More Ram = Slower?

I was running 2GB (Corsair 2 x 1024 Dual Channel PC-3200 DDR Ram) on Windows
Vista Home Premium x64 and Vista rated it at a 5.3. Today I installed an
extra 2GB (same type of ram for all 4 sticks) which brings my computer up 2
(Corsair 4 x 1024 Dual Channel PC-3200 DDR Ram) and Vista rated it at 5.2.
Is there any reason for this performance drop? I thought more ram was
suspost to be better. Is my ram not configured right in the bios?

This is what I have right now.

Timing Mode - [Manual]
Memclock index value (Mhz) - [400Mhz]
Cas# latency (Tcl) - [3]
Min Ras # active time (Tras) - [7T]
Ras# to cas# delay (Trcd) - [3T]
Row precharge time (Trp) - [3T]
Row cycle time (Trp) - [10T]
Row refresh cycle time (Trfc) - [11T]
Read-to-write time (Trwt) - [4T]
Write Recovery Time (Twr) - [3T]
1T/2T memory timing - [2T]
S/W Dram over 4G Remapping - Enabled
H/W Dram over 4G Remapping - Enabled

My System Specs:

Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium x64
LG Flatron Slim 19" LCD Monitor
Asus A8N-SLI Motherboard
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ ~2.2Ghz Processor
NVIDIA GeForce7900 GT PCI-Express 256MB Graphics Card
500 Watt Power Supply
Corsair 4 x 1024 Dual Channel PC-3200 DDR Ram
Pioneer DVD-RW/DVR-111D/CD-ROM-RW
Creative Megaworks THX 250-D 2.1 Speaker System

I want the best performance out of my computer so if you guys can tell me
what to edit/change I would appreciate it.

I want the best performance out of my computer so if you guys can tell me
what to edit/change I would appreciate it

stilup
Sun Feb 11 10:00:01 CST 2007

Hi, 2X 1GB is better as you found out. 3 or 4X slows the memory to a 2T
memory process. it is a flaw with the Asus board. Check it out better at
www.overclockers.com 2GB should be fine.

"NpGreg04" wrote:

> I was running 2GB (Corsair 2 x 1024 Dual Channel PC-3200 DDR Ram) on Windows
> Vista Home Premium x64 and Vista rated it at a 5.3. Today I installed an
> extra 2GB (same type of ram for all 4 sticks) which brings my computer up 2
> (Corsair 4 x 1024 Dual Channel PC-3200 DDR Ram) and Vista rated it at 5.2.
> Is there any reason for this performance drop? I thought more ram was
> suspost to be better. Is my ram not configured right in the bios?
>
> This is what I have right now.
>
> Timing Mode - [Manual]
> Memclock index value (Mhz) - [400Mhz]
> Cas# latency (Tcl) - [3]
> Min Ras # active time (Tras) - [7T]
> Ras# to cas# delay (Trcd) - [3T]
> Row precharge time (Trp) - [3T]
> Row cycle time (Trp) - [10T]
> Row refresh cycle time (Trfc) - [11T]
> Read-to-write time (Trwt) - [4T]
> Write Recovery Time (Twr) - [3T]
> 1T/2T memory timing - [2T]
> S/W Dram over 4G Remapping - Enabled
> H/W Dram over 4G Remapping - Enabled
>
> My System Specs:
>
> Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium x64
> LG Flatron Slim 19" LCD Monitor
> Asus A8N-SLI Motherboard
> AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ ~2.2Ghz Processor
> NVIDIA GeForce7900 GT PCI-Express 256MB Graphics Card
> 500 Watt Power Supply
> Corsair 4 x 1024 Dual Channel PC-3200 DDR Ram
> Pioneer DVD-RW/DVR-111D/CD-ROM-RW
> Creative Megaworks THX 250-D 2.1 Speaker System
>
> I want the best performance out of my computer so if you guys can tell me
> what to edit/change I would appreciate it.
>
> I want the best performance out of my computer so if you guys can tell me
> what to edit/change I would appreciate it

