My current mobo is a gigabyte GA-965P-DS3 that supports 800/1066/1333 FSB. I have an intel E6400 2.13Ghz Core 2 proc. I currently have 2GB of corsair xms2 800 speed memory. I want at least 4GB for running win7 pro 64bit and Xp mode.
My options I see are:
buy a set of 2X2GB 800 memory for around $70, keep my old 2GB in, to give me 6GB total @ 800
or buy a set of 2X2GB 1066 memory for around $90, pull out my 2GB of 800, to give me 4GB total @ 1066
which option is best? If I do the 2X2GB 1066 now, then in a year, I could always add another 2X2GB 1066 for 8GB @ 1066.
mitt
I'd say go with the 1066. you shouldn't have any problems running both the 800 and the 1066 at the same time, as long as you run them in separate pairs. I'm not familiar with that particular board, but it should automatically underclock the 1066 to match the speed of the 800 (if not you can manually set the speed in the BIOS), and when you want to replace the 800 with more 1066 down the line you'll only be replacing 2 sticks instead of all 4.
Go with the 1066. The native bus of the E6400 is 1066 anyway. And frankly, 4GB is plenty for typical desktop usage (even your CAD programs would be mostly OK).
And adding the additional 4GBs down the road...win in my book anyway.
And don't mix and match RAM. They run different latencies and most times different voltages. Sure, the computer will down clock the faster RAM, but would you ride around on your Monster holding the rear brakes all the time?
Buy both, try both configs, return what you don't like. Depending on what programs you use I don't think you'll notice much difference between the two configs.
Is there really a noticeable difference between the 800 and 1066?
If I go with 4GB of 1066, can I go with a different mfg and still leave the 800 in there? I hate doing rebates, and all the corsair stuff has them. With a mix of 1066 and 800, I will only have 800 speed, since the mobo goes to the lowest speed found right?
mitt
You'll probably notice more from going from 2 to 4 gigs than 800 to 1066. If you were only web browsing then it would make little or no difference. Since you are using CAD it will make a difference, but as to how much, eh, hard to say. It depends on a lot of factors. It -might- be better to get up to 6 gigs of slower RAM than 4 gigs of faster RAM. If you're swapping a lot from the HD then more RAM would be more appropriate, provided the program could use it. That's why I suggested trying both configs. Or maybe track down some forum for the CAD product you use and ask them.
Mixing RAM is bad juju as ZLTFUL said.
I did some more looking at my mobo specs, and it says:
CPU - Supports 1333/1066/800/533 MHz FSB
RAM - Supports DDR2 800/667/533 memory
So, does that mean 800 is the fastest I can use anyway?
mitt
It means that 800 is the highest it "Officially" supports. Most likely, through overclocking it will go higher but not worth the work to get something you will only notice differences in benchmarks.
Stick with the 800. (Pun intended!!!)
How many hard drives do you have? One of the best upgrades you can do is a get a second hard drive and put your swap file on the new HD. It really is an amazingly cheap way to get more speed. Get a drive with a good size cache - 16megs or more...
Quote from: Mad Duc on October 23, 2009, 04:44:50 AM
How many hard drives do you have? One of the best upgrades you can do is a get a second hard drive and put your swap file on the new HD. It really is an amazingly cheap way to get more speed. Get a drive with a good size cache - 16megs or more...
you don't get a huge performance boost by doing this, you just take advantage of part of your swaps being on a separate spindle.
all the ram is the same voltage. there will be a stamp on the socket for the type. the only difference will be the maximum clock speed.
there is no problem mixing 1066 with the 800 you have. they are on separate buses. some computers will use the same memory controller for both and clock them at the lowest available and some PCs (like mine) have a separate controller for each bus and each one will run independently.
either way, there is NO problem mixing speeds IF they remain on the same bank. look at your manual, and it will say something to this effect -- DIMMs within a bank have to be identical, but banks do not.
more memory is always better regardless of speed because you use the swap file less.
swapfile access - 10 -20 milliseconds
RAM access - 100-300 nanoseconds.
always go for more ram.
i would buy the 1066 ram and use it with your current ram and if you really feel you need the extra 266 clocks, replace the 800 later. maybe by then they'll have the 1400 clock ram out and you'll have the same problem again.. :D
Quote from: ducatiz on October 23, 2009, 04:52:35 AMyou don't get a huge performance boost by doing this, you just take advantage of part of your swaps being on a separate spindle.
