I'm getting the upgrade bug again. Let me give you my specs to start:

P4 3.47GHz
250GB Maxtor IDE Hard Drive 8MB Cache 7200rpm
GeForce 6800GT 256mb graphics card

1GB Dual-Channel PC3200 (ie 2 matched 512mb sticks)
+
512mb PC3200 regular

1.5GB single-channel PC3200

With the extra 512 stick iin, the other pair does not run dual-channel.. but I have a good bit more ram.

So here's the deal. I'm thinking of doing an upgrade, and I'm considering the following options:

1) 1GB stick of PC3200 - will give me 2.5GB of ram, but only single channel
2) 1GB Dual Channel - will give me 2GB of dual-channel ram, but I waste the old single-channel 512 stick
3) SATA Hard Drive - either the Raptor or maybe a 160gb WD SATA. I would keep the 250GB IDE drive for storing data, and use the SATA drive for OS & Programs

All of these options run me roughly about $125.

What I'm wondering is this: what do you think would be the best upgrade, to keep the system running smoothly during mapping and compiling? A big question for me is whether any of you have noticed Dual-Channel being significantly better for compiling or mapping. In theory it should be, but in practice I don't see much difference myself. Certainly the gaming benchmarks show little to no improvement from dual-channel.

So.. which do you think will give the best, noticable performance boost, especially as my map gets bigger and more detailed?

Computer's have been using ram without dual channel for years. I don't see it making much difference at work, I'd go with the 2.5G

like they say in the engine trade, "there's no replacement for displacement", I say "there's no replacement for LOTS of RAM."

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

how dumb, I can't see the results of my own poll without voting?!

Nickel: That's what I'm leaning toward, even though I accidentally voted myself for the dual-channel.

The other thing I'm thinking: If I want EVEN MORE ram in the future, the 1GB stick is a better investment.

2.5GB of single channel ram, I would imagine, would run better then 2GB duel channel ram any day. Since, honestly, is the rest of the system taking advantage of that feature?

I think, unless you're a graphic artist and you KNOW you use an intensive application that's proven to run better with duel channel support, it will always be a better choice to get the "more available ram" option.

As far as I know, Windows doesn't use physical ram as often as it should anyway. (Ever gotten the, "Out of Virtual Memory, resizing Pagefile" popup? I have, several times, in which case I always check my Ram consumption, it's usually around half)

So ... in either case, even IF the ram does go faster ... there's no way to really control which set of ram it gets written to for the duration of the programs life. Which is why I suggest getting a fast ass harddrive. A lot of program will run much faster if the OS can access the page file(s) faster.

As for how much ram it uses and when ... I really don't know why it doesn't use a larger percentage, or maybe it's a bug?

Also, you're a bastard. :razz: Your system is, quite literally, twice as whatever as mine in almost every aspect. And you get to upgrade

Oh yes, also, as for HDD speed, I'd be more concerned with the Cache size. Taking that, if the drive goes 7200RPM still ... it wont really matter if it's over SATA or ATA133/160/whatever connections. However, SATA is used to handle faster drives, in which case, you could eventually look at getting a 15,000 RPM drive, or something as such. But, in this case, the physical moving parts in the drive are the slowing down factor. (16M Cache would be the minimum. It's decently priced right now and blah blah blah. But ram would do a world of good for run time intensive applications ... since, no matter what, you'd be doubling it, or close to it)

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

Yeah, I don't really get the way Windows uses ram and the pagefile. You can manually set it to like nothing, yet open the task manager and there it is, a few hundred megabytes....

I did rough benchmarks... 1GB dual channel vs 1.5GB single channel. Basically identical times for compiling. Same times if I set my pagefile to 2mb, too. And tbh nothing is using more than a few 100mb of ram at this point. So maybe it's a waste of $$, I'm not sure. I'm thinking of what it will be like when the map gets more complex, though, too I guess.

The Raptor is a 10,000 RPM drive, and its seek times are almost half that of most other drives. Only an 8MB cache, but still.. very nice.

I say the extra 1 gb stick to give you 2gb. Just because if you decide
you want more, like you said it would be easier and a better invest
ment. Also, does anyone know whats going on here?

---

http://img362.imageshack.us/img362/8521/windows981dk.jpg

Nickelplate is my dad

Actually, adding a 1GB stick would give me -2.5GB- total ram :biggrin:

I suspect what is going on is this, Win98:

512mb - 448 = 64mb

Probably you have onboard video, and it is 'borrowing' 64mb of system ram. This is common... add a separate video card and that should get you the 64mb back. That's my guess, anyway... assuming you have onboard video.

