Author Topic: Memory Question (Read 716 times)

BaneX · « **on:** January 11, 2001, 10:09:00 AM »

Ok heres the deal..

I had 128mg RAM and when checking performance I would have 90% free.

Now I've doubled that and have 256mg RAM and after checking performance I have 84% free.

Anyone that can explain that to me? Nothing else has changed. I've just added more ram

Running win98
PII 350
Diamond Stealth Extreme III video w/32mg
Soundblaster Live Xgamer
20gig HD
52X CD
latest drivers and usual stuff

Just curious as to why this might be happening.

Bane
13th TAS

SKurj · « **Reply #1 on:** January 11, 2001, 11:19:00 AM »

When did you have 90% free? Right after system boot? Had you shutdown extra stuff in the background prior to gaming?
Any extra freatures of hardware running? (Sound features?)

Are you 100% sure the system is in EXACTLY the same state as it was prior to the installation of the ram?

AKskurj

Ripsnort · « **Reply #2 on:** January 11, 2001, 11:31:00 AM »

Bane, same here! Had 128 and now 256, went from 90% to 84%...all apps closed when testing.

BaneX · « **Reply #3 on:** January 11, 2001, 12:50:00 PM »

This is what I had after a fresh reboot and shutting everything down that wasn't necessary prior to running AH.

Everything is exactly the same except for the memory amount.

Not hurtin anything just surious as to why this is.

Bane

TheWobble · « **Reply #4 on:** January 11, 2001, 01:20:00 PM »

Its because,Windows is a memory mongering potato!
The more You give it the more it will take.

[This message has been edited by TheWobble (edited 01-11-2001).]

MrSiD · « **Reply #5 on:** January 12, 2001, 10:13:00 AM »

What beats me is why you spend hard cash doubling already suffice amount of RAM instead of putting it for a cpu upgrade??
With the price of 128Mb RAM you get a Duron from the shop for crying out loud!

Can anyone explain the reasoning behind this?

- MrSiD

BaneX · « **Reply #6 on:** January 12, 2001, 01:02:00 PM »

MrSID I got the 128mg strip of RAM for $40.00
You tell me where I can get a Duron chip for the same and I'll upgrade happily.

Bane

Mark Luper · « **Reply #7 on:** January 12, 2001, 04:19:00 PM »

I upgraded to 256 megs of 133 fsb memory from 128 100 fsb. My puter runs better, didn't affect me much in AH but made a big difference in FS2000 Pro. That percentage is system resources and does not reflect how much memory you have free. There is a little program on Download.com called RAMBooster. It will free up memory for you but it won't have anything to do with the percentage of system resources listed in the performance tab. The only way to lower that is to reduce the number of programs running in the background.

MarkAT

bloom25 · « **Reply #8 on:** January 13, 2001, 12:42:00 AM »

Actually Bane, you can get a Duron 650 for less than $50 US. Currently though, the price/performance ratio is IMO held by the Thunderbird 800. The duron 850 (which just came out this week) is the same price.

The Duron 600 will spank even a P3 800 for AH. The FPU is just that much better. (I've tested it, and I know it's true.)

My current primary system is a Thunderbird 700, with V770 Ultra (diamond 4.02), 128 mb pc 133 cas 2, Asus a7v (bios 1.004d). In forward view in fighters I usually get around 70 fps. The fps doesn't drop below 60, even in the biggest furballs. (It only goes to around 20 if I fly through smoke at a completely flattened base.) I did have this overclocked to 900, but there wasn't a massive increase in FPS, the V770 Ultra just couldn't go any faster.

I built a system for a relative with a Duron 700, 128 Mb pc 100 cas 3 (cheap stuff), but I used a Asus 7100 card (might have been 7700), which is a 32 MB Gf2Mx card. Using the 5.33b drivers that came with it AH ran at 85 fps (monitor refresh rate) almost continuously. This was in 1.04 patch 4 when I tested this system. In really heavy smoke it too dropped to around 25 fps.

I've also tested AH on P3 systems, none have come close to the Athlons for AH. Otherwise they are pretty close.

(I wonder if I could get farther off-topic.

)

------------------
bloom25
THUNDERBIRDS

Vulcan · « **Reply #9 on:** January 13, 2001, 05:20:00 AM »

Its simple Banex. Windows arbitralily (thats hard to spell) allocates resources based on what it has hardware wise.

IE - it saw the extra RAM and probably allocated a chunk to all sorts of swapping caches, buffers etc. IE before it used (initially) 12.8Mb of RAM for say caching, with the abundance of RAM it saw when u bumped it up to 256Mb it decided it could use more RAM for caching so allocated 40Mb.

bowser · « **Reply #10 on:** January 13, 2001, 11:22:00 AM »

Basically, the more memory you have, the more the OS will grab at startup. Doesn't mean it's in use, just "committed" which is reflected in system resources free. If it's needed, the OS will give it up.

bowser

[This message has been edited by bowser (edited 01-13-2001).]

SuperD · « **Reply #11 on:** January 15, 2001, 04:18:00 AM »

Windows uses basically two types of memory to operate: your system memory and the swap file on your hard drive. the more system memory you give the computer the less Windows needs to use the swap file on the hard drive. the system memory is faster than reading off the hard drive so giving the computer more memory will tend to improve the performance of your computer.

I believe it is windows 98 has a max system memory efficiency of about 90mb. system memory added when you are greater than 90mb will not have as great effect on your performance than if you add memory up til you hit 90mb. it isn't as effecient but more memory will always help out.

------------------
SuperD
Dickweed Heavy Bomber Group

G8N."Renzan"(Rita)
IJNHeavy Ground Attack Bomber "Renzan"

G5N."Shinzan"(Litz)
IJNHeavy Ground Attack Bomber "Shinzan"

Imperial Japanese Naval Airplanes

Ripsnort · « **Reply #12 on:** January 15, 2001, 10:43:00 AM »

So, basically, Windows acts the the government, the more you give to it, the more it wants?

bowser · « **Reply #13 on:** January 15, 2001, 06:20:00 PM »

Hehe..that's right Ripsnort!

Also...a couple of things. System resources displayed in Control Panel/System is made up of physical + swap.
As for maximum memory used by Windows 98, I know Windows NT 4.0 is 4 GB, Windows 3.1 is 256 MB, and although I can't find a definite answer I know Windows 98 is at least 1 GB.
The following article talks about limiting Windows 98 to 1 GB:
http://support.m icrosoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q181/8/62.ASP?LN=EN-US&SD=gn&FR=0&qry=%26quot%3Bmemory%20limit%26quot%3B&rnk=2&src=DHCS_MSPSS_gn_SRCH&SPR=W98

Try running a memory intensive program like B17II and at the same time run System Monitor. You'll see that Windows 98 will use well over 90 MB...with B17II I was using about 240 MB. Believe me, these type programs love and will use the extra RAM you throw at them.

bowser

[This message has been edited by bowser (edited 01-15-2001).]

BaneX · « **Reply #14 on:** January 16, 2001, 08:08:00 AM »

Ahhh thanks guys... I was curious as to why that happened..

Ok nother question bloom25.. I was consindering an Athlon, but what is the difference between the Athlon and the Athlon thunderbird? Thunderbird seems to be a bit cheaper.

Bane
13th TAS

Man now I got ta get ANOTHER motherboard.. cause the one I have supports PIII and not athlon's lol.