I had 320 MB of Ram (specs below)...I got an upgrade of 256MB more so now i have a total of 512 (had to take out the 64MB stick). My performance seems WORSE??? What the hell?
Printable View
I had 320 MB of Ram (specs below)...I got an upgrade of 256MB more so now i have a total of 512 (had to take out the 64MB stick). My performance seems WORSE??? What the hell?
Right click on my computer, then properies and see how much ram it sais you have installed.
A freind had 128mb ram and he wanted some more so i put an extra 128mb. When i booted it up, it was saying that it only had 64mb. Maybe the ram isnt compatible.
IF you can, try get he exact same ram type and speed as the one that was allready in their.
My friend does your computer support it some dells only go up to 512 but they have to match you know 64 & 64 or 128 & 128 I'd try that borrow from a friend and try it Dont give it back if it works. LOL
or it's possible that you got a bad stick or ram... run a test on it to make sure it's good, if it's not send it back and get one that works.
i know that when i had my old system and had cheaper pc2700 ram in it, i had to rma 3 out of 5 sticks (geil). mem test it and make sure you got yourself a good one.
rk
Hey Bigdawg , buddy you seem to me like you know your way a round a keyboard why thro good money after bad . Bye a new computer, you sound like me , trying to squeese every ounce out of what you can . You can get a pt 4 for 500 canadiain just keep your monitor etc youd be laffing . But you cant take your pc 100 with you . loll
How did you come to the conclusion that the performance is worse?
Did you run benchmarks with the two different setups? If not then I suggest you do that.
No, I havn't run any benchmarks, but the performance just seems worse. It says I have installed 512MB. The new RAM is Kingston. I have a 256MB and a 256MB stick. The performance seems worse, because the video playback is just kinda jumpy, stuff takes longer to load. I just think I will take the ram back...and maybe get a new comp. I will need a CPU, Mobo, and RAM. On the CPU we all know what to get (AMD Athlon 2500XP :D ), for the mobo im not sure....help me plz? I want to overclock the 2500 for sure! So I need a mobo with good overclocking. I know Asus is the best but I'm not sure if I want to spend that much. I also need RAM. 512MB of daul channel (2X 256) seems like enough to me. I dont do any gaming at all really, so my GeForce 4 MMX 440 PCI will be good enough for now. And really I would like to spend about...oh 200 dollars or 250. Recommend me some Ram and Mobo please...VB let your wisdom flow.
If you did some searching online you could probably get a Barton core 2500+ and an Asus A7N8X board for around $250.
You would be a very happy camper.
That would be a 160 dollar mobo....I reallly dont want to spend that much. Cuz i would also need RAM. Thanx though..is that Asus the best asus board made?
And who's going to clean up afterwords?Quote:
Originally posted by bigdawgfoxx@14 November 2003 - 06:41
Recommend me some Ram and Mobo please...VB let your wisdom flow.
Certainly not me.
oh and im guessing nForce 2 is the only way to go?
Or try this board from Xfx. Many features are the same as the Asus board, but generally a good bit cheaper. In UK, £52.46 compared to £89.19 for the Asus board, but doesn't have SATA or Firewire.
What is the difference between the Asus A7N8X Deluxe and the Asus A7N8X? Is it just more onboard stuff, such as RAID? Also is one more overclockable then the other, or are they both an overclockers dream? :D
500th Post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You are asking for a good combination of chip and board which you claim that you want to OC.
And you want good memory to go with it.
And you want to do it cheap.
I'd like a Ferrari Enzo for no money down and easy monthly payments.
We both have about the same chance.
Ok I want a 2500XP 90 bux. Now I need a mobo...doesnt have to be asus...just something i can overclock. And ram....i would say 300 is my max for those 3 components. just find something cheap and good that u know is good..not U but neone
Is "neone" online right now?
Whatever board you decide on, be sure to check out some BIOS pictures before you buy.
As Kunal just discovered, many boards have limited access to the settings you need to OC.
As you plan on getting an emminently clockable chip, it hardly makes sense to hobble it right out of the box.
As you say, the nForce2 chipset seems the way to go.
The Deluxe board is only worth the money if you want all those extra features. If you've no use for them then don't buy them.
I've tried the Xfx board, I've seen but not tried the standard Asus offering. They've both got almost identical features right down to the look of the bios, so I doubt there will be much to choose between them. One consideration could be the cooling on the nForce2 chipset itself - I believe this can have quite an effect on stability when overclocking.
I offered you a low budget choice for a mobo and you told me you weren't interested. The one I suggested was not for the Barton but was very cheap (I think it was $43 US). I supports the Athlon XP 2400+ and both DDR and SDRAM.