W9X (WAY better name), It's possible, since 448 is a multiple of 8. Most likely, since you have a "pre-built" HP, it has some internal on-board ram in case you ever take all the ram out and boot the system up (It's more common on Laptops, however)

But, You could have: 256 MB + 128 MB + 64 MB (Probably internal) = 448 MB. [update] Yes, or what Jinx is saying is possible too. Which makes sense as well, just because HP is actually pretty notorious for having onboard video.[/update]

Jinx, OH! I didn't know it was 10,000 RPM. In that case, I know more ram would make a difference in a few months (with coming applications/games and such requiring a minimum of a Gig, Lost Coast is an example.) I'd say, go for the ram, and save up for the HDD. Since, transferring stuff over drives is a pain in the ass anyway.

Yeah, Windows is weird, I don't know why the option is there to change the sizes if it doesn't really listen. I guess it thinks it knows better, like, "Hmm ... I know they didn't mean to set it to that amount". I don't know, for all I know, maybe the larger you make the pagefile/VMM allocation the more it would use it, since it's a larger reservoir. I don't really think a lot of Windows type stuff is really concerned with how fast it runs at times. (If it were it wouldn't drop the page file ... ever ... which it does quite often ... so annoying)

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

If you needed a high-end computer (I am active on a forum where these
things are discussed hourly), you would want to get (if you have
SLI-supporting mobo) 7800GTX and some other day upgrade it to SLI (it
WOULD make difference the most), and then you would get 2GB of
Dual-Channel memory (yes, that makes real difference as well).

Then you would want to take a SATA (windows has issues on running on
sata, I know from my own experience, trust me) for the DATA, and keep
the IDE for OS.

Just my2cents..

---

HL2 tutorials 'n' stuff: http://madedog.pri.ee
217.159.236.34:27050 - CSS Server - Clean | koffer.ee

Eh SLI is a waste of money. Better off, imo, to just upgrade more frequently if you have the $$. And remember here, I'm less interested in gaming than in game design.

I am on an 865 board that is AGP and DDR1, so that limits me somewhat. I'm not upgrading the mobo; I'll just build a new system at that point.

And believe me, a 6800GT is no slouch :razz:

SLI really isn't worth it in performance boost.

My computer is ok, although I have dial up :sad: . I'd downgrade anytime for cable. I'm too far out to get cable or even adsl and satellite isn't worth it.

---

Reckless disregard for childrens well being, women and nothing but utter contempt for other cultures.

Aight, heres my opinion:

If you are mainly focusing on mapping and compiling on the computer and p4 would be the best choise, why?

Because compiletimes seem to only care about one thing: MHZ!

The more, the better.

The compiletimes scale almost exact with the mhz.

I ran a test on a friends 3ghz p4 and it was almost twice as fast as my athlon xp 1,8ghz.

Fiddeling with things like more RAM, higher FSB or memory timings
doesnt actually affect the compiletimes, trust me ive done some testing
on this one.

But if you are going to play lots of games the Athlon 64 is the way to go.

Those processors are cheaper, less warm, much more energy efficient and faster (and more fun to overclock >=) )

However one thing that requires RAM is Hammer v4. I remember running
the program with 512mb RAM and it wasnt funny to scroll down in the
texturebrowser for a long while.

It seemes like the textures gets loaded right into the RAM when you are
accessing the browser, and if you have been mapping for a while, hammer
can take about 500mb of memory.

I noticed a HUGE difference when moving from 512 to 1gigg when using
the texturebrowser, but almost no difference in other things, such as
gaming performance.

Im currently running with 1 gigg of RAM and lots of people do, getting
more under the hood is, in my opinion, useless. On an athlon 64, you
can actually notice worse performance when getting more than 1 gigg,
however im not sure of this one.

Maybe because it takes more time to find the data when the storage is bigger.

About the graphics card:

The 6800GT is a great choice, however I chose the x800xl. The two cards are almost exactly as good when it comes to performance.

Although, 6800gt is better in doom and x800xl is better in Hl2, but the difference is very small.

If i where you, i would compare the price between the cards before going for 6800gt. But thats your call.

You asked a question regarding getting more RAM or getting a fast harddrive.

If i where you, i would get a fast harddrive, no doubt.

And if i where to chose, a Raptor.

250giggs is enough for storage and 74 giggs is more than enough for installed prorams.

2 giggs of ram is from my point of view completely useless. And if the
p4's are doing as the athlon 64's when it comes to get more than 1 gigg
of RAM. Then i would definitly only get 1 gigg.

