08-03-2008
|
|
|
|
Re: Memory Use
That's interesting - I hadn't heard about the issue of smaller address
blocks before. Regarding the Vista performance rating that's a small
difference - perhaps within the test's margin of error. Have you tried
running it multiple times to see if results vary? In any case I would
consider the improvement in performance you're seeing when working with
actual applications the best test.
If you have some money to throw at it it would be interesting to see if
replacing the 2x 512 with 2x 1gb made any difference to performance or the
dual channel activity you're seeing <g>.
"Bill" <w.hercus@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:uK27dON9IHA.5668@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Maybe. I have heard that mixing 512MB modules with 1GB will slow things
> down becuause the size of the address blocks of data is reduced.
>
> More interestingly, perhaps, is that my CPU meter (gadgets) shows a lot of
> dual channel activity (AMD 4200 dual chip) when the computer is doing
> 'nothing' and there is no disk activity.
>
> Not only that, since adding the 2x512MB the Windows Rating has dropped
> from 4.1 to 4.0.
>
> What on earth is going on?
>
> "Victek" <Victek@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:8BE8CB06-1F3A-4DE6-A280-9C0A3E3CB798@microsoft.com...
>>> 'Suppose it was a no brainer really.
>>>
>>> Should have done this ages ago. Noticeable improvement with heavy
>>> graphics.
>>>
>>> Much thanks!!
>>>
>> Since you have two of each size shouldn't the memory still be in dual
>> channel mode? I have 2x gig modules and 2x 512 modules and my memory is
>> in 128 bit mode.
>
>
|
Linear Mode
