Which is bigger, Red or blue?Originally posted by: KeypoX
I have some older DDR sitting around 512 but its pretty slow i think i can push it to 2.5 4 4
Is that a decent trade off or would i see a performance hit? I am thinking its worth it any thoughts?
Originally posted by: Billb2
Which is bigger, Red or blue?Originally posted by: KeypoX
I have some older DDR sitting around 512 but its pretty slow i think i can push it to 2.5 4 4
Is that a decent trade off or would i see a performance hit? I am thinking its worth it any thoughts?
See, you don't have enough information to answer...neither do we.
Different memory controllers handle the installation if odd numbers of memory sticks differently. Intell..not a problem, AMD E6 controllers...a problem.Originally posted by: KeypoX
Originally posted by: Billb2
Which is bigger, Red or blue?Originally posted by: KeypoX
I have some older DDR sitting around 512 but its pretty slow i think i can push it to 2.5 4 4
Is that a decent trade off or would i see a performance hit? I am thinking its worth it any thoughts?
See, you don't have enough information to answer...neither do we.
What ??? you make no sence. Your mom is bigger. I guess you didnt understand the concept of adding more memory but having to relax the timings.
Here is your additional information if you need to learn more about timings:
http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=873
Anyways i just tried to play BF2 on vista with my 1gig and it ran horrible unplayable at low settings yet in XP it runs on high with very high frame rates
Is the issue really memory? I really doubt it as well nothinman and i havent ran a benchmark in years lol.
So i guess i will try the additional 512 and see what happens
Originally posted by: TwYsTeD
go with the 1.5, though i think that's still not enough ram for vista. You wont notice the difference in timings.
Edit: I wasn't happy with vista performance even at 2 gb, which is why im up to 4 now, and I couldn't be happier.
Originally posted by: KeypoX
Originally posted by: TwYsTeD
go with the 1.5, though i think that's still not enough ram for vista. You wont notice the difference in timings.
Edit: I wasn't happy with vista performance even at 2 gb, which is why im up to 4 now, and I couldn't be happier.
Are you serious you had gamming problems with 2GB ... i really cannot image that this is a memory issue atleast i hope...
Also i would lose dual channel with that 3rd stick which i cannot find anyways
"There is a common perception that new OSes run games slower than older ones. This was certainly the case with the move to Win2000 for a while. But unlike the move to 2k, Vista is built with gaming in mind, and there are a lot of under the hood improvements that should lead to *faster* gaming....once the drivers are sorted out." From sticky here
It has lead me to believe it is a driver issue of ATI. My main problem is the huge difference in performance i run high settings of BF2 no problem yet in Vista on low settings it is really really choppy. But Vista is only using about 20 more mb of memory.
I really can't believe this is a memory issue and why do all the reviews sites have no performance problems in vista?
Full Specs
3500 OCed to 2.5GHz
1GB 2 3 3 Mushkin
AMD / ATI x850 XT PE slight overclock 20 mhz or so on each
120 GB hd WD
160 GB WD