navitron
 
Renewable Energy and Sustainability Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Anyone wishing to register as a new member on the forum is strongly recommended to use a "proper" email address. Following continuous spam/hack attempts on the forum, "disposable" email addresses like Gmail, Yahoo and Hotmail tend to be viewed with suspicion, and the application rejected if there is any doubt whatsoever
 
Recent Articles: Navitron Partners With Solax to Help Create A More Sustainable Future | Navitron Calls for Increased Carbon Footprint Reduction In Light of Earth Overshoot Day | A plea from The David School - Issue 18
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Ram confusion  (Read 7247 times)
martin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15733



WWW
« on: September 24, 2012, 09:31:39 AM »

I bought a nice laptop for a knock-down price last week, a Fujitsu Esprimo V6535, which has a 2.20 GHz Intel Celeron 900 processor, and only 1GB of Ram - it works well, but I feel it is sorely underpowered in the RAM department - there are 2 slots, each of which can take up to 2gb of RAM. I'm finding conflicting advice on the 'net about the optimal upgrade. It will be used for processing hefty photographic "RAW" files, so the question is, what do I buy? - go mad and opt for 2x2gb modules, just add another 1gb module, or something between the two? - it all gets rather confusing when they mutter about "better as a matched pair" - does that mean that adding a 2gb one would be daft, or a mismatched 1gb to go alongside the existing one? wackoold
Logged

Unpaid volunteer administrator and moderator (not employed by Navitron) - Views expressed are my own - curmudgeonly babyboomer! - http://www.farmco.co.uk
PaulOckenden
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 402


« Reply #1 on: September 24, 2012, 10:29:01 AM »

The Crucial website is normally fairly accurate when it comes to what a PC/motherboard can support.

For photography, especially RAW files, the more RAM the better. I have 16Gb in this machine and Photoshop still pages like a mad thing if I am doing intensive work on high-resolution RAW files.

As for the 'better in pairs' thing, that's exactly right. Access will be faster if you install a matched pair. So 2 x 1Gb would be faster than 1 x 2Gb.

Your best option, if you can afford it, is to ditch the existing 1Gb (or eBay it), and go for 2 x 2Gb.

P.
Logged
martin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15733



WWW
« Reply #2 on: September 24, 2012, 10:37:40 AM »

Many thanks, precisely the advice I was seeking! Smiley
Logged

Unpaid volunteer administrator and moderator (not employed by Navitron) - Views expressed are my own - curmudgeonly babyboomer! - http://www.farmco.co.uk
PaulOckenden
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 402


« Reply #3 on: September 24, 2012, 10:44:23 AM »

Oh, another thing - depending on your operating system you might not see the full 4Gb.

32 bit Windows, for example (I know you're a Windows fan!) will only see 3.5Gb.

P.
Logged
martin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15733



WWW
« Reply #4 on: September 24, 2012, 10:57:00 AM »

As you've gathered, I loathe Windoze with every fibre of my being, but have adopted a pragmatic approach with this laptop - it came with XP installed, so I've done a dual-boot install with 20gb of harddrive as Windoze, and 120gb as Linux Mint, so I can run 2 programmes on XP that I can't make run well using "Wine" - NX photo (Nikon's own RAW processing programme), and the software for my inverter. Looks like I'll go with your advice, and have my eye on 2 matched used 2gb Samsung modules for 30 the pair.......
Logged

Unpaid volunteer administrator and moderator (not employed by Navitron) - Views expressed are my own - curmudgeonly babyboomer! - http://www.farmco.co.uk
don0301
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 276



« Reply #5 on: September 24, 2012, 11:00:57 AM »

Oh, another thing - depending on your operating system you might not see the full 4Gb.

32 bit Windows, for example (I know you're a Windows fan!) will only see 3.5Gb.

P.