The slowest part of your computer is the HD. By spanning two physical volumes you can now access it at twice the speed with more cache space. Even with SATA's NCQ putting your swap file on a second drive will make your computer faster. If he weren't doing CAD stuff this might help more than getting more RAM. For the CAD stuff I agree the RAM is more important but a second HD can also help things out with little cost.
Quote from: Mad Duc on October 23, 2009, 05:18:44 AM
The slowest part of your computer is the HD. By spanning two physical volumes you can now access it at twice the speed with more cache space. Even with SATA's NCQ putting your swap file on a second drive will make your computer faster. If he weren't doing CAD stuff this might help more than getting more RAM. For the CAD stuff I agree the RAM is more important but a second HD can also help things out with little cost.
i agree with you, but my point was that with more memory he will do less swaps to hard drive which is a MUCH bigger improvement in system speed. if you are limited and can't add ram, then spanning a page file is a good idea, but it is nothing compared to increasing ram.
windows 7 has a RAM max of 192 GB, I can't wait to get my first 100 GB RAM system . Never ever ever swap again.
Quote from: Mad Duc on October 23, 2009, 05:18:44 AM
The slowest part of your computer is the HD. By spanning two physical volumes you can now access it at twice the speed with more cache space. Even with SATA's NCQ putting your swap file on a second drive will make your computer faster. If he weren't doing CAD stuff this might help more than getting more RAM. For the CAD stuff I agree the RAM is more important but a second HD can also help things out with little cost.
the performance gain is really from moving the pagefile to physical disk that isn't constantly seeing other drive activity.
a single physical disk used for nothing but the pagefile would likely be faster than "splitting" the pagefile across the OS disk and a constantly used data disk.
a single pagefile across a dedicated raid0 striped volume would be faster still.
in short, put your pagefile on your fastest, least-used disk.
Quote from: ducatiz on October 23, 2009, 05:29:49 AM
Never ever ever swap again.
Did you just rick roll this thread? [evil] [clap]
For the non-tech guys: you're swapping memory all the time, it's part of the OS. Be it a little or a lot it happens unless you turn it off. It's like this parasitical little thing. More memory helps reduce it. I know people that just turn it off when they go above 4gigs or so of ram. The second HD really is awesome with boot up times.
Mitt - For best results - Increase memory #1, second HD #2. And don't turn off the swap file if you're doing CAD stuff.
Quote from: derby on October 23, 2009, 05:37:54 AM
in short, put your pagefile on your fastest, least-used disk.
exactly.
Quote from: Mad Duc on October 23, 2009, 05:51:54 AM
Did you just rick roll this thread? [evil] [clap]
i think i just got slap-happy with the prospect of a 100gb desktop system [laugh]
in the old days, with early versions of windows, some people thought it was cool to set up a RAM disk and put a page file on it. cause it was faster access than a hard drive.
and then someone (me) pointed out that you are reducing system RAM, necessitating CPU time to swap ----to a RAM disk...
do those solid-state hard drives have faster access than a Winchester hdd?
well, 4GB of 800 speed is one the way from newegg ;D I matched the brand, tested timings and voltage with what I have, so hopefully it will all be happy for 6GB total.
My computer wasn't slow yet with XP and Autocad 2006, it was actually fast IMO. I was just worried about 7 plus xp mode, and then autocad 2006 on top of that.
Next week I will have an update [thumbsup]
mitt
Quote from: ducatiz on October 23, 2009, 05:57:51 AM
do those solid-state hard drives have faster access than a Winchester hdd?
Yeah, not worth the price yet. If you're doing something really disk intensive I could the the argument for it. A 64 gig SSD is at least $150. Enough for the OS and not much else.
Mitt - tell us how it works out. I bet you'll be very happy with the Autocad boost.
Quote from: Mad Duc on October 23, 2009, 06:19:01 AM
Yeah, not worth the price yet. If you're doing something really disk intensive I could the the argument for it. A 64 gig SSD is at least $150. Enough for the OS and not much else.
ouch that's a lot, but i was thinking using it just for the pagefile. 64 gig might be perfect.
