- Feb 23, 2007
- 28
- 0
- 0
I have a Core 2 Duo E6600 with a RAID1 2* Western Digital 400GB raid-edition SATA drives.
It's running on an AsRock 775Twins-HDTV motherboard, which I picked to allow me to reuse my 2 * 1GB A.DATA PC3200 DDR1 CL3.0 memory (there's little performance difference between DDR and DDR2, so I saw no reason to upgrade).
My graphics is the onboard ATI Radeon Xpress 200 chipset.
Under Windows XP performance wasn't really satisfactory, but I wasn't sure why.
I've just upgraded to Vista, and my performance index is:
CPU 5.3
Disk 5.4
Memory 2.3
Aero graphics 2.0
Gaming graphics 2.8
The graphics scores are about what I expected, but the memory is appalling. I tested under SiSoft Sandra, and it confirmed that my memory throughput is about half what it should be.
It suggests that using a dedicated graphics card would improve things. Does anyone think this will fix the problem? Could the 128MB of RAM shared for use by the integrated GPU really be doing that much damage?
Or is it a motherboard issue?
Generally DDR400 should be fairly competitive with a DDR2 solution, from benchmarks I've seen, so the fact I'm using DDR rather than DDR2 shouldn't make a difference. (See here http://www.anandtech.com/displays/showdoc.aspx?i=2810&p=7)
Any suggestions on a Vista graphics card?
I just need DirectX 9 and DVI, no more, I won't be running any games at all, so no $200 graphics cards please.
It's running on an AsRock 775Twins-HDTV motherboard, which I picked to allow me to reuse my 2 * 1GB A.DATA PC3200 DDR1 CL3.0 memory (there's little performance difference between DDR and DDR2, so I saw no reason to upgrade).
My graphics is the onboard ATI Radeon Xpress 200 chipset.
Under Windows XP performance wasn't really satisfactory, but I wasn't sure why.
I've just upgraded to Vista, and my performance index is:
CPU 5.3
Disk 5.4
Memory 2.3
Aero graphics 2.0
Gaming graphics 2.8
The graphics scores are about what I expected, but the memory is appalling. I tested under SiSoft Sandra, and it confirmed that my memory throughput is about half what it should be.
It suggests that using a dedicated graphics card would improve things. Does anyone think this will fix the problem? Could the 128MB of RAM shared for use by the integrated GPU really be doing that much damage?
Or is it a motherboard issue?
Generally DDR400 should be fairly competitive with a DDR2 solution, from benchmarks I've seen, so the fact I'm using DDR rather than DDR2 shouldn't make a difference. (See here http://www.anandtech.com/displays/showdoc.aspx?i=2810&p=7)
Any suggestions on a Vista graphics card?
I just need DirectX 9 and DVI, no more, I won't be running any games at all, so no $200 graphics cards please.