RAM - Qty or Speed

Sojourn · 01-03-2003, 10:33 AM

1st Post...

...

What would you prefer, 512MB 2700 or 1024MB 2100???

bigben2k · 01-03-2003, 10:36 AM

512 2700. Speed is critical, especially with ram (assuming a matching CPU).

Puzzdre · 01-03-2003, 10:56 AM

Agreed!
512 is well enuff to run the rig smoothly, and ofcourse, faster...

mfpmax · 01-03-2003, 01:03 PM

512 as I have yet to have a need for 1 GIG

Not to mention only XP/2K will be able to see anything over 512(or was it 384...).

iroc409 · 01-04-2003, 03:56 AM

ok, glad someone asked about this. i had a question, somewhat on-topic about my computer.

running an xp 2000+, radeon 9700 128mb, and 256mb pny 2100 ddr (i had to be cheap on the ram at the time). running all 7200rpm drives. i know i run a lot of stuff, but the machine is slow as hell . i mean, horrifying. half-life mods are slow to load, as are other games, not to mention ut2003 (god-awful). ut2003 plays pretty bad too, unless i trim it down to 800x600 low graphics, and run tweak-xp pro to optimize the ram first. i was planning on *hopefully* dropping in another 256mb 2100 chip, but would that make it run significantly faster? i've never run more than 512mb in any of my machines, and that keeps it happy. just been running a little low on the ddr side of things. 512mb seemed to keep my machine pretty happy with my 1ghz duron, almost happier at times than the 2000+, and only running an old-skool radeon 64mb vivo.

thanks, hope it's not too off-topic.

g.l.amour · 01-04-2003, 04:38 AM

if u run winxp, then the difference between 256 and 512 is huge. rtcw maps load 1/3 faster etc... u shouldn't notice any increase in fps, but load times will be much faster, and in windows the computer will respond to user input alot faster. try and u shall c.

iroc409 · 01-04-2003, 05:08 AM

glad to hear that

i didn't want to go out and spend the scrill really for more than 256mb right now

i figure combine that with a reinstall, i should be good to go. and a lot faster than my 1ghz setup was

(especially now that i'm out of my little duron hell... not that they're bad tho. i just wanted more of a 'man's' proc)

Can O' Beans · 01-05-2003, 12:07 AM

For most apps & games nowadays, 512mb is the minimum for good performance, in my opinion. It also depends on what software you're running.

Battlefield 1942 is a good example, although a bit higher in mem usage than most games. The maps load up faster on my 950 Athlon with 1G pc133 SDRAM compared to my P4 1.6@2.13GHz with 512 DDR running at 354Mhz. But once in the game, it runs a lot better on the P4 (which will see another 512mb when the $$ comes

)

I personally like to have more RAM than I need, and like minimizing swap file size & useage.

Brad · 01-05-2003, 03:13 AM

the other thing with 1gb is that most boards won't oc as well as they would with just one stick of ram, and if you used 1x 1gb stick, they oc very poorly as well

iroc409 · 01-10-2003, 02:39 AM

threw the other 256mb in the machine... made night-and-day difference. instead of cranking down the neat stuff in ut2003 and running at 800x600, i turned up everything and am running at 1280x1024, runs as it should

haven't tried 1600 yet, but i should.

thanks for the tipz

01-03-2003, 10:33 AM	#1
Sojourn Cooling Neophyte Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: UK Posts: 1	RAM - Qty or Speed 1st Post... ... What would you prefer, 512MB 2700 or 1024MB 2100??? __________________ ....When the lights are out, all women are beautiful....