In any case if you want the Barton and want to overclock then go with what clocker suggested.
If you guys haven't figured it out yet, I don't like to let "wisdom flow" when people want to overclock. I know most people think that overclocking is a great thing but is the gain really that worth it? I will explain further...
You overclock and push your system to the point it runs at 50 to 60 C and everything works fine. A month later something crashes in Windows. Now is it a software bug or instabillity form overclocking? It's not so obvious now is it. Now I know a lot of you will say: "Well why not put a huge heatsink and fan or watercooling? Then the temps would be lowered". Well to that I say: "Why spend all that money? Just buy a higher speed rated CPU".
When not overclocking you get almost the same performance, it runs cool, if something crashes you know it's software related and your PC is quiet etc etc.
Is it worth putting your system stabillity in question just to gain a difference that can only be seen from benchmarking?
I can appreciate your perspective, VB, but I'm not sure that I totally agree.
A quick price check ( at Sharkey's website) just showed my 2600+ chip at $87 and a 3200+ at $439.
OCed ( and stable, with relatively low temps- you've seen the specs in my other thread) my chip will bench higher than the 3200.
For the extra $350 you can buy a LOT of cooling.
Admittedly, I am interested in this process mainly to see if I can, real world advantages are imperceptable. The fact is, I enjoy the tinkering and am (semi) aware of the risks and (fully) prepared to accept them.
It's certainly been a learning experience.
Oh. I can appreciate the fact that you want to learn and tinker. And I have nothing against people experimenting but seems it has become standard that any noob comes along and wants to overclock. He doesn't want to learn all the intricasies (sp) about his PC. He just want more without a clue to the risks.
And about that 2600+ and 3200+ comparison. I just have to point out that you don't end up with the same thing. Maybe both are running at the same speed and settings but is it really intended to do that and are they equally stable?
VB you make a very good point. I have never overclocked before, but I plan on taking advice from people on here(clocker seems pretty damn smart about it), and I know the basics. I dont plan on overclocking immediatley either. I also dont plan on overclocking to where it is VERY unstable. I just want to overclock SOME not a TON. Mainly so I can say I overclock I guess lol. And about the 43 dollar mobo, I dont think I want a 43 dollar mobo. The Asus non Deluxe seems nice....anymore suggestions as to RAM? or anything?
Edit: Oh and Vb, you say that the difference is only different in benchmarks? Is that true? John Lennon has overclocked his from 1.8 to 2.2, I think you would tell a difference when your running programs and games for sure.
That I can't say (yet) as I don't have a 3200 to play with.Quote:
Originally posted by Virtualbody1234@14 November 2003 - 08:38
And about that 2600+ and 3200+ comparison. I just have to point out that you don't end up with the same thing. Maybe both are running at the same speed and settings but is it really intended to do that and are they equally stable?
I do know that AIDA 32 shows my set up over a 3200 w/ PC 3200 Ram.
I think that we can both agree that this falls into the catagory of hypothetical/theoretical advantages.
My pages don't seem to load any faster in IE6, my DL speed is still crappy and I can't see that I have noticed ANY percievable difference.
In fact, I am about to go back to stock specs just to see if there is a advantage temp-wise.
As far as stability goes, I have successfully run the burnin test and even the PI calc numerous times with no reported errors. No random reboots or system crashes.
Of course this is only applicable to the relatively short time that I have been running this configuration.
Long term, I have no doubt that your approach is the most sensible.
So your chip is faster then the 3200....and you see no difference?? So your 2400 seems the same to you as a 3200? I have never used an AMD past 2200. Its my friends emachine....512MB of ram...and it goes so freaking slow. I have reformated it and defragged it but i still sux. Newayz back to the 3200 2400 comparison?
So, when some program crashes a month later will you be sure it's not caused by "SOME" overclocking?
I have done my share of overclocking and I know how it feels to try to diagnose troubles when overclocking could be the cause. I found myself undoing the overclocking to bring it back to normal to try to eliminate that doubt. I prefer to not have doubts as PCs have enough troubles as it is. Remember we are dealing with Microsoft in this equation here. :lol:
Also, as clocker has pointed out, there are plenty of other bottlenecks to slow you down. Overclocking won't make your internet stalls and slowdowns go away. I might just make you think... "hmmm, is this stalling caused by my overclocking?" More doubts.
BD,
I have a 2600+, not a 2400+.
The easiest way to determine your success ( or lack thereof) is to run a benchmark test.
The problem there is that you are testing in a pure environment without real world variables/impediments.
I am not a gamer, so any/all improvements have so far been completely undetectable to me.
Your results may vary.
