256 to 512 = huge difference

[Nocturnal]

I had 256 ddr, now I have 512, the difference is huge!

 

[crisp82]

Really........Go Figure!

 

[charlie21]

Originally posted by: crisp82
Really........Go Figure!

Thought provoking, intelligent post.

Anyway, I just upgraded from 256 -> 768 and it's made all the difference in the world. Anyone out there still running XP with 256, time to upgrade, it's really worth it.

 

[fkloster]

I upgraded from 512 to 1 GB and I really stoked!! Now I can download mp3, burn cd's, browse, have word and exxel apps open, and play a minimized hereos 4 game all @ the same time

 

[Ciber]

Running 256 MB on a XP system is horrible, 512 MB should be the minimum.

 

[BmXStuD]

hell yah i got 512mb like 1 week ago and i like it well i had 256mb and got another stick of ram for $30.02

 

[paralazarguer]

So we've concluded the more ram is better then...wow.

 

[Intelman07]

Well it so happens I adavantage of the cheap DDR prices and got 512 too. Go figure it does make a difference.

 

[APB]

I disagree, RAM doesn't make any difference....just kidding Upgraded mine today, and I like it much better. Low RAM prices->More memory added to system->HAPPY COMPUTER

 

[Intelman07]

Now if only the average good stick of DDR ram was 20bucks then I would have maxed out my mobo with 2GB of ram.

 

[DT4K]

All you guys criticizing this thread need to back off.
A lot of people wonder whether having more ram will make a noticeable performance difference.
You guys act like it is obvious but it is not. It depends on how much you already have and what kind of system and software you have.
A year or two ago, running Win 98 and using older software, you would not have noticed much if any difference going from 256 to 512. Adding memory is a waste of money beyond a certain point. Do you think your systems would be a lot faster with 2GB of RAM instead of 1GB? For the most part you would never notice the difference.

Nocturnal is just telling those who aren't sure that it really does make a difference on his system.
Win XP is a major hog and you WILL see a difference between 256 and 512.
If you are running 98 or ME, it is probably a waste of money.

 

[AtomicDude512]

I know, Windows XP is a memory hog. When I went to 256>512 all my games load super quick too, without any harddisk upgrades. Impressive.

 

[Whitedog]

Originally posted by: AtomicDude512
I know, Windows XP is a memory hog. When I went to 256>512 all my games load super quick too, without any harddisk upgrades. Impressive.

Uht... Hummm... Dude... Windows XP is more efficient with Memory than Windows 2000.

I don't know where all this about XP being a HOG with memory. It uses like 4 or 5 more MB than Windows 2000.

Running 256 MB on a XP system is horrible, 512 MB should be the minimum.

What he REALLY means is.... PLAYING GAMES on WindowsXP with 256MB Memory is horrible..

That's the games man... NOT Windows.

 

[mulletgut]

Okay so I'm running 256 on XP (AMD 1800+ KT3 Ultra2 mobo, 80G HD blah blah)and I'm keen to upgrade. Should I stick with PC2100 or can I safely install the PC2700? If so, do I gain anything?

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: Shanti
All you guys criticizing this thread need to back off. A lot of people wonder whether having more ram will make a noticeable performance difference. You guys act like it is obvious but it is not. It depends on how much you already have and what kind of system and software you have. A year or two ago, running Win 98 and using older software, you would not have noticed much if any difference going from 256 to 512. Adding memory is a waste of money beyond a certain point. Do you think your systems would be a lot faster with 2GB of RAM instead of 1GB? For the most part you would never notice the difference. Nocturnal is just telling those who aren't sure that it really does make a difference on his system. Win XP is a major hog and you WILL see a difference between 256 and 512. If you are running 98 or ME, it is probably a waste of money.

Why shoudl we back off?!?! This type of thread, or questions the pertain to this subject, pops up weekly here at AT, so you think people would get a clue.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: mulletgut
Okay so I'm running 256 on XP (AMD 1800+ KT3 Ultra2 mobo, 80G HD blah blah)and I'm keen to upgrade. Should I stick with PC2100 or can I safely install the PC2700? If so, do I gain anything?

unless board offers mem ratios or you boost fsb it should be the same....If you get 512mb versus the 256 as mentioned above you should see more multitasking ability and thus speed of things as multiple items are opened....


I run winxp and I can tell you with internet going...tv playing in the background as well as some other programs I have 280mb free of my 512....Winxp is a memory hog and I open one cadd program (massive 20+mb files) and I would be swapping if I had 256....I have anywhere from 120-20mb left depending on drawing size...

