Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

256MB vs 512MB

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 256MB vs 512MB

    Hi!

    Boring question perhaps....
    Is it worth upgrading to 512MB from 256MB RAM?
    I use winxp pro....

    /Leo
    AMD Athlon64 X2 4200+
    Asus A8N-E
    Corsair TWINX2048-3200C2
    Asus Extreme GeForce N7800GT
    Seagate Barracuda 7200.8 250GB
    Lian-Li PC60
    Windows XP Pro 64bit

  • #2
    Yes. 256-512mb is worthwhile. It did make a noticable difference on my Windows 2000 system.
    Although I've just upgraded from 512mb to 768mb, and to be honest I cant see the difference. I probably dont strain the system enough.

    Given the cost of RAM at the moment (ie just about to rise), its probably worth doing it now.
    Athlon XP-64/3200, 1gb PC3200, 512mb Radeon X1950Pro AGP, Dell 2005fwp, Logitech G5, IBM model M.

    Comment


    • #3
      FWIW, I went from 128 MB to 384 MB on my PII-450. Using Windows 2000, the difference is certainly noticable...


      Jörg
      pixar
      Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die tomorrow. (James Dean)

      Comment


      • #4
        Depends what you're doing. If editing large pictures you'll certainly notice a differance. If you daft bugger like me and using a chess prog like fritz 7 and set the hash tables to 300mb you need 512mb of ram.
        Chief Lemon Buyer no more Linux sucks but not as much
        Weather nut and sad git.

        My Weather Page

        Comment


        • #5
          Personally - I dont think that anybody can say definitely "yes" or "no". - Your system can tell you in no uncertain terms if it is worthwhile or not given YOUR particular usage of the system as it stands before the upgrade:

          Go ctrl/alt/del/ find taskmanager and then performance. Minimise and leave this baby running for a day or two while you do your worst to the machine (use it as you would normally). Come back and note the "physical memory" available figure and compare that with the "commit charge" peak figure.

          If you have more physical memory available than what you have ever required during the 2 days of test operation (reported by the peak "committed charge" figure) you dont have to upgrade - if you do you are wasting valuable beer money.
          Last edited by LvR; 5 July 2002, 06:59.
          Lawrence

          Comment


          • #6
            When I went XP i was generally dissapointed with the performance even with several tweaks to speed it up. I am a Window freak, and at any given time I'll have 6-12 windows open I work with photo's and home movies quite abit and gaming. I was only running 256MB at the time and heard that XP was a resource hog and decided to up it to 512.I was never really pleased with XP until I added more RAM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Running XP, 512 is the minimum you'd want.
              Gigabyte P35-DS3L with a Q6600, 2GB Kingston HyperX (after *3* bad pairs of Crucial Ballistix 1066), Galaxy 8800GT 512MB, SB X-Fi, some drives, and a Dell 2005fpw. Running WinXP.

              Comment


              • #8
                True. I gave my sister 256 MB of SDRAM in exchange for her Maxtor UATA133 40GB HD that wouldn't be recognized by her BXboard bios (MS 6147), and desperately want to buy 256 more to get back to 512. The difference is palpable.
                [size=1]D3/\/7YCR4CK3R
                Ryzen: Asrock B450M Pro4, Ryzen 5 2600, 16GB G-Skill Ripjaws V Series DDR4 PC4-25600 RAM, 1TB Seagate SATA HD, 256GB myDigital PCIEx4 M.2 SSD, Samsung LI24T350FHNXZA 24" HDMI LED monitor, Klipsch Promedia 4.2 400, Win11
                Home: M1 Mac Mini 8GB 256GB
                Surgery: HP Stream 200-010 Mini Desktop,Intel Celeron 2957U Processor, 6 GB RAM, ADATA 128 GB SSD, Win 10 home ver 22H2
                Frontdesk: Beelink T4 8GB

                Comment

                Working...
                X