As I stated before, this is more of an intellectual excercise for me. I am a confirmed tinkerer and I found the PC to be as irrisistable as my cars/bikes. I have also found the process to be very similar- make a change ...test...make another change...test...confirm results...ponder next step.
I have done quite a lot of websearching/reading about the subject over the past month, and VB is correct, most of the posts in these forums are along the lines of " What are the best settings for my "x" chip/"x" motherboard?"
A much more useful ( and safe) question would be " What procedure can I use to best optimise my system?"
What John Doe on some forum may run ( or actually claim to run) is completely irrelevant. Discovering how to generate your own results is far better than blindly swallowing some stranger's advice.
And that would apply to mine as well....
Thanx Clocker! So you dont see any difference in the 2600 and the "3200"...hmmm thats weird. Well If you dont see ANY difference then i dont see why I should overclock, unless someone begs to differ? Has anyone seen performance increases due to overclocking?
Probably someone who is into gaming would see a difference.
Although gaming is heavily dependent on video card specs....
So if i took a 2500 and made it 2.2Ghz...i prob wouldnt see much difference?
Try it for yourself and see what you think.
That has been the whole point of my last couple of posts.
You will certainly see benchmarking scores rise. Perhaps that warm and fuzzy feeling is all you require right now.
Perhaps you will notice a big difference.
Then you can assess the risk/benefit ratio and decide for yourself.
It's your equipment, why take just my word on it?
Or anyone's, for that matter.
lol ok, thanx for all yalls help. Now back to the original topic, RAM and Mobo...that can overclock good. I plan on using my 80GB Seagate, so I dont need RAID. SATA might be nice. I wont get ram any faster then 3200, or do I need that to overclock? thanx
Nice, but not necessary.Quote:
Originally posted by bigdawgfoxx@14 November 2003 - 11:13
I wont get ram any faster then 3200, or do I need that to overclock? thanx
My PC 2700 is doing just fine ( although I probably would have gotten PC3200 had I known better...).
I still can't help but say that you seem concerned whether you will notice a difference between a normal 2500+ and an overclocked 2500+. Considering that you say that you hardly play games, I think even a 2400+ (not overclocked) will be such a huge difference over your current 'Intel Celeron at 566Mhz'.
Lol hell yeah...anything would be better. A 2400 old core and a 2500 new core are about the same price..why get the old core?? Thats why I want the 2500. Isnt it better? Also..mobo and ram?
Yes, it's better. It's just you were saying that the Asus mobo was too expensive.Quote:
Originally posted by bigdawgfoxx@14 November 2003 - 14:56
Lol hell yeah...anything would be better. A 2400 old core and a 2500 new core are about the same price..why get the old core?? Thats why I want the 2500. Isnt it better? Also..mobo and ram?
What do you mean by: "Also..mobo and ram?"
dued you have the ram!
all you ned is this or better
one possiblilty...
Biostar has some good cheaper mobos, they are rock solid to oc with, and for cheap money can handle quite a bit of what you will need...
ummm i dont have the ram...my ram is PC100. I would have to buy new RAM. And a good mobo selection...90 bux for CPU...mobo and ram for around 300...suggestiong are what im looking for...thanx
His ram is SDRAM. It won't work with the board you posted so he needs to buy DDR ram also.Quote:
Originally posted by SciManAl@14 November 2003 - 15:14
dued you have the ram!
Unless... He looks at the board I recommended. It supports SDRAM and DDR. He could use his ram and he also upgrade to DDR later if he wanted to.
The other altrernative is to buy all 3: Board, CPU and RAM. I suppose to get a board with support for the Barton would be ideal but more expensive.
The Asus A7V8X-X with a Via chipset could be a cheaper alternative.
http://www.eboodle.com/,mss__cat_id--419,p...48,rf--wgg.html
oopd dry bout that :rolleyes: didn't read enough, you could get a mobo that accpets pc100, or you could go with a stick of ddr, at compgeeks.com is pretty cheap,k and garrenteedtoo!
VB,
Wow. That seems like an AWESOME deal. Usually I see crappy looking low end boards for 60 bux...thats an ASUS for 60 dollars! I THINK YOU FOUND MY BOARD! lol...and it says it supports up to 333Mhz bus! 2500XP!!!!! :D
However,
It has a VIA chipset. I know that the chipset plays a very important role in computing, and I believe via has crappy CPUs. Is there chipset ok or what? I mean the nForce 2 I hear is INCREADIBLE...better then intels even, but is the VIA ok?
Ok. I think you need to do some research for yourself, bigdawgfoxx. You seem to want us to do all the efforts for you here. There are plenty of resources on the internet.