1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

How much performance difference 1 gig ram vs 4 gig ram?

Discussion in 'Motherboards' started by James, Jul 10, 2006.

  1. James

    James Guest

    Just scored a computer with a Soyo SY-P4I865PE Dragon 2 V1.0 mobo, which
    holds up to 4 gigs of DDR 400 ram. Primarily play to use it for video
    capture/DVD rendering. How much of a performance difference am I going to
    see with say 1 gig ram vs the full 4 gigs? I imagine where the main point
    of concern would be in rendering.

    Any thoughts/opinions on this mobo?

    Thanks.
     
    James, Jul 10, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. James

    John Doe Guest

    That's correct, it just depends on the applications. Have you tried
    looking in Windows Task Manager to see how much memory your
    applications use? You can also run System Monitor. If you use System
    Monitor, notice that your saved MSC file will work with a new
    Windows installation only if the Computer Name is the same.

    If I wanted to know about specific applications memory requirements,
    I would go to discussion groups dedicated to those applications and
    ask there. I think there are some active DVD groups.

    Good luck.
     
    John Doe, Jul 10, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. James

    bullshark Guest

    None. As long as you don't get into swapping to disc, and you won't just for
    capturing and rendering, there won't be one iota difference in performance
    going to 4 GB from 1 GB. Not to mention going over 2 GB on a WindowXP
    machine is a bitch to setup, so save your money to get the fastest CPU you
    can for that mobo.
     
    bullshark, Jul 10, 2006
    #3
  4. James

    Mr. Tapeguy Guest


    I do not personally work with Windows much so I'm not as familiar with
    how memory is allocated and whether you would need to go as high as
    4GB; that being said, rendering is generally very processor and RAM
    intensive and with the cost of RAM today, unless you are on a tight
    budget I would think that going to at least 2GB would make a
    substantial difference and looking forward, more might be better still.
    I can't quantify that but I wouldn't try to run anything video related
    with less than a gig and a half.

    Craig

    http://www.pro-tape.com
     
    Mr. Tapeguy, Jul 10, 2006
    #4
  5. James

    Scubajam Guest

    Get at least 2 gigs RAM. Must get more than 1 gig, but from 2 to 4
    benefits are diminishing. Also make sure your Virtual Memory or Page
    File is optimized. Google to do this. This is very important. Then,
    if you have the $$, go to 4 gigs. However, better to add another hard
    drive and be at 2 gigs, and optimize Virtual Memory. I have 5 hard
    drives, 2 gigs RAM and AMD dual core 2800, and I can edit, render, and
    multi-task at the same time. I also work in Hi Def, but with Ulead
    which creates a Proxy File in SD, so when I'm editing it's working
    Standard Def, then renders final in HD. Last night I finished a 54
    minute HD project, which I rendered to SD mpg, took 4.5 hours, so I let
    it run overnight. Then this am I burned a DVD from the mpg file. The
    54 minute DVD only took 9 minutes to burn with menu creation, etc.
    Smart Render is a wonderful thing!

    Jim McGauhey
    Washington State
     
    Scubajam, Jul 10, 2006
    #5
  6. James

    James Guest

    Hmm. Seems to be a lack of concensus here. Perhaps the thing to do is set up
    a rendering project and time it with different amounts of ram. If I don't
    see any difference, I can always eBay some ram.
    There's more to it than simply plugging it in? This is all I've done with
    any computer I've used to date, though the most ram my current machine holds
    is 512.
     
    James, Jul 11, 2006
    #6
  7. James

    bullshark Guest

    No need to time anything, just open the task manager before pressing the
    render button and watch ram useage. I just rendered a project to mpeg2, ram
    use never went above 410 MB on my 2 GB equipped machine. More ram is usefull
    if your editing software can do dynamic ram previewing or if, like me, you
    make music using large samples libraries, but it won't speed your rendering
    time by one second.
    if you go above 2 GB, like installing 4 GB, yes; Window will divide that 4
    GB into two 2 GB space, with 2 GB for the kernel and 2 GB for application
    which is of very limited benefit; if you want it otherwise, that's where it
    gets complicated.
     
    bullshark, Jul 11, 2006
    #7
  8. Not counting the 'tricks', processes are always divided up in (up to) 2GB
    kernel and 2GB program virtual memory space. That's the per process memory
    model.

    Physical memory is then allocated to the various processes based on what
    they need out of the 'up to' 2gb they could use.

    So it is a misimpression that 4GB of physical memory gets divided up into 2
    GB for the kernel and 2 GB for application, unless you have only one
    process (a rare thing).
     
    David Maynard, Jul 11, 2006
    #8
  9. James

    John Miller Guest

    All other things being equal, not much.

    BUT - it can depend greatly on how you configure the 1GB vs the 4GB. e.g.,
    a single 1GB stick may give worse performance than 2 x 512MB or 4 x 256MB
    sticks. Check the mobo technical specs and read up on DDR configurations.

    FWIW, I have never needed more than the 1GB I have in my machines. That's a
    lot of RAM.

    I remember being amazed at having 8MB of RAM on a 486DX120 running Windows
    3.1. Even had Adobe Premiere 1.0 and a video capture card (a behemoth of an
    ISA card with another half-size card attached).

    Ah yes...those were the days. Hard drives that would decide to thermally
    calibrate when pumping video out to tape. Having a whopping 100MB hard
    drive to store your videos on....

    Of course, the Sinclair ZX80/1 top the lot with a magnificent 1KB of RAM
    which includes the display memory!

    John.
     
