|
Next: Direct X conflict?
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: Jul 15, 2007
Posts: 5
|
(Msg. 1) Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 8:51 am
Post subject: Geek question -RAM speed/ benchmarks
Archived from groups: microsoft>public>windowsxp>general (more info?)
|
|
|
Hi- I just installed new Kingston 2*1GB RAM on my Dell Inspiron 1505 (Intel
Calistoga i945PM). The earlier memory was 533MHz, while the new modules are
667 MHz (They are http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=204884016).
The problem is that these modules are running at 533Mhz. I verified that
the 945PM does indeed support 667
(http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/945pm/index.htm). However, these
modules are running at 533 for sure. Everest says the memory speed is
really 667, however the Memory bus 'Effective clock' is 533Mhz, with the
real clock being 267 (It doubles with dual channel).
Before I upgraded my RAM, I had taken benchmarks (Everest cache and memory
benchmarks). The new benchmarks are almost completely identical to the old
ones. This seems to be something to do with the motherboard (a BIOS
setting?). My BIOS is the newest version- A17.
Any ideas? Please! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: May 22, 2005
Posts: 428
|
(Msg. 2) Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 11:25 am
Post subject: Re: Geek question -RAM speed/ benchmarks [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
PowerUser wrote:
> Hi- I just installed new Kingston 2*1GB RAM on my Dell Inspiron
> 1505 (Intel Calistoga i945PM). The earlier memory was 533MHz,
> while the new modules are 667 MHz (They are
> http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=204884016).
> The problem is that these modules are running at 533Mhz. I
> verified that the 945PM does indeed support 667
> (http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/945pm/index.htm). However,
> these modules are running at 533 for sure. Everest says the memory
> speed is really 667, however the Memory bus 'Effective clock' is
> 533Mhz, with the real clock being 267 (It doubles with dual
> channel).
> Before I upgraded my RAM, I had taken benchmarks (Everest cache and
> memory benchmarks). The new benchmarks are almost completely
> identical to the old ones. This seems to be something to do with
> the motherboard (a BIOS setting?). My BIOS is the newest version-
> A17.
> Any ideas? Please!
If you notice the difference (even if it was reporting correctly) - you need
to get out more.
Faster RAM is not going to make a noticable dent in the performance of a
machine unless you went from unnaturally slow RAM to unnaturally fast RAM -
and then - you would have changed motherbaord/processor as well - possibly
even hard disk drive and video - not by choice - but necessity.
--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 22, 2005
Posts: 428
|
(Msg. 3) Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 12:10 pm
Post subject: Re: Geek question -RAM speed/ benchmarks [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
PowerUser wrote:
<snip>
> To the other poster- You *will* see a difference in benchmarks. If
> the memory were running at 667, the bandwidth offered would be
> 10.7GB/s, or 25% more than that achieved with 533MHz. And the
> question wasn't about a dent in performance. Those were benchmark
> numbers. You don't argue with numbers.
<snip>
After years of doing this and comparing the 'benchmarks' with reality - no -
you won't *see* the difference in anything but that test - more than
likely - especially in the case you gave (the only thing you changed was
memory from 533 to 667MHz - your applications are unlikely to load any
faster or refresh to the screen any faster because it is very doubtful that
in the computer - that was your bottleneck of performance in the first
place.  )
You *do* argue with numbers - because they can be played with in so many
ways to mean so many things - that the true value of them ends up being in
the eyes of the presenter - not the eyes of the beholder (if they don't
bother to argue.) *grin*
--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Sep 21, 2004
Posts: 115
|
(Msg. 4) Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 12:10 pm
Post subject: Re: Geek question -RAM speed/ benchmarks [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Shenan Stanley wrote:
> PowerUser wrote:
> <snip>
>> To the other poster- You *will* see a difference in benchmarks. If
>> the memory were running at 667, the bandwidth offered would be
>> 10.7GB/s, or 25% more than that achieved with 533MHz. And the
>> question wasn't about a dent in performance. Those were benchmark
>> numbers. You don't argue with numbers.
