Real World Performance - 512MB vs. 1GB System Memory. .

Hi,

I was just curious as to your thoughts on the subject of system memory. I
currently have 2 x 256MB (512MB total) in my AMD system, but I am quite
tempted to swap-out these sticks for 2 x 512MB versions. I am running
windows XP Pro, and I intend to start learning Video-Editing where I will be
manipulating 1-4Gb video files. I have a SATA RAID-0 system in place so the
disk-subsystem is happy.

I kinda have the feeing that I should opt for 1GB of superfast system
memory, but I am interested in hearing feedback from anyone who is using 1GB
DDR on a Windows XP Machine. . .

Wayne ][

Wayne Youngman wrote:
Hi,

I was just curious as to your thoughts on the subject of system
memory. I currently have 2 x 256MB (512MB total) in my AMD system,
but I am quite tempted to swap-out these sticks for 2 x 512MB
versions. I am running windows XP Pro, and I intend to start
learning Video-Editing where I will be manipulating 1-4Gb video
files. I have a SATA RAID-0 system in place so the disk-subsystem is
happy.

I kinda have the feeing that I should opt for 1GB of superfast system
memory, but I am interested in hearing feedback from anyone who is
using 1GB DDR on a Windows XP Machine. . .

You will almost certainly notice a difference when video editing. Check
your current Ram usage, I suspect that by doubling the Ram to a Gig, you
triple or more the amount of "free" ram for video editing. I'm using about
a 1/4 gig in Win2K right now and I only have a couple of things loaded,
outlook express is taking 30megs or so... the rest is services and windows.

If you want to go serious, you could use a WD Raptor as a scratch disk
alone. They write at about 50Megs/s.

Ben
--
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

"Wayne Youngman" wrote in message
...
Hi,

I was just curious as to your thoughts on the subject of system memory. I
currently have 2 x 256MB (512MB total) in my AMD system, but I am quite
tempted to swap-out these sticks for 2 x 512MB versions. I am running
windows XP Pro, and I intend to start learning Video-Editing where I will
be
manipulating 1-4Gb video files. I have a SATA RAID-0 system in place so
the
disk-subsystem is happy.

I kinda have the feeing that I should opt for 1GB of superfast system
memory, but I am interested in hearing feedback from anyone who is using
1GB
DDR on a Windows XP Machine. . .

Wayne ][


I have recently upgraded my system from an XP1900 with 512Mb DDR (PC2100 i
think it was) to an XP 2800 Barton with 1Gb unbranded PC3200 mem (both Win
XP Pro) and to be honest, unless using something extremely intensive (such
as Dreamweaver MX and Photoshop 7 at the same time), I hardly notice the
different in terms of the amount of disk churning/memory caching. Having
said that, as I spend a lot of time in PS and DWMX, i wouldn't be without
the extra 512Mb but if it weren't for those apps, I doubt I'd have bothered.
I think speed and quality is as important if notmore so than amount.. if i
were to do it again, I'd probably have gone for higher quality branded
memory with better CAS and clocking capability but I didn't so I'll live
with my current setup for now.

--
Sparky

"Ben Pope" wrote
You will almost certainly notice a difference when video editing. Check
your current Ram usage, I suspect that by doubling the Ram to a Gig, you
triple or more the amount of "free" ram for video editing. I'm using
about
a 1/4 gig in Win2K right now and I only have a couple of things loaded,
outlook express is taking 30megs or so... the rest is services and
windows.

If you want to go serious, you could use a WD Raptor as a scratch disk
alone. They write at about 50Megs/s.


Hi Ben,
thanks for that reply. Yes I did consider the WD *Raptors* but the 36GB
platter just seems to small. I read some news that WD are gonna release a
72GB version soon! that's more like it. I opted for the WD SE SATA (x2)
running on the NF7-S in RAID-0, so far I am very happy. Previously I was
using some IBM ATA/66 drives (Primary/Secondary Masters) and man I just
dreaded having to save some 2GB wav files. I have allot of friends who are
budding *super-star* movie makers (mainly 10 min short films) and they all
use DV cameras that can Fire-Wire into a PC for data dumps. They all hire
time on a *AVID* editing machine to put their films together, so I said
*Hold Up* why I don't I build us machines to run the AVID software. . . .

Anyway back to the main subject, which is total system ram. I will have to
do some *googling* I guess to find out more specs on a professional editing
machine. I have a good price on some mushkin memory, about £150 for 2x256MB
sticks or £281 for 2x512MB sticks, I could probably get 1GB of TwinMOS
PC3200 for £150.00, but I have been bitten by the *low cas* bug. . .

Wayne ][

"Sparky" wrote
I have recently upgraded my system from an XP1900 with 512Mb DDR (PC2100 i
think it was) to an XP 2800 Barton with 1Gb unbranded PC3200 mem (both Win
XP Pro) and to be honest, unless using something extremely intensive (such
as Dreamweaver MX and Photoshop 7 at the same time), I hardly notice the
different in terms of the amount of disk churning/memory caching. Having
said that, as I spend a lot of time in PS and DWMX, i wouldn't be without
the extra 512Mb but if it weren't for those apps, I doubt I'd have
bothered.
I think speed and quality is as important if notmore so than amount.. if i
were to do it again, I'd probably have gone for higher quality branded
memory with better CAS and clocking capability but I didn't so I'll live
with my current setup for now.