garcin
Sun Feb 11 09:41:06 CST 2007

NpGreg04 wrote:
> I was running 2GB (Corsair 2 x 1024 Dual Channel PC-3200 DDR Ram) on
> Windows Vista Home Premium x64 and Vista rated it at a 5.3. Today I
> installed an extra 2GB (same type of ram for all 4 sticks) which
> brings my computer up 2 (Corsair 4 x 1024 Dual Channel PC-3200 DDR
> Ram) and Vista rated it at 5.2. Is there any reason for this
> performance drop? I thought more ram was suspost to be better. Is
> my ram not configured right in the bios?
>
> This is what I have right now.
>
> Timing Mode - [Manual]
> Memclock index value (Mhz) - [400Mhz]
> Cas# latency (Tcl) - [3]
> Min Ras # active time (Tras) - [7T]
> Ras# to cas# delay (Trcd) - [3T]
> Row precharge time (Trp) - [3T]
> Row cycle time (Trp) - [10T]
> Row refresh cycle time (Trfc) - [11T]
> Read-to-write time (Trwt) - [4T]
> Write Recovery Time (Twr) - [3T]
> 1T/2T memory timing - [2T]
> S/W Dram over 4G Remapping - Enabled
> H/W Dram over 4G Remapping - Enabled
>
> My System Specs:
>
> Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium x64
> LG Flatron Slim 19" LCD Monitor
> Asus A8N-SLI Motherboard
> AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ ~2.2Ghz Processor
> NVIDIA GeForce7900 GT PCI-Express 256MB Graphics Card
> 500 Watt Power Supply
> Corsair 4 x 1024 Dual Channel PC-3200 DDR Ram
> Pioneer DVD-RW/DVR-111D/CD-ROM-RW
> Creative Megaworks THX 250-D 2.1 Speaker System
>
> I want the best performance out of my computer so if you guys can
> tell me what to edit/change I would appreciate it.
>
> I want the best performance out of my computer so if you guys can
> tell me what to edit/change I would appreciate it

With some motherboards the DDR 400 clock is automatically downgraded to 333
when 4 sticks are installed.
--
email: http://viadresse.com/?15121940

Tony
Sun Feb 11 11:13:28 CST 2007

These are good points, (the answers above!). But do realize that the Vista
Rating is not a Benchmarking that you can use for absolute comparison. It
gives a comparison to what other components were tested as they went through
production. This goes a while back, and maybe your 4GB isn't comparing as
well to other 4GB's that were tested at the time, as your 2GB compared to
the 2GB's that was tested at the time!

Tony. . .


"NpGreg04" <NpGreg04@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:EBB528F6-470A-4B73-AC2C-D773667C2F8F@microsoft.com...
> I was running 2GB (Corsair 2 x 1024 Dual Channel PC-3200 DDR Ram) on
Windows
> Vista Home Premium x64 and Vista rated it at a 5.3. Today I installed an
> extra 2GB (same type of ram for all 4 sticks) which brings my computer up
2
> (Corsair 4 x 1024 Dual Channel PC-3200 DDR Ram) and Vista rated it at 5.2.
> Is there any reason for this performance drop? I thought more ram was
> suspost to be better. Is my ram not configured right in the bios?
>
> This is what I have right now.
>
> Timing Mode - [Manual]
> Memclock index value (Mhz) - [400Mhz]
> Cas# latency (Tcl) - [3]
> Min Ras # active time (Tras) - [7T]
> Ras# to cas# delay (Trcd) - [3T]
> Row precharge time (Trp) - [3T]
> Row cycle time (Trp) - [10T]
> Row refresh cycle time (Trfc) - [11T]
> Read-to-write time (Trwt) - [4T]
> Write Recovery Time (Twr) - [3T]
> 1T/2T memory timing - [2T]
> S/W Dram over 4G Remapping - Enabled
> H/W Dram over 4G Remapping - Enabled
>
> My System Specs:
>
> Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium x64
> LG Flatron Slim 19" LCD Monitor
> Asus A8N-SLI Motherboard
> AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ ~2.2Ghz Processor
> NVIDIA GeForce7900 GT PCI-Express 256MB Graphics Card
> 500 Watt Power Supply
> Corsair 4 x 1024 Dual Channel PC-3200 DDR Ram
> Pioneer DVD-RW/DVR-111D/CD-ROM-RW
> Creative Megaworks THX 250-D 2.1 Speaker System
>
> I want the best performance out of my computer so if you guys can tell me
> what to edit/change I would appreciate it.
>
> I want the best performance out of my computer so if you guys can tell me
> what to edit/change I would appreciate it

Maratonmannen
Sun Feb 11 12:37:00 CST 2007

It does not have to be that way.
I have 4x1024 MBytes BallistiX DDR2 PC-8000 and my Windows Experience Index
is almost as high as possible, 5.9 Memory.

http://max.ownit.nu/WEI5.8.png

My board is an Asus, as you see in my signature.

--
Asus P5WDG2 WS Pro (i975X Express)
Core 2 Extreme X6800
RAPTOR 2x150 GB RAID 0
4GB DDR2 800MHz
GeForce 8800GTX (97.92+100.59)
Enermax 1000W 75A@+12V
LAN 100/100
XP x64 dualboot Vista x64


"stilup" wrote:

> Hi, 2X 1GB is better as you found out. 3 or 4X slows the memory to a 2T
> memory process. it is a flaw with the Asus board. >

John
Sun Feb 11 14:27:30 CST 2007

According to the rating it is based on memory operations per second. The
rating may have changed because Microsoft has moved the goal posts, but if
needed, the larger memory is still faster to access than anything on disk
(pagefile), so if used, your system will respond faster even if the memory
operation is the same or even a little slower.


"Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling@dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
news:%23fYYZAgTHHA.4632@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> These are good points, (the answers above!). But do realize that the Vista
> Rating is not a Benchmarking that you can use for absolute comparison. It
> gives a comparison to what other components were tested as they went
> through
> production. This goes a while back, and maybe your 4GB isn't comparing as
> well to other 4GB's that were tested at the time, as your 2GB compared to
> the 2GB's that was tested at the time!
>
> Tony. . .
>
>
> "NpGreg04" <NpGreg04@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:EBB528F6-470A-4B73-AC2C-D773667C2F8F@microsoft.com...
>> I was running 2GB (Corsair 2 x 1024 Dual Channel PC-3200 DDR Ram) on
> Windows
>> Vista Home Premium x64 and Vista rated it at a 5.3. Today I installed an
>> extra 2GB (same type of ram for all 4 sticks) which brings my computer up
> 2
>> (Corsair 4 x 1024 Dual Channel PC-3200 DDR Ram) and Vista rated it at
>> 5.2.
>> Is there any reason for this performance drop? I thought more ram was
>> suspost to be better. Is my ram not configured right in the bios?
>>
>> This is what I have right now.
>>
>> Timing Mode - [Manual]
>> Memclock index value (Mhz) - [400Mhz]
>> Cas# latency (Tcl) - [3]
>> Min Ras # active time (Tras) - [7T]
>> Ras# to cas# delay (Trcd) - [3T]
>> Row precharge time (Trp) - [3T]
>> Row cycle time (Trp) - [10T]
>> Row refresh cycle time (Trfc) - [11T]
>> Read-to-write time (Trwt) - [4T]
>> Write Recovery Time (Twr) - [3T]
>> 1T/2T memory timing - [2T]
>> S/W Dram over 4G Remapping - Enabled
>> H/W Dram over 4G Remapping - Enabled
>>
>> My System Specs:
>>
>> Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium x64
>> LG Flatron Slim 19" LCD Monitor
>> Asus A8N-SLI Motherboard
>> AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ ~2.2Ghz Processor
>> NVIDIA GeForce7900 GT PCI-Express 256MB Graphics Card
>> 500 Watt Power Supply
>> Corsair 4 x 1024 Dual Channel PC-3200 DDR Ram
>> Pioneer DVD-RW/DVR-111D/CD-ROM-RW
>> Creative Megaworks THX 250-D 2.1 Speaker System
>>
>> I want the best performance out of my computer so if you guys can tell me
>> what to edit/change I would appreciate it.
>>
>> I want the best performance out of my computer so if you guys can tell me
>> what to edit/change I would appreciate it
>
>

NpGreg04
Sun Feb 11 20:24:01 CST 2007

What do you mean by "Microsoft has moved the goal posts"?

This is really strange, whenever I refresh my performace test, I am now only
getting 5.0. I tried the test with 2GB and it rated my ram to be a 5.0. I
then put back my other 2GB (4GB all together now) and it's saying it's 5.0.
So now basically it's saying 2GB is the same rating as 4GB. I dunno if this
is a good thing or bad bec. yesterday it was saying 2GB was faster than 4GB
and now it's saying it's the same rating. But shouldn't I have a 5.9 rating
like how Maratonmannen has. I managed to get 5.9 once yesterday (I dunno
what I did) but for some reason I can't get to the 5.9 again.

Should I really concern myself with the Vista Performace rating? Will my
4GB increase my performace (even if it's a slight one) over 2GB?

"John Barnes" wrote:

> According to the rating it is based on memory operations per second. The
> rating may have changed because Microsoft has moved the goal posts, but if
> needed, the larger memory is still faster to access than anything on disk
> (pagefile), so if used, your system will respond faster even if the memory
> operation is the same or even a little slower.
>
>
> "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling@dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
> news:%23fYYZAgTHHA.4632@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> > These are good points, (the answers above!). But do realize that the Vista
> > Rating is not a Benchmarking that you can use for absolute comparison. It
> > gives a comparison to what other components were tested as they went
> > through
> > production. This goes a while back, and maybe your 4GB isn't comparing as
> > well to other 4GB's that were tested at the time, as your 2GB compared to
> > the 2GB's that was tested at the time!
> >
> > Tony. . .
> >
> >
> > "NpGreg04" <NpGreg04@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:EBB528F6-470A-4B73-AC2C-D773667C2F8F@microsoft.com...
> >> I was running 2GB (Corsair 2 x 1024 Dual Channel PC-3200 DDR Ram) on
> > Windows
> >> Vista Home Premium x64 and Vista rated it at a 5.3. Today I installed an
> >> extra 2GB (same type of ram for all 4 sticks) which brings my computer up
> > 2
> >> (Corsair 4 x 1024 Dual Channel PC-3200 DDR Ram) and Vista rated it at
> >> 5.2.
> >> Is there any reason for this performance drop? I thought more ram was
> >> suspost to be better. Is my ram not configured right in the bios?
> >>
> >> This is what I have right now.
> >>
> >> Timing Mode - [Manual]
> >> Memclock index value (Mhz) - [400Mhz]
> >> Cas# latency (Tcl) - [3]
> >> Min Ras # active time (Tras) - [7T]
> >> Ras# to cas# delay (Trcd) - [3T]
> >> Row precharge time (Trp) - [3T]
> >> Row cycle time (Trp) - [10T]
> >> Row refresh cycle time (Trfc) - [11T]
> >> Read-to-write time (Trwt) - [4T]
> >> Write Recovery Time (Twr) - [3T]
> >> 1T/2T memory timing - [2T]
> >> S/W Dram over 4G Remapping - Enabled
> >> H/W Dram over 4G Remapping - Enabled
> >>
> >> My System Specs:
> >>
> >> Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium x64
> >> LG Flatron Slim 19" LCD Monitor
> >> Asus A8N-SLI Motherboard
> >> AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ ~2.2Ghz Processor
> >> NVIDIA GeForce7900 GT PCI-Express 256MB Graphics Card
> >> 500 Watt Power Supply
> >> Corsair 4 x 1024 Dual Channel PC-3200 DDR Ram
> >> Pioneer DVD-RW/DVR-111D/CD-ROM-RW
> >> Creative Megaworks THX 250-D 2.1 Speaker System
> >>
> >> I want the best performance out of my computer so if you guys can tell me
> >> what to edit/change I would appreciate it.
> >>
> >> I want the best performance out of my computer so if you guys can tell me
> >> what to edit/change I would appreciate it
> >
> >
>
>

Dshai
Sun Feb 11 20:44:47 CST 2007

If it runs and does what you want it to do then what difference does a
number in a non-essential program really make?

--

Dshai

Life is only limited by those living it...

"NpGreg04" <NpGreg04@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D79E7EA4-EEB5-478A-8923-0D0B6ECCF904@microsoft.com...
> What do you mean by "Microsoft has moved the goal posts"?
>
> This is really strange, whenever I refresh my performace test, I am now
> only
> getting 5.0. I tried the test with 2GB and it rated my ram to be a 5.0.
> I
> then put back my other 2GB (4GB all together now) and it's saying it's
> 5.0.
> So now basically it's saying 2GB is the same rating as 4GB. I dunno if
> this
> is a good thing or bad bec. yesterday it was saying 2GB was faster than
> 4GB
> and now it's saying it's the same rating. But shouldn't I have a 5.9
> rating
> like how Maratonmannen has. I managed to get 5.9 once yesterday (I dunno
> what I did) but for some reason I can't get to the 5.9 again.
>
> Should I really concern myself with the Vista Performace rating? Will my
> 4GB increase my performace (even if it's a slight one) over 2GB?
>
> "John Barnes" wrote:
>
>> According to the rating it is based on memory operations per second. The
>> rating may have changed because Microsoft has moved the goal posts, but
>> if
>> needed, the larger memory is still faster to access than anything on disk
>> (pagefile), so if used, your system will respond faster even if the
>> memory
>> operation is the same or even a little slower.
>>
>>
>> "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling@dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
>> news:%23fYYZAgTHHA.4632@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> > These are good points, (the answers above!). But do realize that the
>> > Vista
>> > Rating is not a Benchmarking that you can use for absolute comparison.
>> > It
>> > gives a comparison to what other components were tested as they went
>> > through
>> > production. This goes a while back, and maybe your 4GB isn't comparing
>> > as
>> > well to other 4GB's that were tested at the time, as your 2GB compared
>> > to
>> > the 2GB's that was tested at the time!
>> >
>> > Tony. . .
>> >
>> >
>> > "NpGreg04" <NpGreg04@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> > news:EBB528F6-470A-4B73-AC2C-D773667C2F8F@microsoft.com...
>> >> I was running 2GB (Corsair 2 x 1024 Dual Channel PC-3200 DDR Ram) on
>> > Windows
>> >> Vista Home Premium x64 and Vista rated it at a 5.3. Today I installed
>> >> an
>> >> extra 2GB (same type of ram for all 4 sticks) which brings my computer
>> >> up
>> > 2
>> >> (Corsair 4 x 1024 Dual Channel PC-3200 DDR Ram) and Vista rated it at
>> >> 5.2.
>> >> Is there any reason for this performance drop? I thought more ram was
>> >> suspost to be better. Is my ram not configured right in the bios?
>> >>
>> >> This is what I have right now.
>> >>
>> >> Timing Mode - [Manual]
>> >> Memclock index value (Mhz) - [400Mhz]
>> >> Cas# latency (Tcl) - [3]
>> >> Min Ras # active time (Tras) - [7T]
>> >> Ras# to cas# delay (Trcd) - [3T]
>> >> Row precharge time (Trp) - [3T]
>> >> Row cycle time (Trp) - [10T]
>> >> Row refresh cycle time (Trfc) - [11T]
>> >> Read-to-write time (Trwt) - [4T]
>> >> Write Recovery Time (Twr) - [3T]
>> >> 1T/2T memory timing - [2T]
>> >> S/W Dram over 4G Remapping - Enabled
>> >> H/W Dram over 4G Remapping - Enabled
>> >>
>> >> My System Specs:
>> >>
>> >> Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium x64
>> >> LG Flatron Slim 19" LCD Monitor
>> >> Asus A8N-SLI Motherboard
>> >> AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ ~2.2Ghz Processor
>> >> NVIDIA GeForce7900 GT PCI-Express 256MB Graphics Card
>> >> 500 Watt Power Supply
>> >> Corsair 4 x 1024 Dual Channel PC-3200 DDR Ram
>> >> Pioneer DVD-RW/DVR-111D/CD-ROM-RW
>> >> Creative Megaworks THX 250-D 2.1 Speaker System
>> >>
>> >> I want the best performance out of my computer so if you guys can tell
>> >> me
>> >> what to edit/change I would appreciate it.
>> >>
>> >> I want the best performance out of my computer so if you guys can tell
>> >> me
>> >> what to edit/change I would appreciate it
>> >
>> >
>>
>>