Windows 98 said:
I say the extra 1 gb stick to give you 2gb. Just because if you decide you want more, like you said it would be easier and a better invest ment. Also, does anyone know whats going on here?

You've probably got an onboard Video card that is using a 64 MB of your 512 MB. It's called "shared" memory and it sucks.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

Mister, I already HAVE the Pentium 4 and 6800GT, the only question is whether to upgrade the RAM or the Hard drive speed.

I'm still mixed. Back in the day, when I was compiling on my Pentium II, upgrading from 192 to 384mb of ram made a HUGE difference on the bigger maps. At the moment, I can't really tell any difference between 1GB and 1.5GB... I'm just thinking that down the road the ram might make a difference as I'm mapping more. Then again, maybe I should just wait and get the ram when I think I need it? The prices on DDR are only coming down.

The Raptor would certainly speed up load times on anything I put on it, and I've been assured by everyone that I -would- notice a difference if I had one. I can only afford a 36GB one, though, and that might be cutting it a little close in size.

/me frets

I said, get the ram. Save up for the HDD. The ram is "more bang for your buck", especially right now.

You also have to remember, as I'm sure you're aware, that the program currently "taking your attention" is the one that gets precedence in physical ram (or is suppose to, past the OS anyway) ... of course there are settings to change this, such as if a program comes in with a certain level of authority and runs in the background (AUPDATE, for example. It'll use all your resources, no matter what you're doing, until it's done)

As for "noticing" a difference because of VMM speed. Well ... yeah ... but, you'd also notice a speed up if you had one small drive (around 40GB) which had the OS and some programs and another drive with all your other programs and data.

It's weird, because, it also depends on if the program actually loads everything it needs into ram. Most do, but some don't.

Bister, while, a single cored system will probably compile at the same speed as a duel core system (Since, the very process of compiling is a very linear process, and if something isn't really made to be pipelined, it usually doesn't run faster in that situation) ... but, all compiling anything is is one calculation for number crunching after another. While, the processor is the place this happens, where do you think it all gets stored? Every time the compiler finishes with an important calculation, I'm pretty sure it'll do a memory write, since all that information can't be saved in the L1 or L2 cache, it's too big. That means, that a FSB does matter. IT always matters. It's just that, to a person's perception it is negligible. After all, a HDD access is "negligible", and it takes tens of thousands of cycles.

Now, of course, as we all know, the CPU waits when there is a memory access or memory write. It waits for confirmation from the Chipset. So, you can't say that any of the Bus speeds on the system Bus "don't have an effect". Because they do. In fact, the system bus is WHY systems are slow.

I wish some company would suck up the billions of dollars it'd take and build a system with little to no Bus. Physical memory, D-Ram I might add, would be like the L3 cache. But, for that it'd physically have to be built on. Combine the chipset and processor into a triple core chip or something like that. Just get rid of physical part HDD and use Flash Memory (L4 cache) ... hmm ... sounds to me like things wouldn't need to be loaded as often. Hell, you could have a separate core of the processor made to deal with system utilities (other cards) and a separate set of ram for the addresses. That'd be sweet.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

Sweet, but youd end up with an unupgradable box that will become obsolete fairly rapidly. It would be an expensive machine as well, and rather specialised.

---

"If you talk at all during this lesson, you have detention. Do you understand?"

• My yr11 Economics teacher

bwahahahahaha

doubt it will effect much now, but it's going to be nice as I map more I suspect.

[EDIT] No change in compile times, though my map is still fairly simple. Hammer, however, does run smoother. Before, there was a slight lag when I would pan around in the textured camera mode... now it's smooth as silk.

Also, the ram has blue heater spreaders and looks pretty hehehe

One must ask, "where is the plateau?" At what point does hardware upgrades make no noticeable difference?

I do not know so this is a serious inquiry.

Lets assume that you could create a functional,playable map so large that you could actually measure a decrease in compiling times with your current processor. RAM increases storage capability, but if you have more than your processor can deal with would you really compile faster?

The point I am asking is similar to the old video card problem where you had more card than your processor could deal with and your frame rates didn't increase when you upgraded.

I think the best question would be, "Does anyone know exactly how much information is created during a maps compile?" Would any map fill 2.5 gigs?

Before I vote, I would like these questions addressed.

Thanks for your time.

---

There is no history until something happens, then there is.

There is no upper bound, nothing will ever be fast or large enough.

For example, VMM allows at least 4 GB of ram to always be allocated. It'd be nice to have that in physical ram, but is doubtful.

Well, as for map sizes ... how big is the BSP? a few megs, right? Maybe 20 something if you include all the materials. But those get put into video card memory anyway.

