System RAM upgrade question.

[fatty]

Originally Posted by Konovalov

It seems a good time to get memory too. I can't believe how cheap it now is. A year ago it cost me £200 for some top notch Corsair Dominator DDR2 matched 2GB pair. Now I can get better RAM that that for less than £100.00.

Hell yes. I just bought 2gb of low latency OCZ dual channel DDR2-800... $20 after mail-in rebate. NOW IS THE TIME!

[Godalmighty83]

3gb is pointless on xp and actually slower then just a pair of 1gig sticks.

stick a decent pair of ddr2 1 gig pc6400 sticks in the 1st and 3rd ram slots for dual channel and away you go. stick another stick in and it gets knocked back down to the slightly slower single channel and xp rarely pulls more then 2gigs even with a very hefty game going.

just a few results from my system

3dmark06-

e6600 @ 3.2ghz
8800 gts 320
2x1gb sticks single channel

13412 3dmarks

3x1gb sticks single channel

13416 3dmarks

2x1gb sticks dual channel

13700 3dmarks


nowadays the graphics card is much more important presuming you have a decent c2d cpu.

[SUBMAN1]

Yes, XP can address 3 GB for apps, and load the kernel into the 4th GB. So it can use 4 GB of RAM, but not all of it completely.

ANy app made with Visual Studio 6.0 or later can also address 3 GB, but only after you add the /3gb switch to your boot.ini. Without the /3gb swtich, your machine will act as only having 2 GB addressable. I've known many a person that put 4 GB in their system, yet complained it didn't work. Of course it won't work, unless you tell Windows to use it!!!

-S

PS. I forgot to mention that apps made prior to Visual Studio 6 (which came out in the late 1990's) may get completely borked by having 3 GB available. And not everyone was programming on Vis Studio 6 yet in 1999 by the way. So for these apps old old old apps, you may need to remove the /3gb switch and reboot your computer to play them. Just a warning.

[Skybird]

Once in a while I thinik about getting one 1 GB bar to help my FS installation a bit, I now have 2 x 512 Mb bars installed in slot 1 and 3 (of four). Is there a problem in mixing RAM bars of different capacity? How to arrange 2x512MB and 1x1GB on the four slots? Or is it unimportant? two years ago i was told it is not unimportant at all, and best is to use only bars of the same capacity. but I do not wish to replace the 512-bars, i only want to add another 1 GB.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Once in a while I thinik about getting one 1 GB bar to help my FS installation a bit, I now have 2 x 512 Mb bars installed in slot 1 and 3 (of four). Is there a problem in mixing RAM bars of different capacity? How to arrange 2x512MB and 1x1GB on the four slots? Or is it unimportant? two years ago i was told it is not unimportant at all, and best is to use only bars of the same capacity. but I do not wish to replace the 512-bars, i only want to add another 1 GB.

Most boards these days use what is known as crossbar technology which is more widely known as dual channel. Most boards I think can switch between dual channel and single channel fine. On the same channel, mixing RAM is fine, as long as the same RAM is on the opposite channel. This will allow for dual channel operation (4 transactions per clock cycle for DDR and 8 transactions per clock cycle for DDR2).

In my mind, dual channel won't really give you any speed improvements though, so don't fret too much about it. You still can't saturate normal DDR400 these days, let alone trying to saturate DDR 800.

The final word however is your manual. Each board is different on what RAM combinations they support and that will be listed in there. Also high density vs low density RAM can be an issue too (the number of chips on the module). That is something else to consider. Buy from a decent manufacturer like Mushkin, and you will be fine.

-S

[Skybird]

Thanks. So while having 512 in slot #1 and #3, I can put in 1GB in #2 or #4? Or better another 2x512? - I (would) buy it exclusively to help FS9 to switch between different sights, panel views, outside views, which sometimes causes delays, especially when returning to virtual cockpit. I assume that RAM would help there since FS still is very CPU dependant, and does not allocate so much of the graphics work to the grahics card (which has 256 MB, a 7800GS). Is my assumption reasonable, or totally off course?

