DDR ram

[ChrisCantSkate]

ive got 256mb of DDR ram, i NEED to upgrade, can i only pair it, or could i buy a 512 chip? i have a dell 4500 serise. 2.4ghz pentium4 with whatever board they give me

[94_AcCoRd_EX]

You can buy just a 512, that's what I'm running in one of my computers. Are you sure you don't have RDRAM? That needs to run in pairs, and my P4 Dell has RD (rambus) in it.

Why not just buy another 256?

[Addict]

DDR you don't need to pair up. RAMBUS you will.

Buy a 512 if you can get a good deal on it. Otherwise a total of 512 (256 + 256+) is plenty to run most games.

[ebpda9]

Originally posted by Civic_Addict
DDR you don't need to pair up. RAMBUS you will.

Buy a 512 if you can get a good deal on it. Otherwise a total of 512 (256 + 256+) is plenty to run most games.

i think it's cheaper 256+256 than a whole 512.

[Addict]

Originally posted by hondaman-iac
i think it's cheaper 256+256 than a whole 512.

Yeah. I meant since he already has 256, to add another 256.

[Racing Rice]

Bah, add the 512.. You can never have enough memory!

[nonovurbizniz]

Originally posted by Racing Rice
Bah, add the 512.. You can never have enough memory!

I do video editing mp3/dvd ripping all sorts of memory intensive stuff. and there is such a thing as too much.

it just goes unused.... I've never seen my computer use even 50% of my memory (1 gig).

If you like having 10,000 windows open for the hell of it then I guess it won't hurt... but I've always leaned more towards increasing your pagefile size. it gets used first and generally it works faster than having gobs and gobs of ram.

just my .02

[Racing Rice]

Sorry,

I know you can go a little overboard on the memory.. I was just kidding about that.

Originally posted by Civic_Addict
DDR you don't need to pair up. RAMBUS you will.

Buy a 512 if you can get a good deal on it. Otherwise a total of 512 (256 + 256+) is plenty to run most games.

512MB to run games? That sounds overboard, but I've been out of the PC gaming market for a while.

I actually LOST performance on MDK2 when I went from 256 to 384. Only good reason I've been able to come up with so far is the longer address necessary for 384.

I can easily bog down a 1 GB machine, but not a PC.....an AIX box with 1 GB often isn't enough for me.....it's fine for a primary workstation, but I can't run much as far as simulations go with only 1 GB.

b

[Racing Rice]

It depends on what type of games you are playing..

One of my friends said he was playing 1942 against guys that had same video card, 512MB of RAM, and a slower processor.. He said thier machines were running better the his faster processor with 256MB of RAM.

I know, that other things could come into play also.. But you get my drift.

Let me add, that he was watching his memory utilization when he was playing and it was pegged.

[94_AcCoRd_EX]

Originally posted by Racing Rice
It depends on what type of games you are playing..

One of my friends said he was playing 1942 against guys that had same video card, 512MB of RAM, and a slower processor.. He said thier machines were running better the his faster processor with 256MB of RAM.

I know, that other things could come into play also.. But you get my drift.

Let me add, that he was watching his memory utilization when he was playing and it was pegged.

I was just going to bring up the 1942 issue. It tries to load so much into memory, 256 isn't enough and it hits the swap file hard. 512 is best these days.

[Addict]

Originally posted by nonovurbizniz
If you like having 10,000 windows open for the hell of it then I guess it won't hurt... but I've always leaned more towards increasing your pagefile size. it gets used first and generally it works faster than having gobs and gobs of ram.

just my .02

The page file is slower than memory. It doesn't neccessarily get used first. It does start at the minimum size you specify, but its not actually in use. Window VM management is kind of odd. I can't say I agree with the way they handle it, but its probably the best way for the purpose. I wish I could get some pics up of the process.

Originally posted by spoogenet
I actually LOST performance on MDK2 when I went from 256 to 384. Only good reason I've been able to come up with so far is the longer address necessary for 384.

