memory and XP

I had an inspiron 8200 with 512MB and I bumped it up to 1024MB (via Crucial) to try to squeeze out some extra performance (about 4 months ago).  The end result was that there was no significant performance boost jumping from 512MB to 1024MB - at least with an Insprion 8200, running Windows XP Professional, and using 3dMark2001SE, PCMark2002, and the built in benchmark for the trial version of UT2003.  When reviewing the benchmark results closely I could even see a slight performance drop with the 1024MB configuration for certain tests, although the performance drop was not statistically significant to the overall test results.  So I actually returned the memory to Crucial.

Over time I suspect the "sweet spot" for ideal memory configuation will increase as operating systems and applications become more complex and advanced enough to take advantage of even more memory.  But right now I doubt you would see any extra performance by going above 512 MB, at least on typical applications.

Message Edited by anettis on 01-14-2004 10:48 PM

anettis, those benchmarks aren't affected in any way by system memory, a point that's been debated ad nauseum over in the Video forum.

As long as there's enough memory to load the benchmark program without having to page back and forth to the disk (and with 256MB there is) memory won't help that.  It will, however, often help speed up bootup and shutdown times and make things snappier when switching between multiple applications.

 

From my experience with using Windows XP Home (on the Desktop and on this fine 8600) 512 MB works well. I had 384 in the desktop it worked good then added more to get 512 and everything works great. Desktop and Laptop.

Chris

Inspiron 8600
15.4" WSXGA+
Pentium 1.4 Ghz
512 MB 333 Mhz
Hitatchi 60 GB Hard drive
DVD/CDRW Combo
Intel Pro WLAN 2100 MiniPCI
Windows XP Home w/ PLUS!
64 MB GeForce FX Go5200
No Floppy -- Got Smart Media 128 MB

Inspiron 3800
Celeron 500
384 MB PC100
Old Now

JPM - I ran benchmarks with other applications open as well, such as Word, Excel, Outlook, PowerPoint, a memory hungrey Java development tool, etc.  There still was no difference between 512MB and 1024MB.  At this point in time there simply isn't much reason to go above 512MB for the average Windows XP user.  I doubt you could tell the differnce between 512MB and 1024MB unless you were running some extreme CAD/CAM or photo editiing software that needed to load massive amounts of data into memory for manipulation.  Of course in a year or so it could be a comletely different picture.

Message Edited by anettis on 01-14-2004 11:16 PM

Dear Friends,

thank you, gentlemen, that's exactly the kind of input I was hoping for. I conclude from this that it makes sense to go from 384K to 512, but the benefit is not as great moving to 1 meg (since I'm not a gamer). Thank you for taking the time to answer.
-Don

Personally, I find that my 256MB is enough to run XP smoothly, and enough to run games. Unless you're using the kinds of programs that are RAM-intensive, as anettis described (and games aren't, because video cards use their own memory), then I don't think you need to go up to 512 or 1GB of RAM.

It's funny... first people said that 128MB of RAM was the minimum suggested for XP, then as RAM prices went down, about 6 months after XP came out, people started saying that 256 was what you should really be using, and now people will confidently tell you that you need 512 if you ever want to run a game, and it'll help with speed in Word and IE too, which I feel is completely false. I think it's just that people want to feel that their computer is fast, and RAM is a cheap fix, so they throw more in, even if it doesn't make any difference. JMO, of course.

---

@dgbowen wrote:
I conclude from this that it makes sense to go from 384K to 512, but the benefit is not as great moving to 1 meg (since I'm not a gamer).

-Don

---

Okay, I'm assuming you mean you have 384 MB, not KB, and yes, moving to 512 MB would be an excellent idea. Also, I assume you meant 1 GB right? The reason there isn't that much performance leap, if any, is because the system probably isn't even fully using the 512 MB of RAM. Therefore, if you put in another 512 MB to get 1 GB RAM, the extra 512 MB would just be a buffer.

No, I really did mean K. My main system memory (chips plugged in) amounts to 384K... I wish I had 348mb.!
-d

Message Edited by dgbowen on 01-15-2004 12:58 PM

Perhaps 15 years ago. . . .

Heck about 20 years ago I remember having 16KB in my TI/99 4A along with a cassette tape drive (no floppy and of course no HD). . . . playing games like Parsec, Tunnels of Doom, Alpiner, and TI Invaders. . . .

 

Message Edited by anettis on 01-15-2004 02:09 PM

I thought perhaps he was kidding about giving his memory size in KB's. . .

You definitely mean MB. The first personal computer, the Altair, shipped with 4 K memory. Saying you only have 384 K on an I8200 is impossible. The lowest configuration offered by Dell for the I8200 was 128 MB.

XP wouldn't even be able to boot with  384K memory......

stu

I just added 512MB to my existing 512, and I've noticed a significant difference when I get into one of my multi-tasking frenzies. Have a couple of Office programs, Photoshop, Frontpage, IE, and a utility or 2 open, and my lags have completely disappeared.

Ultimately, the amount of ram you need completely depends upon your use of the computer.

Forget XP - the laptop would probably not even pass the POST (Power On Self Test) with that kind of memory installed. .

True....

stu

Message Edited by sakor1 on 01-15-2004 03:26 PM