The memory requirements really come from programs specifications, more or less, HL2 is what requires the memory.

To be honest, it's hard to answer your question, because it's not really applicable. It's like saying, "How do we go about a 100% effecient vehicle?"

I could elaborate more when I'm not distracted.

Wilson, I know, but companies blow money away over less things more often. However, it'd be just as upgradable as our current machines. You'd still use certain amounts of RAM, different speed processors, HDDs, everything, my point was, they need to eliminate the bus. But by "built on" I meant, on the outer bus, but close enough so it doesn't take too long. Like the same amount of time it'd take to go inbetween processors (if you have an MP system). Just removing the system bus. But there'd have to be a system BUS still, to talk to expansion cards.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

Physical length of the bus lines dont affect bus speed, its the rate at which devices are reading/writing the bus. To give the CPU a huge L3/4 cache instead of RAM, youre almost messing with the basis of von Neumann architecture (you have a separate bus between CPU and memory). It could be done, but would take a lot of work, and probably not be worth it.

---

"If you talk at all during this lesson, you have detention. Do you understand?"

• My yr11 Economics teacher

I take my vote for Dual channel back and put it on the Hard drive. Your PC far exceeds any recommended spec, so I think more Ram would be a waste. Your best bet I reckon is upgrading to 2 SATA drives- you do notice the difference, but they are alot of hassle. Also always stick Windows XP on its own partition.

---

-[Better to be Honest than Kind]-

I know the physical length doesn't change it, what I mean is if you simulated the access time. That's all. Also, I was in a hurry. So, don't take my exact wording too literally.

More ram is never a waste, seriously, your system can always use it. It will NEVER have enough. The more ram you have the more programs you can run and switch to with responsive times (none of that, loading slow crap, from reserved page files).

The faster drive really wouldn't make that much of a difference, especially if he wasn't loading the material off of that drive, since it would access the old slower drive, put it into RAM anyway, then when it needed to moved for storage, it'd get moved to the new hard drive where the page file is. Unless, you have VMM enabled for each drive (which really doesn't help as far as I've seen, it just keeps eating up space).

Ram is usually the better choice. Since, it wouldn't really NEED the amount of virtual memory if it were there, thus making the faster HDD access speed rather moot.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

Not to be a dick Crono, but I feel Myrk hit the nail on the head as far as my question was concerned.

The processor in this example was what? A 3.7 ghz? Given this number, how much ram does it take to plateau it out?

Although, I consider myself functionally illiterate when it comes to PC performance, I think more hard drive/faster hard drive would be the best price for your buck.

Consider it this way, you may not get more boosted compile with more RAM, but you should get more access boost with a serial cable supplied hard drive.

With that in mind, I vote, "HARD DRIVE"

---

There is no history until something happens, then there is.

Okay, I should explain something: THIS ISN'T A MATTER OF OPINION. This is how it works: Ram is faster.

Note: Earlier, I meant SRAM, It's the faster one, my bad

So, here's a rough example:

HDD "access time" is determined by: average seek time average rotation average transfer speed.

Those equations, respectfully are:

Tavg seek = (defined by manufacturer, in this case 9ms)

Tavg rotation = 1/2 Tmax rotation = ((1/RPM)*(60S/1Min))/2

Tavg transfer = (1/RPM)(1/average # sectors/track)(60S/1Min)

So,

Tavg seek = 9ms
Tavg rotation = 1/2(60S/7200)*(1000ms/1S) = 4ms (approximately)
Tavg transfer = (60/7200)(1/400)(1000ms/S) = .02ms (assumes 400 sectors/track average)

So: Taccess = 9ms + 0.02ms + 4ms = 13.02ms This is a minimum number ... not dependant on the size of the data you're accessing (I think this is actually for accessing an entire sector ...)

But, it's longer if you wanted to access something like ... 512Bytes. Where as in Sram it takes about 256ns and 4000ns for Dram.

That means that the disk takes anywhere from 2,500 to 40,000 times as long on that small piece of information. (Since ram is compromised of both S and D ram)

Now, having more physical ram should make VMM more infrequently used. Now, Windows does do some funky stuff, but it should utilize it. Now ... wouldn't you rather have something coming at you 40,000 times faster?

Of course, if harddrives were all flash memory based (or something as such) it'd be just as fast (probably slower, since it'd be on a slower bus) as ram.

Is any of this getting through?

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

After reading that I must confess a certain amount of glassy eye/doe in the headlight look.

If you say RAM, then its ram.

I voted SATA.

---

There is no history until something happens, then there is.