AlanC wrote:
> I'm curious. I used to have 4GB of RAM fitted and it gave a score of 4.6.
> I updated to 2GB of a faster RAM and it scored 4.9. I've recently updated
> that again to 4GB of the faster RAM and the score is down to 4.6 again.
> What is going on?
>
> Regards
>
> AlanC
Hi Allan,
I would take the results with a grain of salt,
for all I know they put the algorithm in backwards
and it should have been 4.6 for 2, and 4.9 for 4,
but depending on what the computer bios set it at
(may have shifted the timings) and how the OS
recognizes the ram..don't forget the 32bit OS
will try to reserve one gb of that for itself..
so you did a good thing.
Other consideration is power supply and heat..
the ram may be drawing more current than the
smaller amount..hence fast ram with no juice,
also heat is an issue (faster is usually hotter).
Neither of above is an answer since there are
too many factors including how the index
'weighs' the data it collects.
pcwizard2007 and another tool called siw
will give respective (close) voltages and
ram speeds. pcwizard2007 has a windows
performance index benchmark .. may help.
I remember upgrading the ram in my laptop
from 512mb ddr266 to 1gb ddr333 and it
actually seemed to slow down for a while..
Man was I hot! lol, both were cas2.5 and
WinXP sp2 was on the unit but didn't even
use that extra ram...maybe once in 3 years
it blipped upto 600mb or 800mb in use even
after setting aside 512mb ram for photoshop.
Although Vista appears to use extra ram it
would still need a ram editor to see what
it places in there or if it just sets the
space aside sort of like reserved hdd space
on large downloads with flashget or similar.
Let us know how it runs though with 4gb,
too bad MS didn't put smiley popups in
Vista so we'd know when the OS was happy. *g*
NT Canuck
'Seek and ye shall find'
|
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
