Thinkpads Forum

brentpresley wrote:

Paul386 wrote: I have used VMware, I understand its memory needs.

However, I will say again, you will not be able to notice the difference.

Then you must be allocating only 256MB of memory to your VMs. B/C more memory, AND FASTER MEMORY make a HUGE real-world difference in the responsiveness to this program.

I don't care about synthetics and don't use them. What I DO CARE about is how quickly 1) my machines boot, and 2) how fast they load programs.

If you tell me that isn't FASTER with FASTER memory, I'm going to come out and say POINT BLANK that you either:
a) don't have a clue what you are talking about
b) lying b/c you can't admit when you are wrong
c) all of the above



So, since memory speeds don't matter, I guess you are running DDR2 PC2-3200 in all your laptops, right?

I never said it would not be faster.

What I did say was:

paul386 wrote: There will be a performance boost from DDR2-667 to DDR2-800, however, it will not be significant (and probably not worth the money of an upgrade). You would never be able to tell the difference between DDR2-667 and DDR2-800 without a synthetic benchmark.

If you already have 2GB of DDR2-667 memory in your T61, there is absolutely no reason to waist the money upgrading to DDR2-800.

I used VMware (with 1GB of memory allocated for my Linux distro) to run a 64bit SMP version of Folding@Home. This is an extremely CPU and memory intensive program. Yes, it worked faster at higher speeds, however, it was insignificant.

If you already have 2GB of DDR2-667 memory in your T61, there is absolutely no reason to waist the money upgrading to DDR2-800.

I used VMware (with 1GB of memory allocated for my Linux distro) to run a 64bit SMP version of Folding@Home. This is an extremely CPU and memory intensive program. Yes, it worked faster at higher speeds, however, it was insignificant.[/quote]


F@H is extremely CPU intensive YES, but NOT memory BANDWIDTH intensive. The VAST majority of it's workset fits within the L2 Cache of modern processors. The data set is stored in memory, but accessed INFREQUENTLY, so only memory SIZE and not SPEED are relevant for a program like this.

Your example is flawed.

I don't think anyone should try to out talk brentpresley when it comes to memory

EDIT: sp

True that. And also you guys know about the rule on humongus quotes. Not needed.

brentpresley wrote:F@H is extremely CPU intensive YES, but NOT memory BANDWIDTH intensive. The VAST majority of it's workset fits within the L2 Cache of modern processors. The data set is stored in memory, but accessed INFREQUENTLY, so only memory SIZE and not SPEED are relevant for a program like this.

Your example is flawed.

Heh... That is why F@H uses over 512MB of memory?

Listen, I know the DDR2-800 is faster. I just wouldn't recommend someone buying 2GB of DDR2-800 when they already have DDR2-667. It just isn't worthwhile.

You're right, it's not worth it, but if you don't already have the memory then it's worth getting.

Paul386 wrote:

brentpresley wrote:F@H is extremely CPU intensive YES, but NOT memory BANDWIDTH intensive. The VAST majority of it's workset fits within the L2 Cache of modern processors. The data set is stored in memory, but accessed INFREQUENTLY, so only memory SIZE and not SPEED are relevant for a program like this.

Your example is flawed.

Heh... That is why F@H uses over 512MB of memory?

Listen, I know the DDR2-800 is faster. I just wouldn't recommend someone buying 2GB of DDR2-800 when they already have DDR2-667. It just isn't worthwhile.

CAN YOU NOT READ?!?!?

Just b/c a program USES 512MB of memory, doesn't mean it is CONSTANTLY WRITING to that memory.

F@H loads up the memory and then makes VERY SPARSE accesses to it.

It's like storing 500 drums of gasoline in your garage and NEVER OPENING up the door to get inside except once a month.

It's not bandwidth dependent.

On the other hand, lets take an application, like SAY A GAME with LARGE MAPS. That program CONSTANTLY goes to memory to pull new texture maps.

In that case, it's like having a PIPE hooked up to that 500 drums of gasoline in your garage so that you can fill up race cars that fly by on a track next door. In that case, THE BIGGER THE PIPE, THE FASTER THE CARS GET LOADED UP.


You are essentially arguing that we have reached a state where BANDWIDTH DOESN'T MATTER.

I'm saying you are FLAT OUT WRONG.

CAN I BE ANY MORE CLEAR THAN THAT?



Plus, the price premium of these things is like $20 per 1GB stick. When all of use are spending $1000-2000 on these laptops, we would be NUTS not to spend the extra SMALL amount of money to fully max out the memory subsystem's capabilities.

Granted, Lenovo isn't YET selling these modules. But OTHERS are.

Your still not getting what I am saying... So I am done here.

MOD EDIT: Long and Nested quotes are a no no. I will edit them for you.

Paul386 wrote: Your still not getting what I am saying... So I am done here.

Oh no, I GOT what you were saying. You are just WRONG.

COST is not an issue with these. The differential is too small.

So that argument you made is FALSE.

SPEED is SIGNIFICANTLY different if you are running the apps to take advantage of it. So you were wrong there as well.

Let me guess, next you are going to argue that there isn't any "REAL WORLD" performance benefits to 7200RPM hard drives vs. 5400RPM?

Senior Admin Edit
gentlemen, cool your jets, please..
debate does not need to turn ugly..

Unlocking. Please be kind.

brentpresley wrote:And YES. The T61 DOES RUN 800MHz memory.

I have USED one and run the memory in it. Have you?

brentpresley,
i don't mean to revive this debate as i can see that it got quite heated. however, i just want to ask if you confirmed that your t61's memory was running at 800mhz. is it possible that it was underclocked? if it, indeed, was running at 800mhz, i will just assume that the intel pages are incorrect or outdated.

in the end, i think we all benefit from support for faster memory speed. leaving aside the debate over whether the additional cycles will make a noticeable difference, i'm sure i'm not the only one who would rather run at a 1:1 memory divider versus 6:5.

thanks,
bA

boyAfraid wrote:

brentpresley wrote:And YES. The T61 DOES RUN 800MHz memory.

I have USED one and run the memory in it. Have you?

brentpresley,
i don't mean to revive this debate as i can see that it got quite heated. however, i just want to ask if you confirmed that your t61's memory was running at 800mhz. is it possible that it was underclocked? if it, indeed, was running at 800mhz, i will just assume that the intel pages are incorrect or outdated.

in the end, i think we all benefit from support for faster memory speed. leaving aside the debate over whether the additional cycles will make a noticeable difference, i'm sure i'm not the only one who would rather run at a 1:1 memory divider versus 6:5.

thanks,
bA

CPU-Z doesn't lie.

i was hoping you would say that.

-bA