A Windows Vista forum. Vista Banter

Welcome to Vista Banter.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have access to ask questions and reply to others posts, upload your own photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact support.

Go Back   Home » Vista Banter forum » Microsoft Windows Vista » Hardware and Windows Vista
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Hardware and Windows Vista Hardware issues in relation to Windows Vista. (microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices)

Faster memory ?



 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old June 16th 09, 12:32 AM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices
Natéag[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 26
Default Faster memory ?

Are there real advantages to upgrading from 800MHZ memory
to 1066 ? I use my computer for common tasks such as
txt edit (Wordpad or above); CD-DVD burning, email,
Internet Explorer.

I just changed my graphics card from a 8600 to a 9880 Nvidia board,
and the computer has become much more faster.

Thanks for any advice.
  #2 (permalink)  
Old June 16th 09, 01:52 AM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices
Tae Song
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 593
Default Faster memory ?


"Natéag" wrote in message
...
Are there real advantages to upgrading from 800MHZ memory
to 1066 ? I use my computer for common tasks such as
txt edit (Wordpad or above); CD-DVD burning, email,
Internet Explorer.

I just changed my graphics card from a 8600 to a 9880 Nvidia board,
and the computer has become much more faster.

Thanks for any advice.


If there is any improvement it is either small or nonexistent. Even though
they keep increasing the clock speed, the latency also goes up. Ten steps
forward, nine steps back, sometimes ten steps back if latency is high
enough.

Most of the performance you see is CPU and cache.

For more advanced 3D games the performance bottleneck is the video card, not
the CPU or memory.

You want insane 3D game performance, get 2x Geforce 295s running in SLI
mode, that's about like 6-10 times a 9800 in throughput, it might actuyally
be higher. I don't know the exact amount and I'm guessing somewhat. But
it's total sick. 1600x1200 resolution, 32-bit color, all graphics
enhancements on, still tops 60fps.

  #3 (permalink)  
Old June 16th 09, 03:04 AM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices
Natéag[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 26
Default Faster memory ?


"Tae Song" a écrit dans le message de
...

"Natéag" wrote in message
...
Are there real advantages to upgrading from 800MHZ memory
to 1066 ? I use my computer for common tasks such as
txt edit (Wordpad or above); CD-DVD burning, email,
Internet Explorer.

I just changed my graphics card from a 8600 to a 9880 Nvidia board,
and the computer has become much more faster.

Thanks for any advice.


If there is any improvement it is either small or nonexistent. Even
though they keep increasing the clock speed, the latency also goes up.
Ten steps forward, nine steps back, sometimes ten steps back if latency is
high enough.

Most of the performance you see is CPU and cache.

For more advanced 3D games the performance bottleneck is the video card,
not the CPU or memory.

You want insane 3D game performance, get 2x Geforce 295s running in SLI
mode, that's about like 6-10 times a 9800 in throughput, it might
actuyally be higher. I don't know the exact amount and I'm guessing
somewhat. But it's total sick. 1600x1200 resolution, 32-bit color, all
graphics enhancements on, still tops 60fps.



That settles it. I will keep my present memory.
I may some day change my CPU though.
By the way, I meant 9800, not 9880.
Thanks.

  #4 (permalink)  
Old June 16th 09, 03:38 AM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices
Drew[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 76
Default Faster memory ?

Geez wouldn't 1920x1200 or better yet 2560x1600 on a 100 dollar sapphire
toxic 4850 be even faster? and it is a single card requiring a whole lot
less power

"Natéag" wrote in message
...

"Tae Song" a écrit dans le message de
...

"Natéag" wrote in message
...
Are there real advantages to upgrading from 800MHZ memory
to 1066 ? I use my computer for common tasks such as
txt edit (Wordpad or above); CD-DVD burning, email,
Internet Explorer.

I just changed my graphics card from a 8600 to a 9880 Nvidia board,
and the computer has become much more faster.

Thanks for any advice.


If there is any improvement it is either small or nonexistent. Even
though they keep increasing the clock speed, the latency also goes up.
Ten steps forward, nine steps back, sometimes ten steps back if latency
is high enough.

Most of the performance you see is CPU and cache.

For more advanced 3D games the performance bottleneck is the video card,
not the CPU or memory.

You want insane 3D game performance, get 2x Geforce 295s running in SLI
mode, that's about like 6-10 times a 9800 in throughput, it might
actuyally be higher. I don't know the exact amount and I'm guessing
somewhat. But it's total sick. 1600x1200 resolution, 32-bit color, all
graphics enhancements on, still tops 60fps.



That settles it. I will keep my present memory.
I may some day change my CPU though.
By the way, I meant 9800, not 9880.
Thanks.


  #5 (permalink)  
Old June 16th 09, 03:54 AM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices
nomore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 66
Default Faster memory ?

Sorry to burst your bubble: for the tasks you name the speed of your video
card is utterly and totally irrelevant.
Unless you play 3d video games any video card that can deal with the aero
interface, and your 8600 was far more than capable of doing so with speed to
spare, will perform identically for the tasks you mention which have nothing
to do with the graphics card.
Objective testing to date shows little speed improvement in those state of
the art machines with DDR3 running even at overclocked speeds compared to
maximally clocked DDR2 because existing memory bandwidth far exceeds any
limits most users will encounter, particularly compared to things like hard
drives. AMD has published data on this and they are selling DDR3 compatible
CPUs of identical performance (the same chip!) as DDR2 chips.
If you already have almost any quad core CPU, 4 gbs of RAM and a 64 bit OS
and want to speed up your computer for everyday tasks (excluding 3d gaming)
it is time to pony up for a solid state hard drive.
I would if I could.
In fact, I would get two.

  #6 (permalink)  
Old June 16th 09, 04:16 AM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices
Drew[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 76
Default Faster memory ?

lets see here...hmmm got the quad core, got the 4 gigs,,, and the 64bit so
yes sir I've got to get some of those solid states myself. and if I was made
of money I would be getting 10.. the reason being...Hell why not?

"nomore" wrote in message
news
Sorry to burst your bubble: for the tasks you name the speed of your video
card is utterly and totally irrelevant.
Unless you play 3d video games any video card that can deal with the aero
interface, and your 8600 was far more than capable of doing so with speed
to spare, will perform identically for the tasks you mention which have
nothing to do with the graphics card.
Objective testing to date shows little speed improvement in those state of
the art machines with DDR3 running even at overclocked speeds compared to
maximally clocked DDR2 because existing memory bandwidth far exceeds any
limits most users will encounter, particularly compared to things like
hard drives. AMD has published data on this and they are selling DDR3
compatible CPUs of identical performance (the same chip!) as DDR2 chips.
If you already have almost any quad core CPU, 4 gbs of RAM and a 64 bit OS
and want to speed up your computer for everyday tasks (excluding 3d
gaming) it is time to pony up for a solid state hard drive.
I would if I could.
In fact, I would get two.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT. The time now is 07:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.0.0 RC6
Copyright ©2004-2024 Vista Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.