rec.autos.simulators

by BB » Tue, 07 Jan 2003 10:24:13

Has anyone ever had a computer perform worse after added memory?

I have an Athlon 1.2 Ghz processor on an Abit KT7 MB with 512 Megabytes of
PC 133 memory installed (2-256's).
The brand of the memory is from Corsair and Micron Technology. My operating
system is W98 SE.

The problem started after I added one stick of 256 MB of PNY memory.

Prior to adding the extra memory my N2002 frame rate at Talladega was 34 fps
with everything maxed out and starting at the rear of the pack at the
beginning of a race. After adding the extra memory the frame rate dropped
to 15 fps, and was consistently poor at all other tracks. After removing
the PNY memory the frame rate when back to the original level.

I memory checked out error free with the program "CTSPD".

Just wondering if anyone has experienced a similar problem with PNY memory.

Thanks

BB

by **bertr** » Tue, 07 Jan 2003 10:52:29

If you're saying that you started with 512 megs RAM, then added another 256 Megs
to it, the answer is Yes.

There have been prior threads in this group about how Win98 does not like to
have more RAM than 512 Megs. There's some sort of fix to have the system ignore
anything over 512 if you have more installed. But, what's the point then, in
that case?

> Has anyone ever had a computer perform worse after added memory?

> I have an Athlon 1.2 Ghz processor on an Abit KT7 MB with 512 Megabytes of
> PC 133 memory installed (2-256's).
> The brand of the memory is from Corsair and Micron Technology. My operating
> system is W98 SE.

> The problem started after I added one stick of 256 MB of PNY memory.

> Prior to adding the extra memory my N2002 frame rate at Talladega was 34 fps
> with everything maxed out and starting at the rear of the pack at the
> beginning of a race. After adding the extra memory the frame rate dropped
> to 15 fps, and was consistently poor at all other tracks. After removing
> the PNY memory the frame rate when back to the original level.

> I memory checked out error free with the program "CTSPD".

> Just wondering if anyone has experienced a similar problem with PNY memory.

> Thanks

> BB

by **Glaspa** » Tue, 07 Jan 2003 10:57:47

Win98SE seems to have a problem with over 512Mb ram.
Check around on Google for info.
You have to edit something so it will not try to access more than 512Mb.
(which obviously wastes the 256 that you added)
The more modern OSs like Win2K and WinXP can use the extra Ram.

Also, I think you're begging for trouble mixing three brands of ram like
that.
(if I understand you... 256Mb-Corsair/256Mb-Micron/256Mb-PNY)

I've had excellent experiences with Corsair. (the XMS memory - tho' I do not
O/C)
Crucial has been good and bad to me... kind of a draw.
I'm not familliar at all with PNY..

I'd recommend taking the PNY back, 512 is enough for Win98SE and unless
you use ram-intensive programs like Photoshop, I just don't see a need for
more...
And on my Abit KX7-Raid, it seems to prefer one 512Mb stick over 2x 256Mb.
(could just be my board)

Regards.........

by **Joachim Trens** » Tue, 07 Jan 2003 20:38:10

I can think of a few reasons for what you're seeing.

For one, if I remember correctly W98's vcache can't handle RAM above 512MB.
To cure this problem, you could try to add to your system.ini:

[vcache]
maxfilecache=409600

This limits vcache to 400MB of RAM. I'm not sure that this is the best
option, but you might try it - at your own risk ;-) and make sure that
section doesn't yet exist. If it does, modify it.

Another reason for a slowdown, albeit not by as much as what you're seeing,
might be that when you've got two identical DIMMs plugged in, that's a
perfect scenario for memory interleave. When you add a third, maybe the
interleaving doesn't include that third DIMM, which means that any RAM
access to that third DIMM would be slower (and slow the others down as well
as they've have to wait).

You might also try to change your AGP aperture setting. Maybe you need to
increase or diminish it with the added RAM? Or maybe Windows puts your AGP
mem into the new RAM stick (higher addresses?) and that's slower as it's not
interleaved or has slower SPD settings. Although this shouldn't really slow
the system down that much.

Do you have video or system bios caching on?

Achim

by **Steve Smit** » Tue, 07 Jan 2003 20:52:15

I've had good luck w. PNY (that is, the absense of bad luck is, in my book,
at least, good luck). Achim et alia are right: no more than 512 max for Win
9x. You might try swapping the PNY w. one of your old sticks to see if the
new mem is the prob.

