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.

WIN XP & VISTA 32bit ..How much RAM can I get ?

Discussion in 'Overclocking' started by Trimble Bracegirdle, Mar 7, 2007.

  1. Trimble Bracegirdle

    Frank McCoy Guest

    In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt "Trimble Bracegirdle"
    Um ... It actually *downgrades* when more than 512meg is installed.
    And, usually, to get best results with that much, you need tweaks.
    (Not as bad a s Win-95 in that regard, but ....)
    It was both.
    It pretty much stopped working (as did other memory managers) with
    Win-98.
    Generally, as a rule-of-thumb:
    With Win-95, stick to under 256 meg, unless you want to tweak the
    system.
    With Win-98, stick to under 512 meg.
    With Win-XP, stick to under 4 gig.
    I have no idea of what Vista handles well.

    With all those, make sure your BIOS recognizes what you have properly;
    and *try* to stick to the same brand, size, and preferably even same run
    of chips when installing. That's not always possible, but preferable.
     
    Frank McCoy, Mar 9, 2007
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Trimble Bracegirdle

    Mike T. Guest

    Generally, as a rule-of-thumb:
    I know what Vista handles well, as Vista has built-in diagnostics.
    According to Vista's numerical rating system, anything over 2GB installed
    for Vista would be a waste. My wife scores a 5.8 (Vista's score, not mine)
    out of a possible 5.9 with exactly 2GB of RAM installed. What it would take
    to get 5.9? Who frickin' cares??? :) -Dave
     
    Mike T., Mar 9, 2007
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Trimble Bracegirdle

    Conor Guest

    You misunderstand the ratings system. It measures the RAM speed.
     
    Conor, Mar 9, 2007
    #23
  4. Trimble Bracegirdle

    johannes Guest

    You're still better off fitting 4GB. If you fit (only) 3GB, then VISTA
    will also grab some of it for itself, leaving you with much less.
     
    johannes, Mar 9, 2007
    #24
  5. Trimble Bracegirdle

    Mike T. Guest

    Actually, it would appear we both misunderstood the ratings system. I just
    looked it up. The memory score on WEI is based on memory bandwidth (which
    in turn is tied directly to memory speed). However, having too little RAM
    can limit bandwidth/speed. According to the chart I read, you can't achieve
    a higher score than 4.5 on the memory portion of WEI unless your physical
    RAM amount is over 1.5GB. Right NOW, the WEI only goes up to 5.9. (it will
    be expanded later)

    As my wife's computer got a 5.8 with exactly 2GB of RAM, and scores higher
    than 4.5 are only possible with more than 1.5GB of RAM, we can conclude the
    following:
    - You need -more than- 1.5GB of RAM to maximize memory performance in
    Windows Vista
    - You need no more than 2GB of RAM to *ALMOST* maximize memory performance
    in Windows Vista
    - It is probably possible to maximize memory performance in Windows Vista
    with exactly 2GB of fast RAM (I doubt if adding more RAM would up the 5.8
    to 5.9, but possibly if my wife's RAM was a TAD faster???)

    Based on what you said, and what I read, I stand by my earlier assertion:
    Go for 2GB of RAM, no more, no less. Buy faster RAM if you can afford it
    and the mainboard supports it. -Dave
     
    Mike T., Mar 9, 2007
    #25
  6. Trimble Bracegirdle

    Phil Weldon Guest

    'Mike T.' wrote, in part:
    | Actually, it would appear we both misunderstood the ratings system. I
    just
    | looked it up. The memory score on WEI is based on memory bandwidth (which
    | in turn is tied directly to memory speed). However, having too little RAM
    | can limit bandwidth/speed. According to the chart I read, you can't
    achieve
    | a higher score than 4.5 on the memory portion of WEI unless your physical
    | RAM amount is over 1.5GB. Right NOW, the WEI only goes up to 5.9. (it
    will
    | be expanded later)

    _____

    Too little main memory does not reduce the memory bandwidth. It DOES
    require more use of the page file. Swapping data and program pages to and
    from the hard drive slows the performance of a system, but it does not
    reduce the memory bandwidth.