I have to say that the single most impressive improvement I have made to my computer is to RAID0 a pair of 120GB OCZ Vertex Series SSDs...INSANELY fast with some minor tweaks. getting reads in the neighborhood of 500 to 700 mb/s
One thing I did early on was take a 32GB thumb drive, pop it into one of my rear USBs and use it as my swap file drive. That's all it does plus it's faster than either a SATA or IDE HDD.
Going back a little bit, while yes, most DDR2 runs at same rated voltages, there are slight variations in actual voltage demand by the ram...mixing and matching puts more strain on the controller than is necessary. And multiple ram controllers are few and far between...in the case of his skt 775 mobo, it's possible but not likely as it is not likely a higher end workstation board which is more commonly going to have such a feature.
When you get into AMDs and the new core i7s, the controller is on the cpu die itself...
As for SSDs...a single 30gb SSD will easily hold your OS and several apps and will be a great increase in speed over a conventional mechanical drive. Then have a large storage and light weight apps drive that you dump your files on and you have a nice big speed increase for a reasonable ammount of money.
Are the ssd's faster than the standard hd's?
If I am going to be doing a clean install, and adding some ram, maybe I should add a 2nd hd for my page file?
How big should the page file be set at? Right now, it is set a 2GB min and 4GB max.
mitt
SSD's are faster but they are a new tech, pricey and some people are having issues with long term performance. Get a standard HD for your second drive if you want. It will help things. A good 1TB drive is $90 or less. Make your newest/fastest drive your OS drive, the other one the swap file.
Swap file should be RAM X 1.5 or 2. In your case 2x should be good. Format the HD and put the swap file on it BEFORE you put anything else on it. It will put in on the fastest part of the HD. Make it a static size, not system managed. This will keep the swap file from fragmenting and slowing things down.
Th best analogy I can think of is adding a new HD and moving the swap file over will be like having crisper throttle response - it won't add much horsepower but will make it react more quickly.
http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/ps/item?siteID=123112&id=2895328&linkID=9240617 (http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/ps/item?siteID=123112&id=2895328&linkID=9240617)
man, all you guys talking about drive performance and nobody has mentioned creating partitions with diskpart (with a 128 offset) instead of disk manager. ;D
nerd
Quote from: Mad Duc on October 23, 2009, 11:12:45 AM
SSD's are faster but they are a new tech, pricey and some people are having issues with long term performance. Get a standard HD for your second drive if you want. It will help things. A good 1TB drive is $90 or less. Make your newest/fastest drive your OS drive, the other one the swap file.
Isn't having a 250GB HD (my current HDD) as swap only a waste of space? And when you say OS drive, you mean windows + program files + my documents, or just windows?
mitt
my typical desktop setup:
C: OS and programs, Proj backup area
D: Swap file, photos, Proj
I will make a directory on both drives called proj. Proj ("project") will become in effect "My Documents". I copy d:proj to c:proj every once in a while to have a backup of it. Don't mix up the two or you'll overwrite the wrong files & lose data. IF you do this and lose a drive you won't lose much if any data.
This setup is also great if you have a huge problem and have to redo the OS. You can format C: and not lose any data. I started using this setup a long time ago when there were no bootloaders so I could change my OS anytime I wanted. Also I tended to mess with a lot of stuff and blew up the OS a lot so it made it quicker to recover.
Quote from: Mad Duc on October 25, 2009, 04:59:18 AM
my typical desktop setup:
C: OS and programs, Proj backup area
D: Swap file, photos, Proj
where do you keep the pr0n?
the xxx: drive... ;D
Haven't thrown the extra 4gb in yet, but overall I am impressed with win7 64bit. It is as fast as my xp was. The graphics are much better, and I am not having any difficulty finding my way in the gui.
I really like the fact that you can easily get admin rights while in user accounts to make changes or install software.
mitt
Can you switch from Vista to 7 without wiping your drive? The switch from XP to Vista would require wiping everything in the process...
Going from Vista to 7is almost completely automated. You click OK a couple of times and that is all there is to it.
XP to 7 tends to be...a bit more complicated. Hehe
The biggest push for Win 7 was for it to not be the resource hog that Vista is. It is also confgured to take advantage of new tech such as SSDs.
While Mad Duc and I disagree on the SSD thing (a 30 GB OCZ Vertex will give you wet dreams about geeky speed), the swap file advice is spot on.
