Sign in to follow this  
JayDub

Help With Memory Upgrade Please.......

Recommended Posts

Good Day,I could use a little help from the experts. Just added another 1GB of RAM to my system for a total now of 2GB DDR PC3200 at 400Mhz. My MOBO will not support DDR2. What is the best way to manage this Memory. So far I have seen zero improvement in load times or overall performance in any programs. I thought I would see an improvement in texture load times in FS9. FPS not an issue as that was great prior to the additional RAM being added. I had previously set up my memory as a custom setup with Windows XP Home, but just changed in to let Windows manage it. Currently it shows Windows recommending a 3070MB page file per disk, but has allocated 4094MB. Both processor and memory usage are set up for programs. If recommended that I go back to a custom setup what Should the Initial size be and what should be the Maximum size be as can be set up on the virtual memory page. My primary drive has 3 partitions of around 38GB each with Windows on C: and FS9 having its own dedicated drive E: I also have a 300GB internal backup drive with performance not an issue on that drive.Any help or suggestions appreciated. I just don

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Hi Jaydub, a good start is likely 2 memory modules max with DDR1 RAM and an AMD64 CPU. Plus running the 1T Command rate (bios) helps. More memory often only translates to more smoothness. One thing I wonder about - understanding you have a single drive system - why would you put FS on a slower part of the harddrive? C, D, E... Not too good for simming on single HD configs. ;-) Lots of HD-head thrashing, but maybe a little bit less with the increased amount of RAM? Hope this adds to thoughts, kind regards Jaap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jaap,Thanks for the reply.... Not really sure about your meaning re the slowest part of the harddrive. I have oneprimary 120GB drive partitioned C: D: and E: with Windows XP on the C: drive and FS9the only program on the E: drive. I also have a 300GB backup internal drive with 3 equalpaartitions. Over the years I have never seen an advantage performance wise having FS9 onany of these partitions. Also I did find answers to my questions re the virtual memorysituation.... Although that also can be very confusing due to the many opinions many ofthem opposite of each other.....In any case...... I give up, after many years I am done tweaking ..... My system seems torun FS9 at the best performance it is capable of...... I should be happy with it as it is.....Currently I can run FS9 with all sliders maxed out and FPS locked at 35 with only minimalblurries in very high density cites such as LAX. FPS stays in the 28-35 range about 90percent of the time.... I also run MyTraffic 2004 at 100 percent and Radar Contact V4.3.My PMDG aircraft may take the FPS down in the teens at times but I rarely seen anythingbelow 12-15 in any circumstance. I run the sim at 1600x1200 on a dual monitor system. Ihave constantly been in pursuit of a crystal clear image without any blurries at all but havefinally come to the conclusion that this is not going to happen. I will just fly it and enjoythe experience. The additional 1GB of RAM actually seemed to slow the system down. BIOS autoclocked the mem at 333mhz but even after I upped it to its rated 400mhz I had somestutters. With the memory configuration returned to 1GB the sim smoothed out again.JayDub

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JayDub- See my ("january") reply a couple of topics below- "I need help". My situation is almost identical to yours. Extra RAM from 1.25 to 2MB didn't increase FPS but it did put a better floor under the low end of FPS. So it was worthwhile- espec at night at high density airports where my old AMD XP2200 1.8 starts breathing pretty hard!Alex Reid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys, again, you can't just add RAM to AMD64 CPUs with their inbuilt memory controllers. You have to know what you're doing, particularly with DDR1 RAm modules. ;-) What you both described, is behaviour as expected as soon as you exceed 2 memory modules with DDR1. There's nothing mysterious about it. Kind regards Jaap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jaap,Sounds like I would have to scrap my two original 512MB modules of PC3200 DDR and replace them with two 1024MB modules. At this point it looks like thats not much "Bang For The Buck" as we like to say. It seems they are just giving away DDR2 at extremely low prices but the older DDR is twice as expensive due to the manufacturing process.Still curious about my install of FS9 on the slowest part of the hard drive if you could explain.Thanks again,JayDub

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jaap- If I read your reply correctly, I should remove 1 stick of DDR so that I would be using only 2 modules? (1GB & 500MB= 1.5 GB ?)(presently 1GB & 2-500MBs).A bit surprising since the ASUS A7N8X-X MB is designed specifically for AMD Athlon XP processors and has 3 slots.When I increased some time ago from 500/250 to 500/500/250, I got a 20% boost in FPS. Now at 1000/500/500, the top FPS hasn't changed but the LOWS at complex scenery/weather/airports/nightime are improved.Could you clarify the point re "exceed 2 memory modules"?Alex Reid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Alex, no, I believe that chipset and CPU (not an AMD64) is another story. Those 3 slots made sense when RAM was expensive. With that board you have to make sure the 1GB and the 2x512MB are in the right slots. I missed you had an AMD XP, sorry. Kind regards Jaap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jaydub, you could well be happy with 1.5GB. Just makes sure every thing is running at the right frequencies. On the HD, the partition with th OS is your fastest partition with highest transfer rates, your secondary partition is ca 20% slower and the third one by yet another factor. A photo scenery for example, would load significantly faster if it was on the OS partition. The other thing on partitioned single HD systems, is called HD-head trashing. Imagine, your HD is having fun in FS/E and then is asked to pick up something from the pagefile, zzzzp, heads go to C, read, write, read, then comes FS again and says: I need the desert_texture.bmp - zzzzp - heads travel to E again. Etc. During each time the heads travel, ca 0.6 to 1MB of data could have read or written... So, the best partitioning strategy on single HD systems (IMHO), is, loads of free space and as much as possible of your important data on the faster/outer sections of the drive. Hope this explains it a bit, kind regards Jaap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jaap- what's the preferred slot arrangement? At the moment, the 1GB is closest to the processor (left slot of 3 slots), then the 512MB's to the right. Any other arrangement any better?Alex Reid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jaap,I tried the 1.5GB configuration last year with no success. My motherboard it seems will not acceptmixed size modules, the computer would not even boot with a 1024MB and 512MBinstalled. or any combination of two 512s and a 1024. Just for an experiment, I did a quick install of FS9 to my C: drive as you suggested. I sawno improvement in performance or texture loading times. As I stated earlier, I believe Ihave attained the max potential of this computer system. I can live with the fineperformance FS9 is running at now and will stop trying to push the system beyond it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Alex, it's been a while, but is one slot possibly one colour and the two others another? If so and memory isn't failing, the colours are the designation of the two channels. If not so you'll have to consult the mainboard manual. @ JayDub, sorry to hear about the troubles mixing RAM modules. That sucks. FWIW, quickly copying back and forth would have only been a half-measure. So, please don't take that 'educational experience' for granted. ;-) The strategy I mentioned is better for a new Windows install. As you probably know, the OS calculates a couple of parameters according to certain hardware criteria, for example the free HD space, HD space determines the size of the Master File Table(MFT). It has to be right form scratch. But you're right, with FS9 this is less critical, just like single- vs dual-channel RAM doesn't make much of difference either. Personally, I'd always prefer to have my HD-heads pick-up that 1MB instead of performing a useless thrash. Kind regards Jaap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this