Tony
Sun Feb 11 21:01:14 CST 2007

What John is saying (and I agree) is - if you need 4GB, and don't have it,
then your processor will operate from the pagefile much of the time. If then
you add memory to 4GB, then you will see better performance - but, like I
said above, you may not see it in the 'rating' because it is not an absolute
comparison.

More RAM isn't going to be faster on it's own, it's just more of the same
thing. It is only when you start using it that you see how over-stressed
your system was with only 2GB available. So, if you don't see any
performance increse, you have elbow-room in there to stress it further
without seing any performance decrese!

The greatest use of benchmarks, that I can see is to confirm that your gear
is great - or more often that it stinks! There isn't anything available to
benchmark your personal satisfaction. If you get 5.3 from PC 3200 DDR
memory - then that is overwhelmingly great, I think. I get 5.7 from DDR2 800
CL4.0 memory and that was pretty expensive!

The Vista Performance rating is still not a true Benchmark, just an index
into the performance of the available hardware at the time when they
initially tested the system.

Tony. . .



"NpGreg04" <NpGreg04@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D79E7EA4-EEB5-478A-8923-0D0B6ECCF904@microsoft.com...
> What do you mean by "Microsoft has moved the goal posts"?
>
> This is really strange, whenever I refresh my performace test, I am now
only
> getting 5.0. I tried the test with 2GB and it rated my ram to be a 5.0.
I
> then put back my other 2GB (4GB all together now) and it's saying it's
5.0.
> So now basically it's saying 2GB is the same rating as 4GB. I dunno if
this
> is a good thing or bad bec. yesterday it was saying 2GB was faster than
4GB
> and now it's saying it's the same rating. But shouldn't I have a 5.9
rating
> like how Maratonmannen has. I managed to get 5.9 once yesterday (I dunno
> what I did) but for some reason I can't get to the 5.9 again.
>
> Should I really concern myself with the Vista Performace rating? Will my
> 4GB increase my performace (even if it's a slight one) over 2GB?
>
> "John Barnes" wrote:
>
> > According to the rating it is based on memory operations per second.
The
> > rating may have changed because Microsoft has moved the goal posts, but
if
> > needed, the larger memory is still faster to access than anything on
disk
> > (pagefile), so if used, your system will respond faster even if the
memory
> > operation is the same or even a little slower.
> >
> >
> > "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling@dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
> > news:%23fYYZAgTHHA.4632@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> > > These are good points, (the answers above!). But do realize that the
Vista
> > > Rating is not a Benchmarking that you can use for absolute comparison.
It
> > > gives a comparison to what other components were tested as they went
> > > through
> > > production. This goes a while back, and maybe your 4GB isn't comparing
as
> > > well to other 4GB's that were tested at the time, as your 2GB compared
to
> > > the 2GB's that was tested at the time!
> > >
> > > Tony. . .
> > >
> > >
> > > "NpGreg04" <NpGreg04@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > > news:EBB528F6-470A-4B73-AC2C-D773667C2F8F@microsoft.com...
> > >> I was running 2GB (Corsair 2 x 1024 Dual Channel PC-3200 DDR Ram) on
> > > Windows
> > >> Vista Home Premium x64 and Vista rated it at a 5.3. Today I
installed an
> > >> extra 2GB (same type of ram for all 4 sticks) which brings my
computer up
> > > 2
> > >> (Corsair 4 x 1024 Dual Channel PC-3200 DDR Ram) and Vista rated it at
> > >> 5.2.
> > >> Is there any reason for this performance drop? I thought more ram
was
> > >> suspost to be better. Is my ram not configured right in the bios?
> > >>
> > >> This is what I have right now.
> > >>
> > >> Timing Mode - [Manual]
> > >> Memclock index value (Mhz) - [400Mhz]
> > >> Cas# latency (Tcl) - [3]
> > >> Min Ras # active time (Tras) - [7T]
> > >> Ras# to cas# delay (Trcd) - [3T]
> > >> Row precharge time (Trp) - [3T]
> > >> Row cycle time (Trp) - [10T]
> > >> Row refresh cycle time (Trfc) - [11T]
> > >> Read-to-write time (Trwt) - [4T]
> > >> Write Recovery Time (Twr) - [3T]
> > >> 1T/2T memory timing - [2T]
> > >> S/W Dram over 4G Remapping - Enabled
> > >> H/W Dram over 4G Remapping - Enabled
> > >>
> > >> My System Specs:
> > >>
> > >> Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium x64
> > >> LG Flatron Slim 19" LCD Monitor
> > >> Asus A8N-SLI Motherboard
> > >> AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ ~2.2Ghz Processor
> > >> NVIDIA GeForce7900 GT PCI-Express 256MB Graphics Card
> > >> 500 Watt Power Supply
> > >> Corsair 4 x 1024 Dual Channel PC-3200 DDR Ram
> > >> Pioneer DVD-RW/DVR-111D/CD-ROM-RW
> > >> Creative Megaworks THX 250-D 2.1 Speaker System
> > >>
> > >> I want the best performance out of my computer so if you guys can
tell me
> > >> what to edit/change I would appreciate it.
> > >>
> > >> I want the best performance out of my computer so if you guys can
tell me
> > >> what to edit/change I would appreciate it
> > >
> > >
> >
> >

