Memory what is enough?

ZuntarZuntar North Carolina Icrontian
edited July 2003 in Hardware
I have 512Mb Mushkin PC3000 in my main system. Is anything over 512 worth it? If so then any recomedations on amounts and/or configurations? :confused:

My mobo is a MSI KT3 Ultra2 with a KT333 chipset. Im running my FSB at 172Mhz (not tryin for max, just a little extra!) the PC3000 is rated at 366MHz bus freq and i'm running it at 344Mhz.

Comments

  • karatekidkaratekid Ogdensburg, NY
    edited July 2003
    Unless you are doing anything particularly RAM intensive, say video editing, 512MB is currently the perfect amount of RAM to use, if you are using Windows XP. You will most likely notice no improvement if you add more RAM, XP just seems to really like 512MB.
  • Mt_GoatMt_Goat Head Cheezy Knob Pflugerville (north of Austin) Icrontian
    edited July 2003
    DITTO.......DITTO

    hERE HERE ERHEHMM
  • danball1976danball1976 Wichita Falls, TX
    edited July 2003
    I found that some games need 512MB or more to have proper performance as well.
  • primesuspectprimesuspect Beepin n' Boopin Detroit, MI Icrontian
    edited July 2003
    There is never enough RAM in your system. You have 512, that's fine, but open a few mozilla windows, play some music, have photoshop open, fold in the background, and have trillian open as well as dreamweaver, and you're using 642mb all of the sudden. Open up CuteFTP while you're at it: Bingo, 656. Now, check your email: 700, etc.

    you get the picture.
  • Geeky1Geeky1 University of the Pacific (Stockton, CA, USA)
    edited July 2003
    The largest I've had in my system is 1.5GB (2x512+2x256) and I don't see a big improvement over 1GB; going from 512mb to 1GB is noticeable, despite what the benchmarks say, and 256 to 512 is a big jump. anyone who runs less than 256mb on XP deserves to be smacked upside the head with a 2x4. (I'm assuming this is XP)
  • Geeky1Geeky1 University of the Pacific (Stockton, CA, USA)
    edited July 2003
    Oh and Prime, you ought to know that photoshop by itself is enough to suck up all available memory. I've heard of instances where it's used up all a system's RAM in such a short period of time (<.01ns) that it's created a rip in the space-time continuum and sent said computer, along with it's user, back to the ice age. If you're doing photoshop, there is no such thing as too much ram. If your OS/MB can't address it all, you obviously need to upgrade. If you can install it, photoshop WILL find a way to use it. It's worse than Windows. :rolleyes:
  • ZuntarZuntar North Carolina Icrontian
    edited July 2003
    .....going from 512mb to 1GB is noticeable, despite what the benchmarks say.....

    I can't stand having lots of windows open, but the old lady usualy has a couple open and we do the multiple users logged in thing.

    SOOOO.... I want to get another 512M stick. Should I stick with the same Muskin PC3000?

    What about PC3200, 3500? What about mixing brands?

    here is my system.

    Motherboard- MSI KT3 Ultra2-R
    OS- Win XP Home Edition SP1
    CPU- AMD Athlon XP 2700+
    CPU HSF- TT Volcano 9
    RAM- 512Mb Mushkin PC3000
    Graphics- Gainward Golden Sample Geforce4 TI 4200 128MB AGP
    Sound- Monster Sound MX300
    NIC- SMC Networks 10/100 SMC1244TX
    HDD1 & 2- Seagate 20Gig 5400rpm & Western Digital 20Gig 5400rpm in RAID 1
    HDD 3- Western Digital 80Gig 7200RPM 8Mb
    Case- Skyhawk Mid tower
    Power Supply- Antec 330W True Power
    Speakers- Cambridge Soundworks w/ Sub
    Monitor- Sony Trinitron 15"
  • AgeekAgeek
    edited July 2003
    Matched speed RAM will be more stable than 2 sticks with different speeds will be. To change speeds to 3500 you would need two sticks probably.
  • stoopidstoopid Albany, NY New
    edited July 2003
    Mixing depends on the system, if the bus is overclocked then you need RAM that will run that overclock at the same memory timings/settings... otherwise, so long as the memory is rated and capable of running the same default speeds, it really doesn't mattter (if you're using PC3000, 3500 would certainly work).

