Performance gain between 1GB and 2GB memory in T42?

Message

ludu35 · #1 Post by **ludu35** » Sat Apr 30, 2005 7:44 pm

hi
i am planning to get my new T42 up to 2GB memory. It is 2379-DXUm and currently has 1GB. Can someone please tell me if I get a big performace boot after this upgrade? Or i should keep it as 1GB? Thanks
LD

yukit · #2 Post by **yukit** » Sat Apr 30, 2005 8:10 pm

Depends on applications you use . Unless the application is using a big block of memory & constantly paging memory in & out, you won't notice a big change.

Maybe some improvement due to a bigger system cache, but I don't expect much change under a normal condition.

I did not experience much change when I went from 512MB to 1GB. I wanted more memory because I can run multiple virtual machines with VMware.

Kenn · #3 Post by **Kenn** » Sat Apr 30, 2005 8:11 pm

If you're looking for general computing improvements, 2GB probably won't help. 1GB is plenty, and it's really the sweet spot for moderately-high usage. I commonly have 5-10 apps running, including web, email, word, excel, photoshop, limewire, and itunes, and my peak memory usage rarely goes over 700MB.

If you're doing some really hardcore rendering, programming, db work or multimedia encoding you may need to go past 1GB, but for most people I'd recommend saving the $300.

ludu35 · #4 Post by **ludu35** » Sat Apr 30, 2005 8:21 pm

Thanks guys for all inputs, mostly i only using telnet from my T42, other heavy tasks are taking care by Sun box. Save $300.00 is the best choice for now

BTW, Got an extra new UltraBay Battery, don't use it. how much should I sell it? anyone interesting? I am in San Jose, CA

yukit · #5 Post by **yukit** » Sat Apr 30, 2005 8:30 pm

ludu35 wrote:Thanks guys for all inputs, mostly i only using telnet from my T42, other heavy tasks are taking care by Sun box. Save $300.00 is the best choice for now

If you are using T42 for just telnet/putty, you could have saved a lot more.
Any cheap laptop from ebay would work, but it would not look as cool

A few of my friends are using PowerBook/iBook running OSX for sys admin work.

#6 Post by **K. Eng** » Sat Apr 30, 2005 8:31 pm

Try the for sale/trade area!

http://forum.thinkpads.com/viewforum.php?f=11

ludu35 wrote:BTW, Got an extra new UltraBay Battery, don't use it. how much should I sell it? anyone interesting? I am in San Jose, CA

Batuta · #7 Post by **Batuta** » Sat Apr 30, 2005 9:34 pm

#8 Post by **AlphaKilo470** » Sat Apr 30, 2005 10:24 pm

Unless you do a ton of extremely hardcorr gaming and/or AutoCAD or something else thats heavy on the system, I don't see much of a point in having more than 1gb in a personal computer until Longhorn comes out.

#9 Post by **RonS** » Sat Apr 30, 2005 11:22 pm

I have two 2GB on my T42p. I'm a software developer, writing applications that ingest 1-5 GB of data per session. I never actually timed it, but I don't notice any difference between 1GB and 2GB of installed memory, except that it takes longer to hibernate because the hiberfil.sys file is getting 2GB rather than 1GB per hibernation.

Unless you know you need RAM beyond 1GB, I wouldn't bother.

JHEM · #10 Post by **JHEM** » Sun May 01, 2005 12:10 am

I'm an engineer in real life and run AutoCAD on all of my systems. I've never seen any remarkable benefit to having 2GB in my systems, yet do see a noticeable performance increase when upgrading to 1.5GB from either .5GB or 1GB.

I've pretty much standardized my T4X systems at 1.5GB installed RAM.

Regards,

James

baldyguy · #11 Post by **baldyguy** » Sun May 01, 2005 12:57 am

Nice to know, I guess maybe 2GB is an overkill?

dct · #12 Post by **dct** » Sun May 01, 2005 7:37 am

Yep, 2GB is overkill unless you need it! If you use VMWare or Virtual PC etc then 2GB is fantastic - can run several virtual machines at once.

If you don't need it, its definitely overkill...

Cheers

David

awolfe63 · #13 Post by **awolfe63** » Sun May 01, 2005 11:54 am

I run standard apps - big pdf docs (thousands of scanned/bitmapped pages), word, excel, ppt, browsers, OCR, simple games.

I have 1.5GB - but have never seen my usage crack 1GB. I added 1GB to my 512MB since it was the last slot - but in retrospect 1GB is plently for me.

vovus · #14 Post by **vovus** » Sun May 01, 2005 1:27 pm

http://www.compdoc.ru/comp/memory/mem_i ... _capacity/
sorry, only in russian, but you can see some diagrams there..

dr.b · #15 Post by **dr.b** » Sun May 01, 2005 2:03 pm

I like Layers....so 2 GB for me...but that could change with CS2.

Nxtson · #16 Post by **Nxtson** » Tue May 03, 2005 5:29 am

When you open a large file in Photoshop,you will known What's a huge 2Gb memory installed.

stgreek · #17 Post by **stgreek** » Tue May 03, 2005 5:49 am

Nxtson wrote:When you open a large file in Photoshop,you will known What's a huge 2Gb memory installed.