> I can think of a few reasons for what you're seeing.

> For one, if I remember correctly W98's vcache can't handle RAM above
512MB.
> To cure this problem, you could try to add to your system.ini:

> [vcache]
> maxfilecache=409600

> This limits vcache to 400MB of RAM. I'm not sure that this is the best
> option, but you might try it - at your own risk ;-) and make sure that
> section doesn't yet exist. If it does, modify it.

> Another reason for a slowdown, albeit not by as much as what you're
seeing,
> might be that when you've got two identical DIMMs plugged in, that's a
> perfect scenario for memory interleave. When you add a third, maybe the
> interleaving doesn't include that third DIMM, which means that any RAM
> access to that third DIMM would be slower (and slow the others down as
well
> as they've have to wait).

> You might also try to change your AGP aperture setting. Maybe you need to
> increase or diminish it with the added RAM? Or maybe Windows puts your AGP
> mem into the new RAM stick (higher addresses?) and that's slower as it's
not
> interleaved or has slower SPD settings. Although this shouldn't really
slow
> the system down that much.

> Do you have video or system bios caching on?

> Achim

> > Has anyone ever had a computer perform worse after added memory?

> > I have an Athlon 1.2 Ghz processor on an Abit KT7 MB with 512 Megabytes
of
> > PC 133 memory installed (2-256's).
> > The brand of the memory is from Corsair and Micron Technology. My
> operating
> > system is W98 SE.

> > The problem started after I added one stick of 256 MB of PNY memory.

> > Prior to adding the extra memory my N2002 frame rate at Talladega was 34
> fps
> > with everything maxed out and starting at the rear of the pack at the
> > beginning of a race. After adding the extra memory the frame rate
dropped
> > to 15 fps, and was consistently poor at all other tracks. After
removing
> > the PNY memory the frame rate when back to the original level.

> > I memory checked out error free with the program "CTSPD".

> > Just wondering if anyone has experienced a similar problem with PNY
> memory.

> > Thanks

> > BB

by **Ruud van Ga** » Tue, 07 Jan 2003 23:51:18

On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 12:38:10 +0100, "Joachim Trensz"

...

And I believe Windows allocates memory from the top down, i.e. the 3rd
DIMM first. Which means trouble even with nothing running (which might
seem odd otherwise).

Ruud van Gaal
Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/
Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/

by **Ale** » Wed, 08 Jan 2003 01:24:24

AFAIK extra stick of memory always make the access a little bit
slower, however it's not noticable and you can see it only using
some kind of benchmarking program. More significant problem is
that the timing for the memory is the same for all sticks, so
all your memory will be working with the timing for which the
worst stick is rated (assuming that you MB BIOS has settings to
read timing from SPD on the memory stick). But I've never seen this
giving more than 10%-15% of difference even in worst cases.

Probably, as it was already mentioned, inability of Win98SE to
handle more than 512Mb is the main reason.

Alex.

by **Ale** » Wed, 08 Jan 2003 01:29:07

And while you're there you can change it to
maxfilecache=40960
limiting cache to 40MB of RAM ;-> What kind of application would
benefit from 400MB (or more) of file caching? - Some servers
(database for example) would, but most (if not all) of them
implement caching scheme themselves and do it more efficiently.

Btw, some experts recommend setting both minfilecache and
maxfilecache to the same value to prevent windows from dynamically
reallocating the cache size.

Alex.

> Another reason for a slowdown, albeit not by as much as what you're
> seeing, might be that when you've got two identical DIMMs plugged in,
> that's a perfect scenario for memory interleave. When you add a third,
> maybe the interleaving doesn't include that third DIMM, which means
> that any RAM access to that third DIMM would be slower (and slow the
> others down as well as they've have to wait).

> You might also try to change your AGP aperture setting. Maybe you need
> to increase or diminish it with the added RAM? Or maybe Windows puts
> your AGP mem into the new RAM stick (higher addresses?) and that's
> slower as it's not interleaved or has slower SPD settings. Although
> this shouldn't really slow the system down that much.

> Do you have video or system bios caching on?

> Achim

>> Has anyone ever had a computer perform worse after added memory?

>> I have an Athlon 1.2 Ghz processor on an Abit KT7 MB with 512
>> Megabytes of PC 133 memory installed (2-256's).
>> The brand of the memory is from Corsair and Micron Technology. My
>> operating system is W98 SE.