With 2 drives, both being fresh formats and blank, install your OS on to the first drive. Once that is done, create your swap file on the second drive before putting anything else on there. It's OK to use it for storage as it will be used less (key is least used drive) than the OS/Apps drive.
Quote from: Mr. Exact on October 30, 2009, 04:48:41 AM
Can you switch from Vista to 7 without wiping your drive? The switch from XP to Vista would require wiping everything in the process...
I think so. I went from XP to 7, so I had to do a "wipe", although the disk formatting was pretty weak.
There was something fishy about the install. My first 7 install, I created the first user "Chad", that had admin priv. I didn't like the name, because I wanted a standard user Chad, so I changed the account name in control panel users. I looked at the user folders though, and it didn't change the Chad folder name...
So, I installed again, formatting the hd again, and picked a different 1st account name "Admin1". I then created a user Chad, and a user Julie. The 2 user folders had different icons though - one had a lock on it and the other not. They had different sharing configurations, which was odd. I wonder if the 2nd install picked up a setting from the first install that was still on the hd with user name Chad? The format option is just a quick format, not a complete format.
mitt
Quote from: mitt on October 30, 2009, 05:41:54 AM
I think so. I went from XP to 7, so I had to do a "wipe", although the disk formatting was pretty weak.
There was something fishy about the install. My first 7 install, I created the first user "Chad", that had admin priv. I didn't like the name, because I wanted a standard user Chad, so I changed the account name in control panel users. I looked at the user folders though, and it didn't change the Chad folder name...
standard behavior... xp does the same thing.
Quote from: mitt on October 30, 2009, 05:41:54 AMSo, I installed again, formatting the hd again, and picked a different 1st account name "Admin1". I then created a user Chad, and a user Julie. The 2 user folders had different icons though - one had a lock on it and the other not. They had different sharing configurations, which was odd. I wonder if the 2nd install picked up a setting from the first install that was still on the hd with user name Chad? The format option is just a quick format, not a complete format.
now that
is odd.
a quick format basically just deletes the file allocation table.
Quote from: derby on October 30, 2009, 06:31:44 AM
standard behavior... xp does the same thing.
now that is odd.
a quick format basically just deletes the file allocation table.
Is there a more complete way to do a clean install?
To get rid of the locked user icon, I manually went into the user folders, properties, security, and set the properties of the locked folder like the unlocked folder, and then the icons were the same.
I check the rights by doing a quick test - Admin1 can delete both user files, while user 1 cannot delete user 2 or vice versa.
mitt
Quote from: mitt on October 30, 2009, 06:38:37 AM
Is there a more complete way to do a clean install?
To get rid of the locked user icon, I manually went into the user folders, properties, security, and set the properties of the locked folder like the unlocked folder, and then the icons were the same.
I check the rights by doing a quick test - Admin1 can delete both user files, while user 1 cannot delete user 2 or vice versa.
mitt
Deletes the FAT? You mean the MFT?
That is very weird behavior. IF you did ANY kind of format and hten overwrote the disk, it should not be able to see the old data *unless you are digging for it with a utility.
Quick format should be sufficient.. wtf?
Keep us posted.
I might just do a 3rd install, and use unused 1st account name and user account names and see what happens. >:(
mitt
Quote from: ducatiz on October 30, 2009, 06:57:57 AM
Deletes the FAT? You mean the MFT?
i meant "allocation table" generically, but yeah, mft/master file table for ntfs.
Quote from: ducatiz on October 30, 2009, 06:57:57 AM
That is very weird behavior. IF you did ANY kind of format and hten overwrote the disk, it should not be able to see the old data *unless you are digging for it with a utility.
not exactly... both a quick format and a "full" format delete the fat/mft. the big difference is that the full format scans the entire partition for bad blocks/errors, etc. a full doesn't actually overwrite anything.
Quote from: ducatiz on October 30, 2009, 06:57:57 AM
Quick format should be sufficient.. wtf?
it depends. if you know the underlying disk hardware is good, a quick format is sufficient. that said, time permitting, i generally do a full format unless i'm dealing with a SAN disk (i have full confidence in the reliability of those disks/volumes due to the underlying architecture).
I wsant thinking about sector integrity I was thinking about the new os seeing the old one.
Quote from: ducatiz on October 30, 2009, 07:50:19 AM
I wsant thinking about sector integrity I was thinking about the new os seeing the old one.
