Removed 2gb of ram and gained massively?

Judas · Dec 22, 2006, 01:33 AM

Fiddling here, and figured sure what the hell, since i'm mostly using XP 32bit now instead of x64 (even though i like x64 much more....) i don't need 4gb when all that's ever seen is 2.8gb...

Anyways, yanked out 2gb , so now i'm down to 2gb, and then check these out... even my 3D results are insanely much higher...

go figure

Someone else find this odd?

course.... the newer most recent results are the light grey....

The most recent was done after running through several apps before running...

the grey was run after a fresh reboot.

tastyweat · Dec 22, 2006, 01:57 AM

Seems the graphics results were the ones that let you down in the previous tests and only really those - what graphics driver where you running for the first test?? Maybe that's the difference... I don't see why ram would affect the graphics scores (well - between 4gb and 2 gb)

SFOSOK · Dec 22, 2006, 03:45 AM

2 gb is the perfect amount. 4 is just too nasty

Judas · Dec 22, 2006, 04:25 PM

Nothing, ran all the test in the morning..

removed 2gb

reran.

Vikingod · Dec 22, 2006, 04:35 PM

My guess is your timings changed from 2T with 4GB to 1T with 2GB.

Judas · Dec 22, 2006, 04:39 PM

yeah but why would that make a difference with the video cards..

All i know is that 3DMark05 WILL NOT WORK if i try to force crossfire mode on. which is ghey as all i get is a 3DMark05 result that is lower then if i completely disable crossfire my marks go up about 1000 marks.... ati or futuremark.. fix your damn benchmark.

H3X4D3C1M4L · Dec 26, 2006, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Judas

yeah but why would that make a difference with the video cards..

It makes a big diff, faster memory acess is critical in the 3D rendering process

The_Neon_Cowboy · Dec 28, 2006, 01:16 AM

Additional adressing required for the more memory = - a good 500-800 mbps. Not to metion with 4 sticks most board drop you from 1T to 2T or lower your timeings.
Bechmarks are misleading as surely not haveing to page to disk at when gameing
is faster....

Also you notice you ram shaowed as 2048 ( 2GB) with 2 but with 4 it only
showed 2816 MB ???

Scytale · Dec 28, 2006, 03:26 AM

<~ Judas

i am aware of why the ram is seen as 2.8gb (windows XP 32bit limitation, the limitation doesn't excist in x64, and the benchmarks are actually faster in x64 IF the freaking thing would complete, but doesn't due to the stupid pcmark05 failing on a single test)

Judas · Jan 2, 2007, 06:59 PM

btw, i've been running several more tests, looks like even when running similarely tight timing with 3gb of ram install, just being slightly over the 2.8gb xp 32bit limit, appears to seriously hinder the results, so i'm guessing that within windows xp 32bit, that you DO NOT want to ever go over then 2.8gb limit at all, (so install 2sticks of 1gb and no more then 2 sticks of 256mb, for a grand total of 2.5gb while retaining dual channel mode)

Dec 22, 2006, 01:57 AM	#2
tastyweat Lurking Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: The void Posts: 4,794 Rep Power: 75 System Specs	Seems the graphics results were the ones that let you down in the previous tests and only really those - what graphics driver where you running for the first test?? Maybe that's the difference... I don't see why ram would affect the graphics scores (well - between 4gb and 2 gb) __________________

Dec 22, 2006, 03:45 AM	#3
SFOSOK 939 Goin Strong Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Ontario Posts: 7,033 Rep Power: 90 System Specs	2 gb is the perfect amount. 4 is just too nasty __________________ Warning - Explicit Content Preceeding METAL!!

Dec 28, 2006, 01:16 AM	#8
The_Neon_Cowboy HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 16,009 Rep Power: 92 System Specs	Additional adressing required for the more memory = - a good 500-800 mbps. Not to metion with 4 sticks most board drop you from 1T to 2T or lower your timeings. Bechmarks are misleading as surely not haveing to page to disk at when gameing is faster.... Also you notice you ram shaowed as 2048 ( 2GB) with 2 but with 4 it only showed 2816 MB ??? __________________

Dec 28, 2006, 03:26 AM	#9
Scytale DriverHeaven Newbie Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: N/A Posts: 17 Rep Power: 0	<~ Judas i am aware of why the ram is seen as 2.8gb (windows XP 32bit limitation, the limitation doesn't excist in x64, and the benchmarks are actually faster in x64 IF the freaking thing would complete, but doesn't due to the stupid pcmark05 failing on a single test) __________________ N/A

Dec 22, 2006, 04:35 PM	#5
Vikingod Int'l Fish Liaison Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: By the light of lamp I sit and type... Posts: 16,197 Rep Power: 112 System Specs	My guess is your timings changed from 2T with 4GB to 1T with 2GB.