Optimum RAM memory size ??

[SuperDoc]

I was debating buying one or two 256MB SDRAMs for a 333MHz P2. The salesman recommended I buy only one. He said you shouldn't have more memory that you have processor speed>

I never heard this a "rule of thumb".
Anyone know about this or have any comments???
SuperDoc

 

[RabidPenguin]

I have never heard of that, maybe he thinks you don't really need the extra with the slower processor so he made up the "rule of thumb." It is true a faster processor can use more ram, as it does more work in the same amount of time. My opinion though is the more ram you have the better your system will run.

 

[DBSSP]

There is a drop off for the "more the merrier" theory. 256 is the general stop point for performance. What will you use this machine for? I recommend 512 if you do alot of hardcore graphics, programminf, or gaming. Jay
"If the words up and down were reversed, would you trip and fall or trip and fly?"

 

[Snickle]

Back in the Pentium and Win95 days some motherboard chipsets had problems caching memory above certain amounts. If Win95 could cache 64MB on an Intel VX chipset, any more memory than that could actually slow things down. Win98 and later took care of the problem. The limit now is pretty much determined by what the motherboard will accept, i.e. what each memory socket maximum is times the number of sockets. My Athlon 700 has 3 sockets with a max. of 256MB for a total of 768MB.

 

[SuperDoc]

Hi Folks

Thanks for comments >>>

My origional thought was "this guy is nuts!" I couldn't resist putting it on a forum.

Usage is typical web browsing, Eudora email, Word, Excel, occasional PowerPoint or Publisher...
Don't do games or CAD... Just though memory was so cheap I would load up.
Ciao

 

[jpm121]

I'd also be interested in what OS the user is running. Personally, I'd cap 98/ME at 128 or 256 and really no cap for 2K or XP. I run 640 MB on these, and it helps eliminate swapping to page files in all but the most intense situations.

You're right, the guy is nuts. The number of megahertz is completely arbitrary when compared to megabytes of RAM. Would he try to sell you 2 GB of RAM if you had a top-end P4 machine?

Good luck...

 

[CapsMan]

The salesman should get more memory, his techical experience has hit a bottleneck!
I've never heard of one trying to put you off buying extras.
Maybe he was just looking after the shop for someone?

If your motherboard has spare slots, fill 'em to the value of you pocket money.

CapsMan.
The Computer Unprofessional.

 

[SuperDoc]

Thanks again for the comments
I really thought I was missing something or that this "young Stud" really knew what he was talking about.. I've been in the computer business a looong time, but still find that every day I learn something new...

I am running WIN 2K on three machines (Love the OS) and also feel that the more memory the better..
If the MB will take it, and the pocketbook can afford it!!
Ciao
Doc

 

[paparazi]

There is a physical limit with windows 98/SE and preceeding additions of windows that know one has mentioned??
I think it's around 384mb where anything more is not used with this O/S. (sure someone will explain with a more difinitive answer)
Anyway this doesn't effect Win2K and the motherboard slots/configuration of memory modules being your only limiting factor. Martin Please let members know if there advice has helped any.

 

[Snickle]

There is an issue with Win98 and vcache when more than 512MB is installed.

This is a list of the chipsets and Win95 I mentioned early [does not apply to Win98, problem was fixed by then]:

64MB- Intel VX, TX

256MB- Intel EX, SiS 5591/92

512MB- Intel HX, LX, BX, VIA VP-2, MVP-3

1024MB- Intel FX, VIA VP-3

 

[SuperDoc]

Interesting discussion...

I read the summary as...
Win2K or XP limit = motherboard capacity..
WIN 98SE 512MB above that level is not effective
WIN 95 ... mute point.. 256 MB (and upgrade to new OS)

Thanks for inputs..
I learned something )

 

[rburke]

Actually there is a limit to the Win 2k and XP, it is in the few Petabyte range.... Yeah, so show me a motherboard that can hold that... Just a random fact...

Burke

 

[cdogg]

Win9x/ME doesn't allocate resources in the same way as WinNT/2K/XP. This is why you might find that large amounts of RAM in Win9x/ME could actually hurt performance.

Read this FAQ for more info:

faq615-1638

~cdogg

"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."
- Albert Einstein

 

[Snickle]

SuperDoc, we are glad to help out any way we can. We can all learn something about computers from someone else because we each know something [life, too, but that's a different forum]. I don't think any of us knows "all there is to know" about computers, the arena changes too much.

 

[SuperDoc]

Interesting.. The last few messages & the MS reference conclude that the OS and the Motherboard are the limiting factors. NOT processor speed.... HMMMMMMM
Ciao

 

[cdogg]

The limitiation is definitely NOT processor speed. It wasn't uncommon to see WinNT 4.0 servers running a Pentium 166 with a gig of RAM...

~cdogg

"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."
- Albert Einstein

 

[fluxvoovoo]

Big problem with the fat16 and fat32 systems is the way they use pointers in allocating memory addresses. This puts a limit on the actual amount of addresses they can use. It goes back to the old days when the guys at MS thought no one would ever need more than 64K of memory, and it relates to the number of bits that were used for each pointer. NTFS does not have this limitation. Ram is limited by cache memory size and bus speed. It is true that too much memory in YOUR case could possibly slow your system down somewhat.My gut feeling here is that the salesman was being incredibably honest and decent with you - which I find most refreshing these days.