+- The Lurker Lounge Forums (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums)
+-- Forum: The Lurker Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Computer memory (/thread-4677.html)
Computer memory - ZatarRufus - 03-15-2006
My computer has three DIMM slots for memory. I have two PC100 128MB chips and several PC100 64MB chips. My intention was to fill all three slots and have 320MB total. However, a friend said I'd be better off to only put the two 128MB chips in and that would give the fastest speed.
While I can understand that less chips would be faster if the application(s) will run in that amount of ram, I fail to see how swapping to the hard drive would be better if the additional 64MB would avoid the swap.
I've spent about 30 minutes searching through Google but was unable to find this specific question asked, let alone answered.
Thanks in advance if someone will enlighten me.
ZR
Computer memory - Crusader - 03-15-2006
ZatarRufus,Mar 15 2006, 07:15 AM Wrote:My computer has three DIMM slots for memory. I have two PC100 128MB chips and several PC100 64MB chips. My intention was to fill all three slots and have 320MB total. However, a friend said I'd be better off to only put the two 128MB chips in and that would give the fastest speed.
While I can understand that less chips would be faster if the application(s) will run in that amount of ram, I fail to see how swapping to the hard drive would be better if the additional 64MB would avoid the swap.
I've spent about 30 minutes searching through Google but was unable to find this specific question asked, let alone answered.
Thanks in advance if someone will enlighten me.
ZR
[right][snapback]104634[/snapback][/right]
Feel free to fill all four. It doesn't matter, RAM is faster then HD swapping by a few thousand factors, even if the allocation to which ram slot the memory is committed is factored in. The "don't put 2x64 RAM next to 2x128" thing is purely a human psychology thing.
Computer memory - Concillian - 03-15-2006
People see benchmarks on computer hardware sites and make all sorts of wacky conclusions.
3 might be slightly slower than 2 in applications where you only need the capacity of the 2. However the difference is so minute (milliseconds, maybe even microseconds) you would never know.
However load up something that won't fit in the space of 2, but will fit in the space of 3, and you're talking differences measured in whole seconds.
Computer memory - Zippyy - 03-15-2006
Go ahead and pack in as much as you can. If they are all PC100, there won't be any noticable speed difference.
If you had, say, one stick of PC133 and one of PC100, your motherboard would lower the speed of all your sticks to the lowest. Your PC133 would become PC100. Something about memory leaks I think. I'm no expert. Newer motherboards may not need to do this. I don't know. :) Hope that helps.
Computer memory - Klaus - 03-15-2006
Concillian,Mar 15 2006, 02:20 PM Wrote:People see benchmarks on computer hardware sites and make all sorts of wacky conclusions.
3 might be slightly slower than 2 in applications where you only need the capacity of the 2. However the difference is so minute (milliseconds, maybe even microseconds) you would never know.
However load up something that won't fit in the space of 2, but will fit in the space of 3, and you're talking differences measured in whole seconds.
[right][snapback]104695[/snapback][/right]
In some of the newer systems (which you don't have if you're talking about PC100 ram), there are 4 DIMM slots connected in two pairs to the memory controller. If you put matching size modules on opposite channels (so the system is balanced), the chipset can access both channels at the same time, thereby doubling the bandwidth of the ram system. If you add a third module (so one side has 2 and the other side has 1), it can't do this anymore, and the system gets slower. None of this is a concern for the kind of system you're talking about.