    Memory (by itself) does not determine the speed of your system, so faster memory than what you have shouldn't cause any issues.
  • AgeekAgeek
    edited July 2003
    Precisely-- but mawtched speed usually means RAM module to RAM module, he has a PC3000, and what I said was trying to comunicate the idea that he would need two modules to get PC3500 running stable. The default PC3000 will never match the PC3500.

    I have seen PC3000 which is hard defaulted that way work with PC3200 in a separate bank, but the setup is not simple for that. Either one PC3000 or two PC3500s woudl be my choice, unless you can find two reputable PC3200s for same price per module as PC3000 modules. A pair of Corsairs might be doable depending on how much the thread starter has to spend.

    Monarch Computer has lots of Corsairs and had a few Mushkins also last I looked. They might be worth checking.

    John Danielson.
  • stoopidstoopid Albany, NY New
    edited July 2003
    Originally posted by Ageek
    Precisely-- but mawtched speed usually means RAM module to RAM module, he has a PC3000, and what I said was trying to comunicate the idea that he would need two modules to get PC3500 running stable. The default PC3000 will never match the PC3500.

    He doesn't appear to be overclocking much, so if the PC3000 can handle the 172mhz bus, then any 3200 or 3500 will handle it... matching is only suggested as a rule when running extreme overclocks, where brand, latency, and other timing settings come into play, and the more closely the RAM is the more likely to achieve stability at the same speeds (also has to do with addressing, which I think you were leuding to). In this specific example, however, he would be fine with any PC3200+ RAM by any current PC3200+ manufacturer.
  • AgeekAgeek
    edited July 2003
    Um, let's see--

    IF he has two such in one bank, adn sets timing for one module-- unfortunately latency is usually hardcoded, so the overclocked module would want to run more latent. TWO same modules would have same latency. No latency issues.

    If he can run one per bank and adjust latency by bank he can then use both at higher speed. But a BIOS will want to run all the banks at one latency and one speed, so if he stuck a faster one in and let the BIOS do the settings it would set things for the slowest module.

    Might run, and might be the faster module might not be able to match rates right also.
    With matched speeds( by using matched modules), you have killed all the latency things I am talking about here at once. Just saying mathcing is best design to not get things happen that take lots of time over long haul to fix.

    John Danielson.
  • Omega65Omega65 Philadelphia, Pa
    edited July 2003
    If you manually set the latency (Cas2, 2.5 or 3), the motherboard will force all Memory sticks to run at the same latency & Memory timings.

    All that matters then is that the slowest Mem stick (The weakest link) support the desired timings.

    IMO since you already using Mushkin PC3000 (187mhz), get at least Mushkin PC3200 or PC3500. The make sure to set the timings manually, using the slowest stick first.

    The day will come when you want to run at FSB400 (with a mobo upgrade maybe..)

    For the record I'm using 256MB and I usually have 3-5 open Netscape v7.1 windows open along with FAH3 running in the background along with the usual systray crap (MBM, Zonealarm, NAV, Popup Killer etc)
  • trippintrippin Chatt, TN
    edited July 2003
    512mb ram is plenty imo. I run @ 1600x1200 and regularly have the taskbar full or programs, so much that i can't read the names (30 - 40 windows) incuding photoshop, 3 - 4 ssh sessions, 10 - 15 instances of ie, outlook, trillian (with 15 windows of its own), winamp, and then all my file sharing apps going on in the background, and sometimes doing some video encoding, and i dont really take too much of a hit, dispite having all of that open, im sure that i could benefit from 1gb, which I may have soon, but 512mb flies.