NpGreg04
Mon Feb 12 11:51:01 CST 2007

I have posted my issue I was having on many forums and I got many replies. I
have concluded the following:

(1) With an Asus A8N-SLI Motherboard, with 4GB, it will auto set the MHz to
333. To set it to 400 MHz, I had to go into the bios and change the settings
from Auto to Manual. So it is possible to run 4GB at 400 MHz. Setting it to
400Mhz improved performance.

(2) Windows Vista Performance Rating is not a true benchmark.

(3) Microsoft just updated the Vista Performance Rating a few days ago. I
am getting 5.0 with my 4GB of ram now. I tried 2GB and I got 5.0 as well. I
am assuming that since 2GB and 4GB run at Duel Channel mode, they are running
at the same speed and 4GB is not faster than 2GB. I tried 1GB and 3GB and
got a lower rating due to they were running at single channel mode.

(4) 4GB is better than 2GB when using Windows x64 even though the Vista
Performance rating is saying they are the same. Windows XP/Vista x32 can
only utilize around 2.5GB max (from what I heard). Windows XP/Vista x64 can
use 4GB efficiently. So when I am multi-tasking, 4GB will def. come in handy
with Windows Vista x64.

Other things I have observed:

-Creative Sound Cards crackle/pop when using more than 3GB. So I had to get
rid of my Creative X-fi and use onboard sound. No biggies, since I have
really good speakers, I hardly notice any difference between Onboard and
Creative X-fi.

-Although 4GB does not speed up anything, I am sure it will come in handy
when I alt + tab out of a video game and when I am doing some heavy
multi-tasking. Since more games are more demanding now a days, they require
more ram and that is where I will benefit the most with using 4GB over 2GB.
Not sure if Iâ??ll get any higher frame rates, lol.

I want to thank everyone who replied with there input. You guys and girls
helped me out a lot.

-NpGreg04

PS: If I am missing anything else or if any of you had any questions,
please feel free to ask.


"Tony Sperling" wrote:

> What John is saying (and I agree) is - if you need 4GB, and don't have it,
> then your processor will operate from the pagefile much of the time. If then
> you add memory to 4GB, then you will see better performance - but, like I
> said above, you may not see it in the 'rating' because it is not an absolute
> comparison.
>
> More RAM isn't going to be faster on it's own, it's just more of the same
> thing. It is only when you start using it that you see how over-stressed
> your system was with only 2GB available. So, if you don't see any
> performance increse, you have elbow-room in there to stress it further
> without seing any performance decrese!
>
> The greatest use of benchmarks, that I can see is to confirm that your gear
> is great - or more often that it stinks! There isn't anything available to
> benchmark your personal satisfaction. If you get 5.3 from PC 3200 DDR
> memory - then that is overwhelmingly great, I think. I get 5.7 from DDR2 800
> CL4.0 memory and that was pretty expensive!
>
> The Vista Performance rating is still not a true Benchmark, just an index
> into the performance of the available hardware at the time when they
> initially tested the system.
>
> Tony. . .
>
>
>
> "NpGreg04" <NpGreg04@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:D79E7EA4-EEB5-478A-8923-0D0B6ECCF904@microsoft.com...
> > What do you mean by "Microsoft has moved the goal posts"?
> >
> > This is really strange, whenever I refresh my performace test, I am now
> only
> > getting 5.0. I tried the test with 2GB and it rated my ram to be a 5.0.
> I
> > then put back my other 2GB (4GB all together now) and it's saying it's
> 5.0.
> > So now basically it's saying 2GB is the same rating as 4GB. I dunno if
> this
> > is a good thing or bad bec. yesterday it was saying 2GB was faster than
> 4GB
> > and now it's saying it's the same rating. But shouldn't I have a 5.9
> rating
> > like how Maratonmannen has. I managed to get 5.9 once yesterday (I dunno
> > what I did) but for some reason I can't get to the 5.9 again.
> >
> > Should I really concern myself with the Vista Performace rating? Will my
> > 4GB increase my performace (even if it's a slight one) over 2GB?
> >
> > "John Barnes" wrote:
> >
> > > According to the rating it is based on memory operations per second.
> The
> > > rating may have changed because Microsoft has moved the goal posts, but
> if
> > > needed, the larger memory is still faster to access than anything on
> disk
> > > (pagefile), so if used, your system will respond faster even if the
> memory
> > > operation is the same or even a little slower.
> > >
> > >
> > > "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling@dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
> > > news:%23fYYZAgTHHA.4632@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> > > > These are good points, (the answers above!). But do realize that the
> Vista
> > > > Rating is not a Benchmarking that you can use for absolute comparison.
> It
> > > > gives a comparison to what other components were tested as they went
> > > > through
> > > > production. This goes a while back, and maybe your 4GB isn't comparing
> as
> > > > well to other 4GB's that were tested at the time, as your 2GB compared
> to
> > > > the 2GB's that was tested at the time!
> > > >
> > > > Tony. . .
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "NpGreg04" <NpGreg04@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:EBB528F6-470A-4B73-AC2C-D773667C2F8F@microsoft.com...
> > > >> I was running 2GB (Corsair 2 x 1024 Dual Channel PC-3200 DDR Ram) on
> > > > Windows
> > > >> Vista Home Premium x64 and Vista rated it at a 5.3. Today I
> installed an
> > > >> extra 2GB (same type of ram for all 4 sticks) which brings my
> computer up
> > > > 2
> > > >> (Corsair 4 x 1024 Dual Channel PC-3200 DDR Ram) and Vista rated it at
> > > >> 5.2.
> > > >> Is there any reason for this performance drop? I thought more ram
> was
> > > >> suspost to be better. Is my ram not configured right in the bios?
> > > >>
> > > >> This is what I have right now.
> > > >>
> > > >> Timing Mode - [Manual]
> > > >> Memclock index value (Mhz) - [400Mhz]
> > > >> Cas# latency (Tcl) - [3]
> > > >> Min Ras # active time (Tras) - [7T]
> > > >> Ras# to cas# delay (Trcd) - [3T]
> > > >> Row precharge time (Trp) - [3T]
> > > >> Row cycle time (Trp) - [10T]
> > > >> Row refresh cycle time (Trfc) - [11T]
> > > >> Read-to-write time (Trwt) - [4T]
> > > >> Write Recovery Time (Twr) - [3T]
> > > >> 1T/2T memory timing - [2T]
> > > >> S/W Dram over 4G Remapping - Enabled
> > > >> H/W Dram over 4G Remapping - Enabled
> > > >>
> > > >> My System Specs:
> > > >>
> > > >> Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium x64
> > > >> LG Flatron Slim 19" LCD Monitor
> > > >> Asus A8N-SLI Motherboard
> > > >> AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ ~2.2Ghz Processor
> > > >> NVIDIA GeForce7900 GT PCI-Express 256MB Graphics Card
> > > >> 500 Watt Power Supply
> > > >> Corsair 4 x 1024 Dual Channel PC-3200 DDR Ram
> > > >> Pioneer DVD-RW/DVR-111D/CD-ROM-RW
> > > >> Creative Megaworks THX 250-D 2.1 Speaker System
> > > >>
> > > >> I want the best performance out of my computer so if you guys can
> tell me
> > > >> what to edit/change I would appreciate it.
> > > >>
> > > >> I want the best performance out of my computer so if you guys can
> tell me
> > > >> what to edit/change I would appreciate it
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>

John
Mon Feb 12 12:47:45 CST 2007



> (2) Windows Vista Performance Rating is not a true benchmark.