I could imagine a scenario where it could happen. Since the format doesn't actually delete the data off the hd, if while reinstalling
the same version of OS, you installed a new standard user with the same name as an old admin user, and the OS found some of the old account permissions on the disk???
But it wouldn't with the MFT deleted. File security is in the mft as is name, # blocks etc
I am going to reinstall 1 more time anyway, I made my OS partition too big I think.
THREADJACK
My machine likes to crash a lot running vista.
I wonder if switching to win 7 would do anything to help?
1 yr old custom built desktop with fairly stout specs (Q9550 2.83gb processor and 4gb ddr3 mem)
Quote from: alfisti on October 30, 2009, 08:37:47 AM
I wonder if switching to win 7 would do anything to help?
depends on what the reason for the crashes are (faulty hardware, bad drivers, user error ;D)...
Quote from: derby on October 30, 2009, 08:39:43 AM
depends on what the reason for the crashes are (faulty hardware, bad drivers, user error ;D)...
Prolly a loose nut behind the keyboard! [laugh]
Should I check my error log and see what I can glean from it?
Reseat everything in a socket or slot.in ye olde days we'd use a pencil eraser on the card contacts but now most are gold
Quote from: ducatiz on October 30, 2009, 09:00:20 AM
Reseat everything in a socket or slot.in ye olde days we'd use a pencil eraser on the card contacts but now most are gold
Will do 'Tizz. Thanks! [thumbsup]
3rd install a charm. I used brand new account names, and all user folders have same permissions out of the block.
Now, I need to figure out how to move shared (public) folder onto a different drive. It was easy in XP, but so far doesn't seem easy in 7... That is where I store all our photos, so I want it on a bigger non OS drive.
mitt
Quote from: mitt on October 30, 2009, 11:07:44 AM
3rd install a charm. I used brand new account names, and all user folders have same permissions out of the block.
Now, I need to figure out how to move shared (public) folder onto a different drive. It was easy in XP, but so far doesn't seem easy in 7... That is where I store all our photos, so I want it on a bigger non OS drive.
mitt
you can "cheat" and mount your larger non-OS drive to a folder within the existing structure:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc753321.aspx (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc753321.aspx)
OK, after a day of use, the 3rd windows 7 install again changed the 2 user accounts to have different permissions.
For a visual of what I mean, here are some screen shots, where user Chad7 and test7 have same permissions, but Julie7 has different:
http://sites.google.com/site/mittelstadtc/Home/file1/permissionsproblem.pdf (http://sites.google.com/site/mittelstadtc/Home/file1/permissionsproblem.pdf)
I did a 4th clean install, and tried to monitor exactly when the permission change happens. It was after I changed the Julie desktop theme and user icon. But, when I changed those for Chad account, it never changed Chad's permissions.
Functionally, the accounts seem to be the same. It just bugs me that windows is doing this on its own!
I ended up sticking the 4gb of ram in from the beginning topic of this thread, and it is working fine with the 2gb that was already there. Not a noticeable speed increase, but I haven't really started using the computer for anything yet.
mitt
Quote from: derby on October 30, 2009, 11:44:03 AM
you can "cheat" and mount your larger non-OS drive to a folder within the existing structure:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc753321.aspx (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc753321.aspx)
I ended up using the Library function, and adding new user folders on the large hd to each users library for specific items (documents, pictures, music, etc). The library seems to be a nice feature.
mitt
Quote from: mitt on November 02, 2009, 04:21:58 AM
OK, after a day of use, the 3rd windows 7 install again changed the 2 user accounts to have different permissions.
For a visual of what I mean, here are some screen shots, where user Chad7 and test7 have same permissions, but Julie7 has different:
http://sites.google.com/site/mittelstadtc/Home/file1/permissionsproblem.pdf (http://sites.google.com/site/mittelstadtc/Home/file1/permissionsproblem.pdf)
I did a 4th clean install, and tried to monitor exactly when the permission change happens. It was after I changed the Julie desktop theme and user icon. But, when I changed those for Chad account, it never changed Chad's permissions.
Functionally, the accounts seem to be the same. It just bugs me that windows is doing this on its own!
mitt
hmm
i wonder if any changes to the account's files triggers a security change.. i.e. "this account is active, permissions now apply?"
weird..