I am actually going to be going to 1gb here shortly but I am a bit of a power user....Cadd, cadd block program, internet surfing and downloading (2 or 3 pages), tv or dvd playing in the background and maybe an excel or word document open....

 

[Marshy]

So then if more RAM = more power does this still hold true for

DIMM 512 MB <SPAN class=nodes-supplement>(TWIN512-3200LL, Low Latency, 2x256MB) </SPAN>

going to povide me with more power and speed than

DIMM 1GB Infineon (original) <SPAN class=nodes-supplement>(DDR333) </SPAN> 2x512MB

the first is still 80euro more cost,,

??

lm

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Marshy
So then if more RAM = more power does this still hold true for

DIMM 512 MB <SPAN class=nodes-supplement>(TWIN512-3200LL, Low Latency, 2x256MB) </SPAN> going to povide me with more power and speed than

DIMM 1GB Infineon (original) <SPAN class=nodes-supplement>(DDR333) </SPAN> 2x512MB

the first is still 80euro more cost,,

??

lm

if you're overclocking then the 3200 is going to be better. if you're running the mem at the same speed then the second is going to be better

 

[BmXStuD]

Originally posted by: Shanti
All you guys criticizing this thread need to back off.
A lot of people wonder whether having more ram will make a noticeable performance difference.
You guys act like it is obvious but it is not. It depends on how much you already have and what kind of system and software you have.
A year or two ago, running Win 98 and using older software, you would not have noticed much if any difference going from 256 to 512. Adding memory is a waste of money beyond a certain point. Do you think your systems would be a lot faster with 2GB of RAM instead of 1GB? For the most part you would never notice the difference.

Nocturnal is just telling those who aren't sure that it really does make a difference on his system.
Win XP is a major hog and you WILL see a difference between 256 and 512.
If you are running 98 or ME, it is probably a waste of money.

umm if u ue 2k or xp u need alot of memory like 512mb min. B/c both of those os are bout the same. XP use more but 2k uses alot also. I use to come outta games and be lagged i guess it was hiting pagefile when i had 256mb ram.

 

[Sid59]

i remember waaay back. I went from 32 MBs to 192 MBs for win98se and it was blazing fast

 

[0roo0roo]

256 is inhumane for xp.

 

[Priit]

I run RH linux 7.3 (KDE 3 with all bells'n'whistles) and can get away with 256Mb RAM very nicely. Even about half of that is used just for cache so I could probably live with 128Mb, too. I can't imagine why WinXP is such memory-hog...

 

[chin311]

I just upgraded to 768 of pc2100 (thx to the 53.99 crucial deal), i was using 384, noticed quite an increase in performance using XP Pro. Would recommend it to anyone who has an extra few bucks, especially with the cheap RAM prices these days.

 

[arcenite]

I think the topic starter was just happy that he got more performance out of his computer and I think we should be happy for him.

Bill

 

[Varsh]

Originally posted by: Priit
I run RH linux 7.3 (KDE 3 with all bells'n'whistles) and can get away with 256Mb RAM very nicely. Even about half of that is used just for cache so I could probably live with 128Mb, too. I can't imagine why WinXP is such memory-hog...

Unlike Linux, WinXP uses a true GUI, as in full of everything from menus, graphical displays, resource management and more (You'll prob argue with the KDE platform), but the main thing is that Windows is automated, Linux is not, it's all manually used, you add your own drivers, applications, and more, it's a pain in the arse, Windows being all automated does this all for you, that's why it's such a memory hog, and on top of that, it's not all DOS-like based (I'm deliberatly excluding KDE here even though that's really only an Explorer).
Anyway I upgraded from 1GB PC2100 to 1GB PC2700 (I'm upgrading to a 333FSB you see) and I've added one of my old 512mb sticks of PC2100 (which downgrades the other two PC2700 sticks to PC2100) so I'm now in theory got 1.5GB PC2100 (1GB as soon as my friend buys the RAM off meh ) and there's absoloutely no difference until I was using programs like 3D Studio Max 5, 2 instances of Photoshop 7 (70MB and 30MB file), 4/5 IE windows, Trillian Pro with 12 Windows up, PowerDVD running and more and that showed a huge performance boost, but unless you're doing something like this, you won't find any difference between 512MB and 1GB RAM gauranteed. Well the odd exception with the occasional game but that's about it.