> <snip>
>
> After years of doing this and comparing the 'benchmarks' with reality
> - no - you won't *see* the difference in anything but that test -
> more than likely - especially in the case you gave (the only thing you
> changed
> was memory from 533 to 667MHz - your applications are unlikely to
> load any faster or refresh to the screen any faster because it is
> very doubtful that in the computer - that was your bottleneck of
> performance in the first place. )
>
> You *do* argue with numbers - because they can be played with in so
> many ways to mean so many things - that the true value of them ends
> up being in the eyes of the presenter - not the eyes of the beholder
I couldn't agree more with that last paragraph. The numbers may be correct,
but deciding what they mean--how to interpret them--is very often nowhere
near obvious, *especially* if they were presented by someone who has an axe
to grind.
--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jul 03, 2007
Posts: 4
|
(Msg. 5) Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 4:08 pm
Post subject: Re: Geek question -RAM speed/ benchmarks [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
I do not see the point of this "debate" about the overall role of benchmarks...
The reader mentioned a very specific benchmark "Everest cache and memory
benchmarks" that to the best of my knowledge (and by its very name!) does
not attempt to measure "reality"....the reader is not asking for your wisdom
about what real-life applications might benefit from faster memory
If we were to talk about real life benchmarks, it seems obvious that the
main constraint would be HDD speed in 9 out every 10 cases; but presuming
he/she does not use memory intensive applications that might have benefited
from faster memory it rather obnoxious if you ask me...
Drod
"Ken Blake" wrote:
> Shenan Stanley wrote:
>
> > PowerUser wrote:
> > <snip>
> >> To the other poster- You *will* see a difference in benchmarks. If
> >> the memory were running at 667, the bandwidth offered would be
> >> 10.7GB/s, or 25% more than that achieved with 533MHz. And the
> >> question wasn't about a dent in performance. Those were benchmark
> >> numbers. You don't argue with numbers.
> > <snip>
> >
> > After years of doing this and comparing the 'benchmarks' with reality
> > - no - you won't *see* the difference in anything but that test -
> > more than likely - especially in the case you gave (the only thing you
> > changed
> > was memory from 533 to 667MHz - your applications are unlikely to
> > load any faster or refresh to the screen any faster because it is
> > very doubtful that in the computer - that was your bottleneck of
> > performance in the first place. )
> >
> > You *do* argue with numbers - because they can be played with in so
> > many ways to mean so many things - that the true value of them ends
> > up being in the eyes of the presenter - not the eyes of the beholder
>
>
> I couldn't agree more with that last paragraph. The numbers may be correct,
> but deciding what they mean--how to interpret them--is very often nowhere
> near obvious, *especially* if they were presented by someone who has an axe
> to grind.
>
> --
> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
> Please reply to the newsgroup
>
>
> |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jul 15, 2007
Posts: 5
|
(Msg. 6) Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 9:46 pm
Post subject: Re: Geek question -RAM speed/ benchmarks [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Unfortunately you've completely missed the point of this post as DRod
rightly pointed out. It was about theoretical maximums not being what they
should be. Nothing to do with application or overall real world system
performance - It was about the benchmark numbers.
"Shenan Stanley" <newshelper DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
news:unQYSMwxHHA.484@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> PowerUser wrote:
> <snip>
>> To the other poster- You *will* see a difference in benchmarks. If
>> the memory were running at 667, the bandwidth offered would be
>> 10.7GB/s, or 25% more than that achieved with 533MHz. And the
>> question wasn't about a dent in performance. Those were benchmark
>> numbers. You don't argue with numbers.
> <snip>
>
> After years of doing this and comparing the 'benchmarks' with reality -
> no - you won't *see* the difference in anything but that test - more than
> likely - especially in the case you gave (the only thing you changed was
> memory from 533 to 667MHz - your applications are unlikely to load any
> faster or refresh to the screen any faster because it is very doubtful
> that in the computer - that was your bottleneck of performance in the
> first place. )
>
> You *do* argue with numbers - because they can be played with in so many
> ways to mean so many things - that the true value of them ends up being in
> the eyes of the presenter - not the eyes of the beholder (if they don't
> bother to argue.) *grin*
>
> --
> Shenan Stanley
> MS-MVP
> --
> How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
> |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jul 15, 2007
Posts: 5
|
(Msg. 7) Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 9:47 pm
Post subject: Re: Geek question -RAM speed/ benchmarks [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Unfortunately you've completely missed the point of this post as DRod
rightly pointed out. It was about theoretical maximums not being what they
should be. Nothing to do with application or overall real world system
performance - It was about the benchmark numbers.