[SUBMAN1]

I can't answer the question. Some motherboards, opposite channels are slot 1 & 3 and 2 & 4, and some motherboards it is slot 1 & 2 and 3 & 4. That is why you have to look in your manual to find out which is the opposite channel.

If you lost it, every manufacturer has a PDF version online.

-S

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by Godalmighty83

3gb is pointless on xp and actually slower then just a pair of 1gig sticks.

stick a decent pair of ddr2 1 gig pc6400 sticks in the 1st and 3rd ram slots for dual channel and away you go. stick another stick in and it gets knocked back down to the slightly slower single channel and xp rarely pulls more then 2gigs even with a very hefty game going.

just a few results from my system

3dmark06-

e6600 @ 3.2ghz
8800 gts 320
2x1gb sticks single channel

13412 3dmarks

3x1gb sticks single channel

13416 3dmarks

2x1gb sticks dual channel

13700 3dmarks


nowadays the graphics card is much more important presuming you have a decent c2d cpu.

Now FS X wouldn't agree on your last statement. :rotfl:

[SUBMAN1]

I personally think that FS X is purposely detuned for XP. Someday, someone will figure it out since it miraculously is the only graphics app on the planet that happens to run better on DX10 than DX9.

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

I personally think that FS X is purposely detuned for XP. Someday, someone will figure it out since it miraculously is the only graphics app on the planet that happens to run better on DX10 than DX9.

No, as Phil Taylor (developer of FS) has said, the policy of Microsoft concering FS is to develop a game such that its impossibile to run at maximum settings on current hardware. It will be the same with FS XI. :hmm: They want the simulator to last several years thats why you can't push the graphics to the maximum.
If you ask me this is total bs.
Add in the fact that FS has never used the power of the graphics cards, and you have the paradoxical situation where X-plane 9 with world scenery and maximum details gives you 3-4x times the framerate you would have on FS X using the same equivalent settings on the same hardware.
I have come to realise that the only way to enjoy FS is to buy the old version the moment the new one comes out.
This way you are sure you can run FS at maximum details without framerate problems.
I recently bought FS 2004 for 16 € and I'm enjoying it at maximum details with a better graphics and performance than FS X with the same settings.
Stupid Microsoft when will they learn to optimise and harness the power of the graphic cards and use it in the FS series? Oh yeah and ditch the GPS for commercial planes, give us an FMS/FMC how hard can it be for a software heralded as a SIMULATION ?

[SUBMAN1]

The reason I've said that is that I've seen people here state that it runs faster on Vista when they upgraded.

This is contrary to the standard 20% FPS drop as seen in even DX10 native games for moving from DX9 to DX10.

There are some posts on this around here somewhere. Probably in the other games threads.

-S

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by goldorak

No, as Phil Taylor (developer of FS) has said, the policy of Microsoft concering FS is to develop a game such that its impossibile to run at maximum settings on current hardware. It will be the same with FS XI. :hmm: They want the simulator to last several years thats why you can't push the graphics to the maximum.

If you ask me this is total bs.

I have come to realise that the only way to enjoy FS is to buy the old version the moment the new one comes out.
This way you are sure you can run FS at maximum details without framerate problems.

That's what I did, too: I bought Fs2004 second hand when FS-X came out.

An update frequency of two years for FS, and 3 years for the last version, is not what I would consider to be lasting "for several years". but I would welcome very much if it would take let'S say 5 years between every version, or even longer, becasue addons becoming bETTER THAT WAY; AND LASTING LONGER: of the German Airports series, consisting of four packages, the final and last part for FS-9 will be released 1st quarter 2008 - with FS-X being around for over 1 1/2 years then.

the ever growing speed in business is turning customers dizzy with needs for faster and faster updates. The tail has begun to overttake the head. Can't say I like the way things are going. Too fast, too short-living, too crazy.