    [running windows 2k on a dual 2400+ tyan tiger mpx with 512 ddr]
  • Ninja-Kreon2Ninja-Kreon2
    edited July 2003
    Originally posted by trippin
    512mb ram is plenty imo. I run @ 1600x1200 and regularly have the taskbar full or programs, so much that i can't read the names (30 - 40 windows) incuding photoshop, 3 - 4 ssh sessions, 10 - 15 instances of ie, outlook, trillian (with 15 windows of its own), winamp, and then all my file sharing apps going on in the background, and sometimes doing some video encoding, and i dont really take too much of a hit, dispite having all of that open, im sure that i could benefit from 1gb, which I may have soon, but 512mb flies.

    [running windows 2k on a dual 2400+ tyan tiger mpx with 512 ddr]

    :eek:
  • EnverexEnverex Worcester, UK Icrontian
    edited July 2003
    Multiple IE and Trillian windows add virtually nothing and ssh is lite so its not really that much. Most stuff uses less than you think,

    NS
  • danball1976danball1976 Wichita Falls, TX
    edited July 2003
    Originally posted by trippin
    512mb ram is plenty imo. I run @ 1600x1200 and regularly have the taskbar full or programs, so much that i can't read the names (30 - 40 windows) incuding photoshop, 3 - 4 ssh sessions, 10 - 15 instances of ie, outlook, trillian (with 15 windows of its own), winamp, and then all my file sharing apps going on in the background, and sometimes doing some video encoding, and i dont really take too much of a hit, dispite having all of that open, im sure that i could benefit from 1gb, which I may have soon, but 512mb flies.

    [running windows 2k on a dual 2400+ tyan tiger mpx with 512 ddr]

    Based on how windows works, I bet alot of that stuff is put into the swap file.
  • ShortyShorty Manchester, UK Icrontian
    edited July 2003
    Originally posted by Geeky1
    Oh and Prime, you ought to know that photoshop by itself is enough to suck up all available memory. I've heard of instances where it's used up all a system's RAM in such a short period of time (<.01ns) that it's created a rip in the space-time continuum and sent said computer, along with it's user, back to the ice age. If you're doing photoshop, there is no such thing as too much ram. If your OS/MB can't address it all, you obviously need to upgrade. If you can install it, photoshop WILL find a way to use it. It's worse than Windows. :rolleyes:

    :eek: I heard that too!

    Photoshop can really be a hell of a hog. Once you open a 300dpi resolution .ai file. Then you watch the task manager climb like a mofo and your disks start crying ;)
  • AgeekAgeek
    edited July 2003
    Photoshop has its own memory mgt built-in. It likes to have simultaneously open copies of file as it was when session opened, a copy of current file state, and lock on the original file. So,when opening a fileyou are committing to using a minumum of 2X file size plus the change tracking that is kept per session so you can roll back with undo any change.

    Convenience with very large files means a LOT of buffer penalty or very slow to no speed. Photoshop plus very large RAM flies. Photoshop plus medium RAM flies as fast as the HD does. Photoshop plus low RAM crawls or locks systems unless you have a fixed Swap size, then it just crawls.

    I thus use things with a 20-30 change LIFO or RANDOM rollback cache that keep original just on HD for most graphics work I do. Less overhead and they are not too much slower overall.

    John Danielson.
  • a2jfreaka2jfreak Houston, TX Member
    edited July 2003
    I had been running 768MB of RAM and the vast majority of time it was fine, but there were times, especially when doing videos, that I needed more.

    This system has 512MB right now, but I just got my other 512MB stick in from newegg yesterday so that will up me to 1GB.

    Unless you're video editing, or like Geeky1 said, using Photoshop (for incredibly large images), then you should be fine with 512MB. 1GB won't hurt though :D
  • NYCDrewNYCDrew NYC(duh)
    edited July 2003
    I just went from 512meg (one 256 and two 128 sticks) to 896meg (one 512, one 256, and one 128 stick.)

    I use a lot of apps when web designing. It's not unusual to have Dreamweaver, PhotoShop, WSFTP_pro, numerous IE pages, e-mail, etc. open at the same time on two moniters. I have noticed less hard drive activity with the extra RAM, so I'm guessing it helped. Windows XP seems to be able to handle all the ram you throw at it unlike older OS's.
Sign In or Register to comment.