01-03-2003, 10:36 AM	#2
bigben2k Responsible for 2% of all the posts here. Join Date: May 2002 Location: Texas, U.S.A. Posts: 8,302	512 2700. Speed is critical, especially with ram (assuming a matching CPU). __________________ WBTA (Water Block Testing Alliance) Nordic Hardware WC 101

01-03-2003, 10:56 AM	#3
Puzzdre Cooling Savant Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Croatia Posts: 969	Agreed! 512 is well enuff to run the rig smoothly, and ofcourse, faster... __________________ 'Out of cheese error... ...please reboot the universe (press the GBL to continue)'

01-03-2003, 01:03 PM	#4
mfpmax Cooling Savant Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Rockledge,FL,US Posts: 731	512 as I have yet to have a need for 1 GIG Not to mention only XP/2K will be able to see anything over 512(or was it 384...). __________________ My old and retired watercooling setup. Watercooled K6-2 450 at 600 Also Retired - Watercooling an XP1800@1782MHz

01-04-2003, 03:56 AM	#5
iroc409 Cooling Savant Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: midwest side, yo Posts: 596	ok, glad someone asked about this. i had a question, somewhat on-topic about my computer. running an xp 2000+, radeon 9700 128mb, and 256mb pny 2100 ddr (i had to be cheap on the ram at the time). running all 7200rpm drives. i know i run a lot of stuff, but the machine is slow as hell . i mean, horrifying. half-life mods are slow to load, as are other games, not to mention ut2003 (god-awful). ut2003 plays pretty bad too, unless i trim it down to 800x600 low graphics, and run tweak-xp pro to optimize the ram first. i was planning on hopefully dropping in another 256mb 2100 chip, but would that make it run significantly faster? i've never run more than 512mb in any of my machines, and that keeps it happy. just been running a little low on the ddr side of things. 512mb seemed to keep my machine pretty happy with my 1ghz duron, almost happier at times than the 2000+, and only running an old-skool radeon 64mb vivo. thanks, hope it's not too off-topic. __________________ :shrug:

01-04-2003, 04:38 AM	#6
g.l.amour Cooling Savant Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: on da case Posts: 933	if u run winxp, then the difference between 256 and 512 is huge. rtcw maps load 1/3 faster etc... u shouldn't notice any increase in fps, but load times will be much faster, and in windows the computer will respond to user input alot faster. try and u shall c. __________________ yo soy un tiburón

01-04-2003, 05:08 AM	#7
iroc409 Cooling Savant Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: midwest side, yo Posts: 596	glad to hear that i didn't want to go out and spend the scrill really for more than 256mb right now i figure combine that with a reinstall, i should be good to go. and a lot faster than my 1ghz setup was (especially now that i'm out of my little duron hell... not that they're bad tho. i just wanted more of a 'man's' proc) __________________ :shrug:

01-05-2003, 12:07 AM	#8
Can O' Beans Cooling Savant Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Pa - USA Posts: 264	For most apps & games nowadays, 512mb is the minimum for good performance, in my opinion. It also depends on what software you're running. Battlefield 1942 is a good example, although a bit higher in mem usage than most games. The maps load up faster on my 950 Athlon with 1G pc133 SDRAM compared to my P4 1.6@2.13GHz with 512 DDR running at 354Mhz. But once in the game, it runs a lot better on the P4 (which will see another 512mb when the $$ comes ) I personally like to have more RAM than I need, and like minimizing swap file size & useage.

01-05-2003, 03:13 AM	#9
Brad Thermophile Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Nuu Zeeelin Posts: 3,175	the other thing with 1gb is that most boards won't oc as well as they would with just one stick of ram, and if you used 1x 1gb stick, they oc very poorly as well __________________ 2x P3 1100's at 1400, Abit VP6, 2x Corsair 256mb PC150 sticks, 20gb 'cuda ATA-III, 2x 40gb 'cuda ATA-IV in raid 0. 20" Trinitron. No fans 2x 2400+ at 2288mhz (16.0 x 143), Iwill MPX2, 2x Kingmax PC-3200 256mb sticks, 4x 20gb 60gxp in Raid 5 on a Promise SX6000. Asus Ti4200 320/630. Cooled by Water

01-10-2003, 02:39 AM	#10
iroc409 Cooling Savant Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: midwest side, yo Posts: 596	threw the other 256mb in the machine... made night-and-day difference. instead of cranking down the neat stuff in ut2003 and running at 800x600, i turned up everything and am running at 1280x1024, runs as it should haven't tried 1600 yet, but i should. thanks for the tipz __________________ :shrug:

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)