128mb ram
 

some people says that anything over 128mb of ram doesn't make a major different in performance for computers!is that true?? so whats the piont of getting 256mb of ram??? when there no performance different??

That's absolutely not true, especially with most of today's newer games. When you play games such as NOLF or Q3A or Mechwarrior 4, they can take up to 300mb of RAM just to run, with all the textures, levels, etc that they have to load.

Having more RAM definitely helps. I recently went from 128mb to 384mb, and I can sure tell you that I see a NICE performance increase. (Windows runs faster too <G>)

-Julius X

For the AVERAGE person, more than 128 Mb doesn't make much difference under Win9x/ME (Win2K is another story).

There are some exceptions. Q3A, for instance, is a ram hungry monster and definately runs better with more than 128 Mb. Just don't expect to see this show up in fps scores because it won't.

For the most part, though, assuming you keep a clean system, 128 Mb is all you really need unless you're a power user. For instance, if you do graphics art work with Photoshop, you CAN'T have enough memory. Also if you like to run several big apps at the same time (say maybe Frontpage, Photoshop, IE and Winamp) things will run a heck of a lot smoother with 256 Mb than 128.

Aggravating this is the trend nowadays to run a lot of small background apps that eat away at your memory. Seems every friggin' app installs a background utility - all those stupid and useless icons running in your taskbar are just memory and performance wasters - do we REALLY need an app to load RealPlayer faster?.

BOTTOM LINE: You can never have too much memory, but over 128 you're not going to see any dramatic improvements unless you're a power user or use some specific ram-hungry games.

However, with memory so damn cheap nowadays (50 bucks for 128 Mb and less) you might as well load up while you can. 256Mb is a nice number nowadays. Just don't expect to see any dramatic improvements because you won't -it's more subtle. Your desktop will be snappier, for instance.



------------------

The Flying Penguin :)
http://TheFlyingPenguin.com

What kind of system do you have penguin?

Drat911 http://www.veforums.com/wink.gif

well from what i have gathered after reading MANY replies from FP, i think he has a Geforce 1 DDR and a PIII-550....am I right FP? http://www.veforums.com/smile.gif

------------------
-=[DELIVERYMAN]=-
http://www.angelfire.com/film/guru/del.gif

Yup. P3-550 o/c'd to 688. Geforce 1 DDR. 384 Mb Win2K.

I use apps that require a LOT of memory (Photoshop and some studio recording software), and Win2k needs at least 256 Mb to run smoothly.

------------------

The Flying Penguin :)
http://TheFlyingPenguin.com

i have 192mb of ram on my win2k and it runs really smooth.

Well I have built a lot of machines, and from what I can tell is this, on the 9X kernal it doesnt appear to do a whole lot after the 128 mark, but with NT or 2k those OS's will suck every bit of RAM you can throw in your system and still come back begging for more.

Why this is is beyonde me, but Im hoping that we get the whistler hybrid with the broad spectrum of control and memory managment like NT and compatibility and easy of 9x ( although 2000 is pretty easy), so that the issue will be closed.

------------------
RPG gamers Rule, Strategy gamerz are the dark shadows that Rule RPG Gamerz

FP, I also have a P3-550 and need some more speed. What mobo are u using? and what cooling do u use?? photos would be appreciated. http://www.veforums.com/biggrin.gif

------------------
-=[DELIVERYMAN]=-
http://www.angelfire.com/film/guru/del.gif

It's a SECC2 CPU (Slot1) retail with factory heatsink.

P3s overclock pretty easy and unless you intend to go over 125 Mhz FSB, the stock heatsink is more than ample.

On the Slot1 version, the stock heatsink is so overkill that if the CPU is capable of it, it'll do 133 Mhz FSB with no additional cooling (mine won't - it locks up after POST at anything over 125 Mhz). Rock stable at 125, though, under Win2K.

[This message has been edited by FlyingPenguin (edited 01-21-2001).]

[This message has been edited by FlyingPenguin (edited 01-21-2001).]

In truth about RAM Windows 95 and 98 do not utilize RAM well over 128mb. NT does though. SO people with NT4 and WIn 2000 will have better systems with more RAM because WIN 2000 and NT are designed to work with RAM up to 4GB. WIn 95 and Win 98 WILL work with more then 128mb but it doesn't utilize it as well as it does with no more then 128mb. I had a system with 256mb and then changed to 128mb. It ran more efficient at 128 then it did at 256. If you are using more then 128mb the problem comes in when you go to shut down a program windows does not always free that memory back up for other programs to use. You can corect this with some memory programs but the best thing to do is go no more 128mb on 95 & 98. Like I said though with NT 4 and 2000 you can go as high as 4GB. If you run 2000 adv. server you can go as high as 8GB!!! My server(running Win 2000 Server) runs 256mb of RAM and my other 2 computers(running Win 98) only have 128mb of RAM. It is your choice what you want to do but these are the facts. More RAM DOESN'T always mean a faster system unless that system is designed for more RAM like NT and the Mac systems are.......

------------------
Life is too short for Dial-up connections..