Hi,

thanks for your reply. Your comments echo what my gut tells me, that is
there is little advantage to be had from the extra 512MB. I will do some
research on the web to find out how *proper* editing machines are equipped.

Wayne ][

Wayne Youngman wrote:
"Ben Pope" wrote
You will almost certainly notice a difference when video editing.
Check your current Ram usage, I suspect that by doubling the Ram to
a Gig, you triple or more the amount of "free" ram for video
editing. I'm using about a 1/4 gig in Win2K right now and I only
have a couple of things loaded, outlook express is taking 30megs or
so... the rest is services and windows.

If you want to go serious, you could use a WD Raptor as a scratch
disk alone. They write at about 50Megs/s.


Hi Ben,
thanks for that reply. Yes I did consider the WD *Raptors* but the
36GB platter just seems to small.

Yeah, but a 36Gig scratch disk ain't bad :-)

Using mine for the OS and programs mostly. Media is elsewhere.

I read some news that WD are gonna release a 72GB version soon!

I believe thats quite possible - the drive is single platter right now (I
think) and there's usually room for 3 platters in there.

I figure a fast drive for well, speed and a large drive for videos and music
and everythng else. Yet to purchase the large drive, so using a 60Gig
GXP120.

that's more like it. I opted for the WD
SE SATA (x2) running on the NF7-S in RAID-0, so far I am very happy.

8Meg cache ones? They're pretty quick too, but thats without testing them.
I expect they're pretty nippy in RAID.

Anyway back to the main subject, which is total system ram. I will
have to do some *googling* I guess to find out more specs on a
professional editing machine.

It usually includes SCSI... :-) Thats basically why I suggested the
Raptor... it's basically a SCSI design drive with a SATA interface (10K RPM)

I have a good price on some mushkin
memory, about £150 for 2x256MB sticks or £281 for 2x512MB sticks, I
could probably get 1GB of TwinMOS PC3200 for £150.00, but I have been
bitten by the *low cas* bug. . .


Indeed - going from CL3 to CL2 can give you about 5% increase in bandwidth,
about the same improvement as increasing the FSB and RAM clock by 10%. (my
experience of bandwidth measured in memtest86)

Ben
--
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

Open task manager and observe your peak commit charge after several days of
working. Let that be your guide. I do lots of video capture, video editing
and DVD authoring. My machine is a dual processor RAID0 machine with 2GB
RAM. I've not rebooted for several weeks and my peak commit charge in that
period is slightly over 963MB. So in my case 512MB wouldn't be enough and
1GB would suffice. I obviously have a 2nd GB that's going to waste.

"Wayne Youngman" wrote in message
...
Hi,

I was just curious as to your thoughts on the subject of system memory. I
currently have 2 x 256MB (512MB total) in my AMD system, but I am quite
tempted to swap-out these sticks for 2 x 512MB versions. I am running
windows XP Pro, and I intend to start learning Video-Editing where I will
be
manipulating 1-4Gb video files. I have a SATA RAID-0 system in place so
the
disk-subsystem is happy.

I kinda have the feeing that I should opt for 1GB of superfast system
memory, but I am interested in hearing feedback from anyone who is using
1GB
DDR on a Windows XP Machine. . .

Wayne ][

Wayne Youngman wrote:
that's more like it. I opted for the WD
SE SATA (x2) running on the NF7-S in RAID-0, so far I am very happy.


"Ben Pope" wrote
8Meg cache ones? They're pretty quick too, but thats without testing
them.
I expect they're pretty nippy in RAID.


Hi,
yes the 8Mb cache ones, they are well fast. I thought all WD SE drives were
8MB?

Wayne ][

"Colon Terminus" wrote
Open task manager and observe your peak commit charge after several days
of
working. Let that be your guide. I do lots of video capture, video editing
and DVD authoring. My machine is a dual processor RAID0 machine with 2GB
RAM. I've not rebooted for several weeks and my peak commit charge in that
period is slightly over 963MB. So in my case 512MB wouldn't be enough and
1GB would suffice. I obviously have a 2nd GB that's going to waste.

Strange, I've just looked at that 'Peak Commit Charge' on four machines with
various memory capacities and it's always just below 50% of the available
memory. None has been booted more than a week though - I've been doing
some extensive 'tweaking' these last few days...

One machine - WinServ03 & 2x512MB.
Two machines - WinXP Home & 2x256MB.
One machine - WinXP Pro & 256MB.

Ciao...

[UK]_Nick...

Often the OS will try its best to keep a certain percent of RAM free, by
swapping to the pagefile. This ensures the system will have pretty snappy
performance as you interact with the desktop.

"Nick M V Salmon" wrote in message
...
"Colon Terminus" wrote
Open task manager and observe your peak commit charge after several days
of
working. Let that be your guide. I do lots of video capture, video
editing
and DVD authoring. My machine is a dual processor RAID0 machine with 2GB
RAM. I've not rebooted for several weeks and my peak commit charge in
that
period is slightly over 963MB. So in my case 512MB wouldn't be enough
and
1GB would suffice. I obviously have a 2nd GB that's going to waste.

Strange, I've just looked at that 'Peak Commit Charge' on four machines
with
various memory capacities and it's always just below 50% of the available
memory. None has been booted more than a week though - I've been doing
some extensive 'tweaking' these last few days...

One machine - WinServ03 & 2x512MB.
Two machines - WinXP Home & 2x256MB.
One machine - WinXP Pro & 256MB.

Ciao...

[UK]_Nick...