"Shenan Stanley" <newshelper RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
news:unQYSMwxHHA.484@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> PowerUser wrote:
> <snip>
>> To the other poster- You *will* see a difference in benchmarks. If
>> the memory were running at 667, the bandwidth offered would be
>> 10.7GB/s, or 25% more than that achieved with 533MHz. And the
>> question wasn't about a dent in performance. Those were benchmark
>> numbers. You don't argue with numbers.
> <snip>
>
> After years of doing this and comparing the 'benchmarks' with reality -
> no - you won't *see* the difference in anything but that test - more than
> likely - especially in the case you gave (the only thing you changed was
> memory from 533 to 667MHz - your applications are unlikely to load any
> faster or refresh to the screen any faster because it is very doubtful
> that in the computer - that was your bottleneck of performance in the
> first place. )
>
> You *do* argue with numbers - because they can be played with in so many
> ways to mean so many things - that the true value of them ends up being in
> the eyes of the presenter - not the eyes of the beholder (if they don't
> bother to argue.) *grin*
>
> --
> Shenan Stanley
> MS-MVP
> --
> How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
> |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 23, 2006
Posts: 205
|
(Msg. 8) Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 1:21 pm
Post subject: Re: Geek question -RAM speed/ benchmarks [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
The theoretical maximum is exactly what it should be. The memory system
runs at 533. The problem is the user neglected to correctly determine
the theoretical maximum.
PowerUser wrote:
> Unfortunately you've completely missed the point of this post as DRod
> rightly pointed out. It was about theoretical maximums not being what they
> should be. Nothing to do with application or overall real world system
> performance - It was about the benchmark numbers.
>
> "Shenan Stanley" <newshelper.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:unQYSMwxHHA.484@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
>>PowerUser wrote:
>><snip>
>>
>>>To the other poster- You *will* see a difference in benchmarks. If
>>>the memory were running at 667, the bandwidth offered would be
>>>10.7GB/s, or 25% more than that achieved with 533MHz. And the
>>>question wasn't about a dent in performance. Those were benchmark
>>>numbers. You don't argue with numbers.
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>After years of doing this and comparing the 'benchmarks' with reality -
>>no - you won't *see* the difference in anything but that test - more than
>>likely - especially in the case you gave (the only thing you changed was
>>memory from 533 to 667MHz - your applications are unlikely to load any
>>faster or refresh to the screen any faster because it is very doubtful
>>that in the computer - that was your bottleneck of performance in the
>>first place. )
>>
>>You *do* argue with numbers - because they can be played with in so many
>>ways to mean so many things - that the true value of them ends up being in
>>the eyes of the presenter - not the eyes of the beholder (if they don't
>>bother to argue.) *grin*
>>
>>--
>>Shenan Stanley
>> MS-MVP
>>--
>>How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
>>http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
>>
>
>
>
> |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
| Related Topics: | Malware question - Hi, I've read that one can download trojans and other malware by simply going to a site like youtube. Is this true? Thanks.
Event Viewer question - Does anyone know how to create a log of events for IE 7? In my event viewer (Under computer management) I can see Application, Security and System log pages all are populated with events; I have an Internet Explorer page but no events. How do I creat...
Share : how to rip DVD and convert Video to iPod - Share : how to rip DVD and convert Video to iPod The article includes two parts. Part 1: Rip DVD movie to iPod (Windows) Part 2: Convert AVI, WMV, MPEG, RM, RMVB, ASF, MOV, DivX, XviD, MPG to iPod MP4 or H264 format (Windows) [1]How to rip DVD to iPod..
Auto Update - I am working on WinXP Pro (SP2). I have disabled Automatic Updates from Control Panel since I prefer doing it manually. Because I have disabled Automatic Updates, an icon (looks like a shield with a X in between & red in color) always appears next to...
my computer turns itself off (sony cpu running windows xp .. - this behavior has just begun, my computer will turn off, randomly. and to restart, i need to unplug the computer from the wall then push the on button. at about this same time, i noticed that my power mangement settings aren't working and also my.. |
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You can edit your posts in this forum
You can delete your posts in this forum
You can vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
Hot
Bloated Email? DetachPipe for Outlook
Mac
Linux
Games
PDA
Mobile
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
Windows Forums
RSS