I can easily bog down a 1 GB machine, but not a PC.....an AIX box with 1 GB often isn't enough for me.....it's fine for a primary workstation, but I can't run much as far as simulations go with only 1 GB.

b

Did you match the memory? Some motherboards are picky about matching the timings & latency. What version of Windows are you running? Windows XP/2k are pretty good with memory.

[Addict]

Originally posted by Racing Rice
It depends on what type of games you are playing..

One of my friends said he was playing 1942 against guys that had same video card, 512MB of RAM, and a slower processor.. He said thier machines were running better the his faster processor with 256MB of RAM.

I know, that other things could come into play also.. But you get my drift.

Let me add, that he was watching his memory utilization when he was playing and it was pegged.

Good point.

Battlefield 1942 will consume every bit of memory you throw at it. The more the merrier.

[ChrisCantSkate]

yeah... 1942 mafia and sometimes unreal all trie to load more into memory than i have. i peg 256mb too much, and 768>512 and if i ever sell the 256, i can buy another 512 and get a gig

Originally posted by Civic_Addict
Did you match the memory? Some motherboards are picky about matching the timings & latency. What version of Windows are you running? Windows XP/2k are pretty good with memory.

I have 3 sticks of generic 128MB CAS3 PC100 SDRAM. The first one was purchased almost a year before the second two. I actually run them at CAS2, haven't had any problems yet other than the MDK2 issue.

The only other factor I see significantly impacting the performance of MDK2 is that 1 of the sticks is actually slightly less than 128MB. I'm not sure which stick it is but I think it's the 3rd stick. It could be the second, but probably the 3rd. I need to play around with them one day to find out.....but then again, I barely use my computer these days anyways and I don't think I have MDK2 anymore.

Win2k. I installed the 3rd stick not too long after the 2nd. What happens in MDK2 is that it just grinds to a halt, literally. Most of the levels are insanely choppy now whereas they previously were very smooth. It is just unplayable. If I find the game again I might pull a stick since I don't really use that much memory anyways and then try it again. I also might be able to get some PC133 for free from a coworker if he's still giving it away.

b

got 512 of PC133 seems to work great for me. Dude unless you use yoru computer to the max alot dont worry about going above 512 its not needed. If your using powerful applications you'll need it but if your just dicking about you wont notice it at all

I'd just add another 256...

[ChrisCantSkate]

im going with 768... BF1942 and mafia are robbing me bigtime. im also starting to use e unreal 2003 editor.. it bogges everythign down

UT2k3 is the same way. when i had 256 it would take forever and a half to load the levels.

now that i have 512mb it takes just a few seconds.

it doesn't sound like you are a power user persay.. and won't be overclocking so i would suggest adding another 256. if you were overclocking i would suggest a single 512 stick.

[ChrisCantSkate]

well.. i think i got the 512 ddr for christmas... you can never have too much ram. i figure this will save me when i have to upgrade to a gig later. just wait.. 6 months 512 will be slow and i know it

technically an amount of ram can't be slow. the speed difference you see is dependant on how much crap the certain program tries to throw at it. if you run out it puts it on your swap file on your hard drive which creates the slow conditions you experience.

so the ram is doing its job it just doesn't have the capacity for newer games.

[ChrisCantSkate]

yeah.. i know, i ment the lack of ram slowing down the machine... but oh well. im soo sick of waiting 3-4 mins for bf1942 to load each level(its a lot when your staring at the screen waiting listning to the repetative war drum)

ouch. 3-4 minutes is pretty sad. longest i ever had to wait for UT2k3 was about 35 seconds.

[ChrisCantSkate]

UT2k3 loads alot faster than BF1942. oh, btw i got the ram.. BF1942 loads soooooo sooo so so so much faster. i can run full detail(foliage and all) on UT2k3 with no lag, mafia is running great(btw i alt+tabed out and xp saiid i was using 440mb of memory.. so 256 deffinitaly wanst cutting it) im very happy with the ram.

sounds good chris.