It is a true benchmark, just not what you want. Changing what an arbitrary
number represents makes sense as the system components increase their
abilities.

>
> (3) Microsoft just updated the Vista Performance Rating a few days ago.
> I
> am getting 5.0 with my 4GB of ram now. I tried 2GB and I got 5.0 as well.
> I
> am assuming that since 2GB and 4GB run at Duel Channel mode, they are
> running
> at the same speed and 4GB is not faster than 2GB. I tried 1GB and 3GB and
> got a lower rating due to they were running at single channel mode.

The bandwidth, frequency and latency are what will affect what the rating is
based on

> (4) 4GB is better than 2GB when using Windows x64 even though the Vista
> Performance rating is saying they are the same. Windows XP/Vista x32 can
> only utilize around 2.5GB max (from what I heard). Windows XP/Vista x64
> can
> use 4GB efficiently. So when I am multi-tasking, 4GB will def. come in
> handy
> with Windows Vista x64.

32-bit can use the 4gig. Some for the system and some for programs.
>
>> -Creative Sound Cards crackle/pop when using more than 3GB. So I had to
>> get
> rid of my Creative X-fi and use onboard sound. No biggies, since I have
> really good speakers, I hardly notice any difference between Onboard and
> Creative X-fi.

Interesting. Glad you have a satisfactory solution.
>
> -Although 4GB does not speed up anything, I am sure it will come in handy
> when I alt + tab out of a video game and when I am doing some heavy
> multi-tasking. Since more games are more demanding now a days, they
> require
> more ram and that is where I will benefit the most with using 4GB over
> 2GB.
> Not sure if Iâ??ll get any higher frame rates, lol.
>
While it doesn't increase the flow thru your memory bus, it does speed
things up that would otherwise have to access hard disk/pagefile for
instructions or data which is much, much slower.

Tony
Mon Feb 12 14:32:22 CST 2007

Pardon me, but I think you are 'off' on that one, John. Benchmarks result in
absolute figures. You measure what something is capable of. These figures
you don't go about adjusting as technology moves on.

Granted, the Performance Index is based on benchmarks - an Index into the
absolute performance of the device as measured by the benchmark - the Index
you can later adjust to fit in devices that wasn't available for testing
earlier. An Index is therefore, itself, not a true benchmark.

I won't continue stressing the point, it would be splitting hairs and is
meaningless - after all, you may be right, it's just a matter of definition.
I just think it sad if the meaninglessness carries over into people's minds
about what the performance index is supposed to point at, namely, a figure
describing the ability of the hardware to take advantage of AeroGlass and
nothing more, I believe. It was never intended to be used as a benchmark.
And I'll be very surprised if they'll continue to adjust the Rating for very
much longer, it is rapidly outliving it's life expectancy as it is.


Tony. . .





"John Barnes" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message
news:%23yKjkZtTHHA.5100@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
>
> > (2) Windows Vista Performance Rating is not a true benchmark.
>
> It is a true benchmark, just not what you want. Changing what an
arbitrary
> number represents makes sense as the system components increase their
> abilities.
>
> >
> > (3) Microsoft just updated the Vista Performance Rating a few days ago.
> > I
> > am getting 5.0 with my 4GB of ram now. I tried 2GB and I got 5.0 as
well.
> > I
> > am assuming that since 2GB and 4GB run at Duel Channel mode, they are
> > running
> > at the same speed and 4GB is not faster than 2GB. I tried 1GB and 3GB
and
> > got a lower rating due to they were running at single channel mode.
>
> The bandwidth, frequency and latency are what will affect what the rating
is
> based on
>
> > (4) 4GB is better than 2GB when using Windows x64 even though the Vista
> > Performance rating is saying they are the same. Windows XP/Vista x32
can
> > only utilize around 2.5GB max (from what I heard). Windows XP/Vista x64
> > can
> > use 4GB efficiently. So when I am multi-tasking, 4GB will def. come in
> > handy
> > with Windows Vista x64.
>
> 32-bit can use the 4gig. Some for the system and some for programs.
> >
> >> -Creative Sound Cards crackle/pop when using more than 3GB. So I had
to
> >> get
> > rid of my Creative X-fi and use onboard sound. No biggies, since I have
> > really good speakers, I hardly notice any difference between Onboard and
> > Creative X-fi.
>
> Interesting. Glad you have a satisfactory solution.
> >
> > -Although 4GB does not speed up anything, I am sure it will come in
handy
> > when I alt + tab out of a video game and when I am doing some heavy
> > multi-tasking. Since more games are more demanding now a days, they
> > require
> > more ram and that is where I will benefit the most with using 4GB over
> > 2GB.
> > Not sure if I'll get any higher frame rates, lol.
> >
> While it doesn't increase the flow thru your memory bus, it does speed
> things up that would otherwise have to access hard disk/pagefile for
> instructions or data which is much, much slower.
>
>