    John Miller, Jul 11, 2006
    #9
  10. James

    David McCall Guest

    Ah the Sinclair ZX80. You want one?? I think I still have it somewhere :-()

    My favorite was the Cosmac Elph (RCA 1802 chip)
    It came as a board and parts. It had 256 bytes on the motherboard,
    but I bought the 2K board later, but I don't think I ever populated it past
    1K.

    David
     
    David McCall, Jul 11, 2006
    #10
  11. James

    John Miller Guest

    Mine's still around somewhere.

    At school, we had a computer with ferrite core store for memory. We also
    had a TTY link to the local polytechnic via a real modem (complete with
    rubber cups for the telephone handset) - even a pink punched tape reader.
    We were very jealous of a nearby school that had a VDU! Oh, we had a
    Commodore PET, as well. I remember being told PEEK makes the aliens move up
    and down, POKE moves them left and right. Hmm.

    I recall discussing with a friend about how great it would be to have
    graphics with the same resolution as TV. We estimated it would cost about
    GBP3,000 just to hold one frame's worth. It will never happen, we said....

    I wonder what we'll be using in another 25 years or so?
     
    John Miller, Jul 12, 2006
    #11
  12. I've got one too, plus the 16K expansion module.

    And it's still as useful today as it was back then, as a cute paper weight.
     
    David Maynard, Jul 12, 2006
    #12
  13. James

    John Doe Guest

    Windows 2031
     
    John Doe, Jul 12, 2006
    #13
  14. I thought I would upgrade from 1 gb to 2, but the more I read, the
    less enthusiastic I get. You might boost benchmark scores, but for
    everyday workhorsing on a 32-bit system, going over 1 gb seems to
    invite problems. These I believe you can get around with ECC ram, but
    it's more expensive and not as fast.

    I'm doing ok with 1 gb and plan to stay there until I go beyond win2k,
    which won't be soon.

    Charlie
     
    Charlie Wilkes, Jul 12, 2006
    #14
  15. I was going to write an 'action' game for it till I discovered it blanked
    the screen while a program was running. Made it dern hard to see where the
    little fellers were going in the dark, and then they froze when the lights
    came on.
    LOL. Hadn't heard that one but it sounds like the most useful thing they
    ever did. Sorry I missed it ;)
     
    David Maynard, Jul 13, 2006
    #15
  16. James

    John Miller Guest

    Exactly - the Z80 processor was also the display driver. The display was
    only updated if nothing else was happening. Remember every key press (and I
    use the term key loosely), caused the display to bounce?

    In early 1981 at the Practical Computing exhibition in London, you could pay
    one pound for a one-page program (on paper, of course) that you could
    *carefully* type in - lots of weird REM statements - and you ended up with
    flicker-free space invaders. That was amazing. And all in 1K of RAM
    including the program and video display! Certainly beat "Cheese Nibbler" -
    the game in the manual.

    After all that typing in, you could save the program to cassette. BUT -
    usually I had to turn my little black and white TV off otherwise it would
    interfere with the tape recording. So, I had a little AM radio that I would
    turn on during saving/loading in order to hear what was happening! And
    people moan about plug and play!
     
    John Miller, Jul 13, 2006
    #16
  17. Yeah, with teh ZX81 I remember the graphics being rather clunky, but then a
    14 year old buy discovered that with a bit of machine-code you could gte
    much finer graphics. That certainly made the ZX81 look better with games.
    Funny that a 14 year old had to find this out :)

    On-topic: any tried to edit with a ZX81? Probably would only be useful
    nowadays as time-code convertor or something like that.

    cheers

    -martin-
     
    Martin Heffels, Jul 13, 2006
    #17
  18. James

    Gary Bettan Guest

    Not that familiar with the mobo. As for RAM, video editing
    applications need a bare minimum of 1GB of RAM. But, with only 1GB
    you'll run into bottlenecks that can slow performance. We recommend
    you get 2GB of RAM for you video editing computer.

    Here is a link to our recommeded systems page. we offer you advice on
    what you need for the best results.
    http://www.videoguys.com/system.htm

    For even more in depth information check out our DIY articles. You'll
    find links to them on the page I provided above.

    Gary
    Videoguys.com

    Videoguys.com http://www.videoguys.com
    The Digital Video Editing & DVD Production Experts
    800 323-2325 or Free DTV tech advice (516) 759-1615

    All DTV purchases include our 30 day customer assurance program
    and FREE tech support
     
    Gary Bettan, Jul 18, 2006
    #18
  19. James

    John Weiss Guest

    Put in a pair of 1 GB sticks. A dual or dual-core CPU may actually use more
    than 1 GB a significant amount of time. Otherwise, a single CPU will not
    effectively use (i.e., render a perceptible performance increase) more than 1 GB
    very often.
     
    John Weiss, Jul 18, 2006
    #19
  20. James

    John Miller Guest

    I find the claim that 1GB is the minimum quite laughable.

    As I type, I have Premiere Pro chugging away creating an MPEG2 file from two
    DV AVI sources with titles and picture-in-picture. I am monitoring its
    memory usage with Task Manager on a dual core Pentium D 2.8GHz with 1GB RAM.

    CPU Use - 50% (kinda disappointing...maybe due to using a USB2.0 external
    drive rather than Firewire)
    Peak Mem Usage - 236,404K (i.e., 0.23GB)
    Commit Charge (i.e, total mem use by all apps etc) - 469MB

    Apps running: Premiere Pro, Outlook, Outlook Express plus a lot of services
    etc.

    So even a 512MB could cope without having to thrash to disk all the time
    (especially if not running the other apps)

    I'd like to see the claims for 2GB backed up with some hard numbers...

    Any editing systems that require that much memory at a given time sound
    rather suspect to me as far as quality of programming goes.

    John.
     
    John Miller, Jul 18, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.