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

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

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? BB wrote:

Quoted text (22 lines)

> 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

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?

Quoted text (22 lines)

> 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

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......... "BB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:avalqn$dfims$[email hidden]... > Has anyone ever had a computer perform worse after added memory? > .....snip...............

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 "BB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:avalqn$dfims$[email hidden]... > 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. Myoperating > 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 34fps

Quoted text (8 lines)

> 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 > >

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. "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:avbpsr$dls7u$[email hidden]... > 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 above512MB.

Quoted text (10 lines)

> 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 aswell > 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'snot > interleaved or has slower SPD settings. Although this shouldn't reallyslow

Quoted text (13 lines)

> the system down that much. > > Do you have video or system bios caching on? > > Achim > > > > "BB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:avalqn$dfims$[email hidden]... > > 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

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > 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. Afterremoving

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > 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 > > > > > >

On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 12:38:10 +0100, "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote: ... >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). 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/

"BB" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:avalqn$dfims$[email hidden]:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> 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.

Quoted text (19 lines)

> > 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 > > >

"Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:avbpsr$dls7u$[email hidden]:

Quoted text (11 lines)

> 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.

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.

Quoted text (50 lines)

> > 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 > > > > "BB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:avalqn$dfims$[email hidden]... >> 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 >> >> > >

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 "Ruud van Gaal" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... ... > 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).

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 "Alex" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (45 lines)

> "BB" <[email hidden]> wrote in > news:avalqn$dfims$[email hidden]: > > > 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 > > > > > > >

If you want a performance boost, you need to get two 512MB sticks :-) Achim "BB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:avcbt0$e6k0l$[email hidden]... > 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. Iwas > 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.

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 gaming 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 "Alex" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... ...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> 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.

...and WinXP! "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:avcjhs$eddj9$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> If you want a performance boost, you need to get two 512MB sticks :-) > > Achim > > > "BB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:avcbt0$e6k0l$[email hidden]... > > 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. > >

Erm, well, that would fill another 3 threads <g> Achim "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:A4mS9.91599$[email hidden]... > ...and WinXP! > > "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:avcjhs$eddj9$[email hidden]... > > If you want a performance boost, you need to get two 512MB sticks :-)

Both of which are on wish and to do list....<g>. BB "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:A4mS9.91599$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> ...and WinXP! > > "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:avcjhs$eddj9$[email hidden]... > > If you want a performance boost, you need to get two 512MB sticks :-) > > > > Achim > > > > > > "BB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:avcbt0$e6k0l$[email hidden]... > > > 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 Iguess > I > > > won't get that until I give up my beloved W98se and move up tosomething > > > more recent. > > > > > >

"Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:avcjht$eddj9$[email hidden]:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> 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 gaming 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

Apparently Windows has problems releasing file cache memory even if it doesn't need it anymore which results in the RAM allocated to file cache growing and growing up to max limit. Alex.

Quoted text (20 lines)

> > > > "Alex" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > ... >> 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. > > > >

Yes, under Windows 98. If you istall more than 512MB of RAM, you have to edit the System.INI file so the cache's don't use more than that or you'll get serious performance hits. Larry "Alex" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (44 lines)

> "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in > news:avcjht$eddj9$[email hidden]: > > > 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 gaming 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 > > Apparently Windows has problems releasing file cache memory > even if it doesn't need it anymore which results in the RAM > allocated to file cache growing and growing up to max limit. > > Alex. > > > > > > > > > > "Alex" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > ... > >> 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. > > > > > > > > >