    And

    "Windows and the applications that run on it have bumped their heads on the
    address space limits of 32-bit processors. The Windows kernel is constrained
    by default to 2GB, or half the total 32-bit virtual address space, with the
    other half reserved for use by the process whose thread is currently running
    on the CPU. Inside its half, the kernel has to map itself, device drivers,
    the file system cache, kernel stacks, per-session code data structures, and
    both non-paged (locked-in physical memory) and paged buffers allocated by
    device drivers."

    and other information

    from

    http://www.microsoft.com/technet/technetmag/issues/2007/03/VistaKernel/Default.aspx?loc=en

    might help you understand how a 4 GByte memory space is used in 32-bit
    Windows NT/2000/XP/Vista.

    Whether you will actually see a difference if you install the maximum amount
    of memory depends the mix of applications you run.

    Phil Weldon


    |
    | | > In article <45f155f9$0$97261$>,
    | > Mike T. says...
    | >> > Generally, as a rule-of-thumb:
    | >> > With Win-95, stick to under 256 meg, unless you want to tweak the
    | >> > system.
    | >> > With Win-98, stick to under 512 meg.
    | >> > With Win-XP, stick to under 4 gig.
    | >> > I have no idea of what Vista handles well.
    | >> >
    | >>
    | >> I know what Vista handles well, as Vista has built-in diagnostics.
    | >> According to Vista's numerical rating system, anything over 2GB
    installed
    | >> for Vista would be a waste. My wife scores a 5.8 (Vista's score, not
    | >> mine)
    | >> out of a possible 5.9 with exactly 2GB of RAM installed. What it would
    | >> take
    | >> to get 5.9? Who frickin' cares??? :) -Dave
    | >>
    | > You misunderstand the ratings system. It measures the RAM speed.
    | >
    |
    | Actually, it would appear we both misunderstood the ratings system. I
    just
    | looked it up. The memory score on WEI is based on memory bandwidth (which
    | in turn is tied directly to memory speed). However, having too little RAM
    | can limit bandwidth/speed. According to the chart I read, you can't
    achieve
    | a higher score than 4.5 on the memory portion of WEI unless your physical
    | RAM amount is over 1.5GB. Right NOW, the WEI only goes up to 5.9. (it
    will
    | be expanded later)
    |
    | As my wife's computer got a 5.8 with exactly 2GB of RAM, and scores higher
    | than 4.5 are only possible with more than 1.5GB of RAM, we can conclude
    the
    | following:
    | - You need -more than- 1.5GB of RAM to maximize memory performance in
    | Windows Vista
    | - You need no more than 2GB of RAM to *ALMOST* maximize memory
    performance
    | in Windows Vista
    | - It is probably possible to maximize memory performance in Windows Vista
    | with exactly 2GB of fast RAM (I doubt if adding more RAM would up the 5.8
    | to 5.9, but possibly if my wife's RAM was a TAD faster???)
    |
    | Based on what you said, and what I read, I stand by my earlier assertion:
    | Go for 2GB of RAM, no more, no less. Buy faster RAM if you can afford it
    | and the mainboard supports it. -Dave
    |
    |
     
    Phil Weldon, Mar 9, 2007
    #26
  7. Trimble Bracegirdle

    Mike T. Guest

    Tell that to microsoft. Their WEI is based on the exact opposite of what
    you just wrote. -Dave
     
    Mike T., Mar 9, 2007
    #27
  8. Trimble Bracegirdle

    John Jordan Guest

    Careful. That sounded like you were equating maximum memory performance
    with the maximum score in an arbitrary benchmark.
     
    John Jordan, Mar 9, 2007
    #28
  9. Trimble Bracegirdle

    Dave Guest

    My point was, if you believe Microsoft's (HARDWARE) performance ratings, it
    would seem that buying more than 2GB of RAM, even for VISTA, is pointless.

    Again, simply stated . . . if the scale only goes up to a maximum of 5.9,
    with higher scores being better, and 2GB will score a 5.8, does it MATTER
    how much RAM you need to score a 5.9? Not really.

    And I suspect many systems would max out at 5.9 with exactly 2GB of physical
    RAM installed anyway. -Dave
     
    Dave, Mar 9, 2007
    #29
  10. Trimble Bracegirdle

    Phil Weldon Guest

    'Dave' wrote:
    | Tell that to microsoft. Their WEI is based on the exact opposite of what
    | you just wrote. -Dave
    _____

    Believe what you will, but your read too much into the 'WEI' score. "The
    memory SCORE is limited" is NOT the same as "the memory BANDWIDTH is
    limited." The 'WEI' is a simple scale for simple evaluation. It is not
    meant to explain anything.