The awful memory management of Windows will usually force the file into swap on the first place, leaving your extra memory unused

#18 Post by **jdhurst** » Tue May 03, 2005 6:54 am

stgreek wrote: The awful memory management of Windows will usually force the file into swap on the first place, leaving your extra memory unused

I have my swap file set for 256Mb min and 768 max. I have 768Mb of physical ram. I run VMware and virtual machines. With two machines running (one host and one guest), I never run out of physical memory, the swap file has never gotten larger than minimum, and it does not appear to even being used.

I have some difficulty describing that as "awful". Cheers, ... JDH

stgreek · #19 Post by **stgreek** » Tue May 03, 2005 7:11 am

jdhurst wrote: I have my swap file set for 256Mb min and 768 max. I have 768Mb of physical ram. I run VMware and virtual machines. With two machines running (one host and one guest), I never run out of physical memory, the swap file has never gotten larger than minimum, and it does not appear to even being used.

I have some difficulty describing that as "awful". Cheers, ... JDH

As an aside, I assume that your guest OS uses little to no memory, as at least 200 or so is used by XP, so it should at least reach the limit of your swap file.

However, that is not my point (and neither is Windows bashing). What I was talking about is that Windows XP usually puts programs/files straight away on the swap, WITHOUT using physical memory, regardless of your choices on the relevant config tab. So although you will only have used 300 MB or so from your physical memory, your swap file will be used. This is what I meant by "awful memory management", since it means slower applications (esp. on a 4200 drive) and waste of money on extra memory. If you want an easy proof, PM me and I'll send you something to check.

Stavros

#20 Post by **jdhurst** » Tue May 03, 2005 9:06 am

stgreek wrote:As an aside, I assume that your guest OS uses little to no memory, as at least 200 or so is used by XP, so it should at least reach the limit of your swap file.

Stavros

A guest OS is a complete, separate machine and it gobbles memory. I limit my guests to 192Mb each.

Now, there is a known issue with Symantec Corporate Client Security wherein the default settings force the page file to the Windows max (1.2Gb in my case). I have fixed that, but for a time I ran with no page file (not 0 min., but rather no file at all). It did not change my memory usage or properties of operation. I am sure you are right that the swap file gets used if it is there, but it is at least unnoticeable to me in normal operation.

One day, I am going to move to 1Gb so I can run 4 computers at once. Cheers, ... JD Hurst

stgreek · #21 Post by **stgreek** » Tue May 03, 2005 10:00 am

jdhurst wrote: A guest OS is a complete, separate machine and it gobbles memory. I limit my guests to 192Mb each.

Yes, I assumed you are using a bit more for your guests, as I believe VMware recommends at least 384 MB for a Windows guest. For Linux or BSD guests, I guess 192 MB is fine.

Now, there is a known issue with Symantec Corporate Client Security wherein the default settings force the page file to the Windows max (1.2Gb in my case). I have fixed that, but for a time I ran with no page file (not 0 min., but rather no file at all). It did not change my memory usage or properties of operation. I am sure you are right that the swap file gets used if it is there, but it is at least unnoticeable to me in normal operation.

Here is the crazy thing in my case: Without any Symantec product, by setting no page file (like you, not 0 min but completely non-existent), Windows will create a page file for me and put my program in there, although the program takes up 180MB and I have more than 600 free! If anyone ever has encountered a similar situation (most likely a programmer, but I suggest users to try it too), I would really appreciate any comments/advice they have!

Stavros

Batuta · #22 Post by **Batuta** » Tue May 03, 2005 10:32 am

asiafish · #23 Post by **asiafish** » Tue May 03, 2005 10:46 am

Would 1GB physical ram be enough to run XP without a swap file at all? What about 1.5GB?

If it is enough, logic suggests that not using any swap file at all in Windows would be a rather large speed boost, if it is stable. Anyone have any experience with this?

Batuta · #24 Post by **Batuta** » Tue May 03, 2005 11:14 am

stgreek · #25 Post by **stgreek** » Tue May 03, 2005 12:15 pm

Batuta wrote:As I said, the Windows memory manager will always page out code that has not been used for a certain time.

No, in my case I am talking about just-compiled, just-run code. It is not moved from memory to pagefile, it goes straight to pagefile. I would understand the former, the problem is the latter!

Stavros

Nxtson · #26 Post by **Nxtson** » Tue May 03, 2005 12:18 pm

stgreek wrote:
jdhurst wrote: I have my swap file set for 256Mb min and 768 max. I have 768Mb of physical ram. I run VMware and virtual machines. With two machines running (one host and one guest), I never run out of physical memory, the swap file has never gotten larger than minimum, and it does not appear to even being used.

I have some difficulty describing that as "awful". Cheers, ... JDH
As an aside, I assume that your guest OS uses little to no memory, as at least 200 or so is used by XP, so it should at least reach the limit of your swap file.

However, that is not my point (and neither is Windows bashing). What I was talking about is that Windows XP usually puts programs/files straight away on the swap, WITHOUT using physical memory, regardless of your choices on the relevant config tab. So although you will only have used 300 MB or so from your physical memory, your swap file will be used. This is what I meant by "awful memory management", since it means slower applications (esp. on a 4200 drive) and waste of money on extra memory. If you want an easy proof, PM me and I'll send you something to check.

Stavros

I mean, In Photoshop, you can set It's use maximum physical memory and then, uses HDD as vitual memory. You ought to set the HDD in two patrition: one for Swap file and another for vitual memory. So, 2Gb memory is huge. I don't know what happen to another software.

Performance gain between 1GB and 2GB memory in T42?

Performance gain between 1GB and 2GB memory in T42?

Who is online