awesome!

    Your biggest advantage is that almost no pagefile will be used at all, which speeds up the system VERY much.
  • TekGamerTekGamer Earth
    edited August 2003
    worth it... yes... you can never have to much ram...
  • kanezfankanezfan sunny south florida Icrontian
    edited August 2003
    I think 512 is the minimum acceptable amont of ram required for XP. I think it's too slow with 512. 768 makes it run like a dream, I've got 1 GB right now, I don't notice a difference between 768 and 1GB and I'm usually running like 2 taskbars worht of programs at once.
  • SpinnerSpinner Birmingham, UK
    edited August 2003
    kanezfan said
    I think 512 is the minimum acceptable amont of ram required for XP.

    That's pretty much the rule I live by as well. If I see an XP system these days with anything less, I won't be able to sleep until I know the system in question has been upgraded.
  • Geeky1Geeky1 University of the Pacific (Stockton, CA, USA)
    edited August 2003
    spinner, it depends on what the system is used for; all of Habitat For Humanity's XP 1800+ systems run 256MB of RAM and have 64MB GF2MX400s... that combination is more than sufficient for web browsing and office apps. I wouldn't use it for CAD/CAM by any means, but even I can use them for what they were intended to be used for without a problem (and if I can use them without complaining, anyone can use them without complaining ;))
Sign In or Register to comment.