    Try rereading
    http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/pages/458117.aspx

    Phil Weldon

    |
    | | > 'Mike T.' wrote, in part:
    | > | Actually, it would appear we both misunderstood the ratings system. I
    | > just
    | > | looked it up. The memory score on WEI is based on memory bandwidth
    | > (which
    | > | in turn is tied directly to memory speed). However, having too little
    | > RAM
    | > | can limit bandwidth/speed. According to the chart I read, you can't
    | > achieve
    | > | a higher score than 4.5 on the memory portion of WEI unless your
    | > physical
    | > | RAM amount is over 1.5GB. Right NOW, the WEI only goes up to 5.9.
    (it
    | > will
    | > | be expanded later)
    | >
    | > _____
    | >
    | > Too little main memory does not reduce the memory bandwidth.
    |
    | Tell that to microsoft. Their WEI is based on the exact opposite of what
    | you just wrote. -Dave
    |
    |
     
    Phil Weldon, Mar 10, 2007
    #30
  11. Trimble Bracegirdle

    Jeff Guest

    ....just because Microsoft has a scale that attempts to summarize the
    performance of a computer does not mean that the scale is valid for all
    measures of computer performance. What helps with some applications might
    deteriorate the performance of other applications. Check out Phil's post and
    another I just made on another thread. Having 2 GBs is probably ideal unless
    you are using multiple ram intensive applications at the same time. In that
    case, you may start using the pagefile instead of ram and that will slow
    things down. So, a single summary measure like Microsoft's will simply
    compromise between the two situations. Checking the performance tab under
    task manager should give you an idea whether you need more than 2 gigs.

    Jeff
     
    Jeff, Mar 10, 2007
    #31
  12. Trimble Bracegirdle

    John Jordan Guest

    It's not a meaningful figure unless you understand *why* they picked it.
    The point is that having substantially more RAM than your working set
    makes little difference to performance, and MS don't think that many
    users will have a working set >2GB.

    It's true that most users will see little difference beyond 1GB on XP or
    1.5GB on Vista. On the other hand, most users will see little difference
    between a 7300GS and an 8800GTX. If you play recent games, you need a
    fast video card. If you have a large working set, you may need more than
    2GB of RAM. Basing a PC purchase on arbitrary performance ratings is daft.
     
    John Jordan, Mar 10, 2007
    #32
  13. It worries me that the decorative screen-toy made by the People who
    call themselves Very, Very, Small & Soft , Which IMO is clearly
    designed to patronize & flatter with baby level statistics ,
    is taken so seriously be so many.
    It called a marketing device.
    (\__/)
    (='.'=)
    (")_(")
     
    Trimble Bracegirdle, Mar 10, 2007
    #33
  14. Trimble Bracegirdle

    Paul-B Guest

    That bit I agree with...
     
    Paul-B, Mar 10, 2007
    #34
  15. Trimble Bracegirdle

    johns Guest

    Well, can Microsoft answer this question? Why
    does Gothic 3 run better and smoother in 4 gigs
    of ram, and it is jerky in 2 gigs of ram? And then
    add to that .. Why does Gothic 3 run better on
    a dual core processor, than on a single core ?
    If they can't give us a non-jargonized answer,
    then I think they don't know what they are
    talking about ... and it would be nice to know
    who actually wrote the Microsoft OSes. Personally
    I think the reviewers and article writers are just
    using jargon, and don't really have a clue. I don't
    believe any of them understand the difference
    between I/O mapping and Memory mapping.

    johns
     
    johns, Mar 12, 2007
    #35
  16. Trimble Bracegirdle

    DimitriK

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    I had 4 gigs of ram installed that showed 3.3 in my vista 32 bits. When i took the computer to repair an unrelated thing, the guy removed 1gig saying that it can cause problems and that i dont use it anyways.

    My computer shows 3.07 gigs of ram now and the ram rating went down dramatically, so my system rating went down from around 5.6 (if i remember correctly) to 4.4 because of the ram. All the others are 5.9.

    Was the guy right? Can it cause problems? Should i put back my 1gig of ram?

    P.S. Does anyone even have 5.9 rating for their ram?
     
    DimitriK, May 12, 2008
    #36
    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.