Don't think thats correct

this explains different windows limits



http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa366778(v=vs.85).aspx
Logged
MN
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 315



« Reply #6 on: September 24, 2012, 11:02:38 AM »

I wonder if you are going over 4gig if it would be more cost effective for speed to go for a solid state drive?  They seem to have come right down in price.
Logged
PaulOckenden
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 402


« Reply #7 on: September 24, 2012, 11:03:42 AM »

Don't think thats correct
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3_GB_barrier

P.
Logged
PaulOckenden
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 402


« Reply #8 on: September 24, 2012, 11:04:49 AM »

I wonder if you are going over 4gig if it would be more cost effective for speed to go for a solid state drive?  They seem to have come right down in price.
I think you are confusing storage (hard drive, in old-school parlance) and memory (RAM).

P.
Logged
martin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15733



WWW
« Reply #9 on: September 24, 2012, 11:05:00 AM »

This is a "pocket money" project, and the laptop can take a maximum of 4gb, so it's a matter of being pragmatic, and trying not to spend a fortune if it's avoidable
Logged

Unpaid volunteer administrator and moderator (not employed by Navitron) - Views expressed are my own - curmudgeonly babyboomer! - http://www.farmco.co.uk
MN
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 315



« Reply #10 on: September 24, 2012, 11:14:45 AM »

I wonder if you are going over 4gig if it would be more cost effective for speed to go for a solid state drive?  They seem to have come right down in price.
I think you are confusing storage (hard drive, in old-school parlance) and memory (RAM).

P.
I understand that but what I meant was If you were going to spend 90 on memory
What if you spent 90 on a SSD Drive and left the 1gig in it?
http://www.maplin.co.uk/120gb-ocz-agility-3-ssd-635931

It would swap to disk, sure, but if you are using over the 4gig for processing photos it will be swapping to disk anyway.

I do not know but wondered IF 1gig memory and SSD would be quicker that 4gig memory and non SSD

Logged
PaulOckenden
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 402


« Reply #11 on: September 24, 2012, 11:25:45 AM »

I do not know but wondered IF 1gig memory and SSD would be quicker that 4gig memory and non SSD
RAM access is always going to be faster than storage, even if the latter is on an SSD.

Plus, swapping is an extra process - an extra step that isn't needed if you have the RAM available.

P.
Logged
dhaslam
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6775



« Reply #12 on: September 24, 2012, 04:47:29 PM »

The problem now is that there is so much memory that the conventional operating systems cannot handle it.   My PC with XP and 8 GB RAM cannot even play HD  videos from my camera or even from my phone.  This is despite the  fact that the whole clip should easily fit in memory.  A HD video  has to be first converted to a smaller format to have any chance of editing it.   The problem seems to be that  copying memory is very slow, not much different than reading from disk.   
Logged

DHW 250 litre cylinder  60 X 47mm tubes
Heating  180,000 litre straw insulated seasonal store, 90X58mm tubes + 7 sqm flat collectors, 1 kW VAWT, 3 kW heatpump plus Walltherm gasifying stove
PaulOckenden
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 402


« Reply #13 on: September 24, 2012, 04:56:19 PM »

My PC with XP and 8 GB RAM cannot even...
Are you running the 32bit (x86) or 64bit (x64) version of XP? (Right click My Computer and select Properties, if you're not sure).

If it's 32bit (or you're not running XP Professional edition) then around 5Gb of your 8Gb is currently being wasted.

P.
Logged
dhaslam
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6775



« Reply #14 on: September 24, 2012, 05:43:45 PM »

It is the 32 bit version with service pack 3.     My own software is all 32 bit extended DOS so  I cannot use newer versions of windows.      Excel shows the amount  of physical RAM correctly  but  shows 1.45 MB only available.   From My Computer memory is shown as 2.91 GB.       In theory  32 bits should  allow  4096 MB of address space but that would be shared with the operating system. 
Logged

DHW 250 litre cylinder  60 X 47mm tubes
Heating  180,000 litre straw insulated seasonal store, 90X58mm tubes + 7 sqm flat collectors, 1 kW VAWT, 3 kW heatpump plus Walltherm gasifying stove
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Simple Audio Video Embedder
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!