Thanks for the Memory

[richardm]

I've got an opportunity to buy some RAM cheaply. We're buying a bunch of DIMMS at work, and we're able to buy some for personal use, taking advantage of the bulk discount.

I'm dithering over whether to lash out on a 1Gb dimm for my Windows XP box. It's got a 2GHz processor, and 768 Mb already. I'd replace one of the 256Mb dimms with the new 1Gb one. The motherboard can take it with no problems.

I like the idea of a machine with 1.5Gb of memory. But would I see any difference in performance? I mostly use the machine in question for flight simulators and shooty-bang games. And the odd bit photo processing, which I daresay certainly would improve with more memory.

Anyway, I appreciate the opinions of you all. Should I splurge or save?

[DangerousBeliefs]

You probably aren't going to see much of a difference most of the time.

Knowing the speed of the memory you have and the speed of the 1gig may make a small difference (if you're going from slow memory to faster).

You didn't post system specs or the exact cost of the memory so I couldn't recommend something else but I don't think it's really worth it.

I would think a faster processor or new video card would see more of a speed up but both are probably more expensive than a 1 gig stick.

[richardm]

There's PC-2100 memory in there at the moment. The Motherboard will take up to PC-3200, but I think I'm right in saying that all the memory will run at the speed of the lowest common denominator - so if I got PC-3200 that can run at 400MHz it'll still be trundling along at 266MHz with the rest of the memory.

My video card is a Radeon 9800-something, and the processor is an Athlon 3100+*, so it's a reasonably well-specced machine already. At least, it was last year when I built it, it's probably considered something out of the ark now :D

*Yes, I know I said it was a 2Ghz one - that's about the clock speed it runs at, but Athlon insist it's better than that indicates!

Edited to add: The memory will be about £120 - a £50 saving.

[Bikewer]

Kind of depends on what you're doing. Some games, like WWII online, are heavily dependent on RAM and Processer speed.

XP usually soaks up a fair chunk of your existing memory just running processes. My 512 gives me only a useable 354.

[richardm]

Originally posted by Bikewer
Kind of depends on what you're doing.

Yeah... I suppose it's a pretty stupid question really, since there are so many variables. I was wondering if it might speed up loading times and suchlike. Probably a sensible thing to do would be to turn on performance monitoring and have a beady look at what the swapfile is doing. (and then assume that Windows will use the new memory sensibly - I'm sometimes dubious that it does so)

[Soapy Sam]

The photo work might benefit a bit, but I doubt it's the best bang for the buck. The best "memory"investment I've made recently is in a USB stick. Your saving of 50 quid could buy a 128MB plug in dongle and about 8 pints of ale to wipe your own memory.

[thrombus29]

The only thing I ever saw a HUGE differrence in from going to 512 of PC2100 to 1 GIG of PC3200 was in the loading of BF1942 maps.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

[consultant hat]
The amount of time you're spending discussing this issue is worth more than the memory costs. Just do it.
[/consultant hat]

~~ Paul

[Soapy Sam]

[Sceptical time & motion toupee]

This depends on how much he earns per hour.

[/ST&MT]

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

[picky bastige]
But if the extra memory makes his machine even a little faster, he'll save what it costs lickety-split.
[/picky bastige]

~~ Paul

[richardm]

[idle git]
But I really only use the machine in question for playing games and tinkering with stuff. So the speed improvement won't save any money. Although, admittedly, not discussing it at length during work hours probably would.
[/idle git]