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. |
|
Hardware and Windows Vista Hardware issues in relation to Windows Vista. (microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices) |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
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. |