>> The problem started after I added one stick of 256 MB of PNY memory.

>> Prior to adding the extra memory my N2002 frame rate at Talladega was
>> 34 fps with everything maxed out and starting at the rear of the pack
>> at the beginning of a race. After adding the extra memory the frame
>> rate dropped to 15 fps, and was consistently poor at all other tracks.
>> After removing the PNY memory the frame rate when back to the
>> original level.

>> I memory checked out error free with the program "CTSPD".

>> Just wondering if anyone has experienced a similar problem with PNY
>> memory.

>> Thanks

>> BB

by **Joachim Trens** » Wed, 08 Jan 2003 01:38:05

positive about the top down. But I don't how the RAM addresses are
distributed across the DIMMs.

If it's like Ruud says, this could cause a pretty severe performance loss.

Achim

...

by BB » Wed, 08 Jan 2003 01:47:03

Thanks for the info guys. I returned the extra memory. Looks like I am
already toped out with my original amount of memory of 512 Megabytes. I was
looking for a big performance boost with the additional 256, but I guess I
won't get that until I give up my beloved W98se and move up to something
more recent.

Thanks again\\BB

> > Has anyone ever had a computer perform worse after added memory?

> > I have an Athlon 1.2 Ghz processor on an Abit KT7 MB with 512 Megabytes
> > of PC 133 memory installed (2-256's).
> > The brand of the memory is from Corsair and Micron Technology. My
> > operating system is W98 SE.

> > The problem started after I added one stick of 256 MB of PNY memory.
> AFAIK extra stick of memory always make the access a little bit
> slower, however it's not noticable and you can see it only using
> some kind of benchmarking program. More significant problem is
> that the timing for the memory is the same for all sticks, so
> all your memory will be working with the timing for which the
> worst stick is rated (assuming that you MB BIOS has settings to
> read timing from SPD on the memory stick). But I've never seen this
> giving more than 10%-15% of difference even in worst cases.

> Probably, as it was already mentioned, inability of Win98SE to
> handle more than 512Mb is the main reason.

> Alex.

> > Prior to adding the extra memory my N2002 frame rate at Talladega was
> > 34 fps with everything maxed out and starting at the rear of the pack
> > at the beginning of a race. After adding the extra memory the frame
> > rate dropped to 15 fps, and was consistently poor at all other tracks.
> > After removing the PNY memory the frame rate when back to the original
> > level.

> > I memory checked out error free with the program "CTSPD".

> > Just wondering if anyone has experienced a similar problem with PNY
> > memory.

> > Thanks

> > BB

by **Joachim Trens** » Wed, 08 Jan 2003 03:54:33

If you want a performance boost, you need to get two 512MB sticks :-)

Achim

by **Joachim Trens** » Wed, 08 Jan 2003 03:56:59

I've set mine to 50MB, but if someone works a lot with files they will
profit from a larger cache, because when I set my maxfilecache to 256MB I
notice a speed difference of the disk I/O.

As for minfilecache, I stopped using that because I thought, while you're
*** the file cache probably isn't used much anyway but you want to have
as much free RAM as possible for your game. The size changes don't seem to
be noticeable anymore, I guess todays systems are too fast for this to be an
issue.

Achim

...

by **Steve Smit** » Wed, 08 Jan 2003 05:57:04

...and WinXP!

> If you want a performance boost, you need to get two 512MB sticks :-)

> Achim

> > Thanks for the info guys. I returned the extra memory. Looks like I am
> > already toped out with my original amount of memory of 512 Megabytes. I
> was
> > looking for a big performance boost with the additional 256, but I guess
I
> > won't get that until I give up my beloved W98se and move up to something
> > more recent.

by **Joachim Trens** » Wed, 08 Jan 2003 07:02:37

Erm, well, that would fill another 3 threads <g>

Achim

> ...and WinXP!

> > If you want a performance boost, you need to get two 512MB sticks :-)

by BB » Fri, 10 Jan 2003 02:30:03

Both of which are on wish and to do list....<g>.

BB

> ...and WinXP!

> > If you want a performance boost, you need to get two 512MB sticks :-)

> > Achim

> > > Thanks for the info guys. I returned the extra memory. Looks like I
am
> > > already toped out with my original amount of memory of 512 Megabytes.
I
> > was
> > > looking for a big performance boost with the additional 256, but I
guess
> I
> > > won't get that until I give up my beloved W98se and move up to
something
> > > more recent.