Justin_Kirch
Runner Up.
oneinfiniteloop said:
That just sounds too confusing to me. I'd rather just get a MAC and put 16 gigs in there and not think about how slow anything is...ROR
I have betrayed my roots.
- Thread starter Tim Miller
- Start date
That just sounds too confusing to me. I'd rather just get a MAC and put 16 gigs in there and not think about how slow anything is...ROR
scharky
Veteran
Yeah, and for an extra 10G's you could do just that.
Unless you are doing alot of 3D rendering, or working on 500MP photoshop files (although I don't think photoshop will let you access over 2GB anyway) you are not going to see a performance upgrade (YET) with that kind of ram. As it is, going from 2 GB to 4GB (in a MAC) mind you, for all the editing and other work that I do with it there is a neglegable upgrade in speed and performance. RAM is rarely the bottle neck, and MAC ram for some reason is still only at 512Mhz, so there is another bottleneck right there. However, in the near future I'm sure having 16GB of ram will be great, when procs, hard drives and everything else release their bottlenecks. I'm not a MAC or PC fan, I use both everyday, but spending 10G's on ram right now is just silly, I'm sorry.
Unless you are doing alot of 3D rendering, or working on 500MP photoshop files (although I don't think photoshop will let you access over 2GB anyway) you are not going to see a performance upgrade (YET) with that kind of ram. As it is, going from 2 GB to 4GB (in a MAC) mind you, for all the editing and other work that I do with it there is a neglegable upgrade in speed and performance. RAM is rarely the bottle neck, and MAC ram for some reason is still only at 512Mhz, so there is another bottleneck right there. However, in the near future I'm sure having 16GB of ram will be great, when procs, hard drives and everything else release their bottlenecks. I'm not a MAC or PC fan, I use both everyday, but spending 10G's on ram right now is just silly, I'm sorry.
KingVidiot
Well-known member
oneinfiniteloop said:
Not if you do this...
From your boot.ini file :
[boot loader]
timeout=5
default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(2)\WINDOWS
[operating systems]
multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(2)\WINDOWS="Microsoft Windows XP Professional" /noexecute=optin /fastdetect
multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(2)\WINDOWS="Microsoft Windows XP Professional 3GB" /noexecute=optin /fastdetect /3GB
Now it can go past 3GB and use up to 4GB maximum. This configuration even allows you to choose the mode at boot-up.
You can even vary the amount of kernel-mode memory (compared to user-mode memory) by adding a special statement:
multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(2)\WINDOWS="Microsoft Windows XP Professional 3GB" /noexecute=optin /fastdetect /3GB /userva 2900
Now you have more than 1 GB still free for the kernel, better that the usual half-and-half deal. Less crashes are better, right? It depends on what drivers you need to run, etc.
Intel 64-bit processors allow more RAM if you really need it, but can you really afford the full upgrade path?
Tim Miller
Well-known member
Anyone get the new intel "conroe" core duo 2?
If so, anyone know what motherboard to get for video editing and graphics?
I have found some articles and read some forums but no definative answers and/or they talk about overclocking.
If so, anyone know what motherboard to get for video editing and graphics?
I have found some articles and read some forums but no definative answers and/or they talk about overclocking.