| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 50313 | 2004-10-17 02:14:00 | dual channel ddr | Term_X (560) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 281815 | 2004-10-17 02:14:00 | Hi Folks :-) just recently bought a new box with an amd 2500xp barton cpu on a gigabyte gn400-l motherboard. and 512 megs of ddr pc3200 400 mhz ram (2 x 256) . ive increased the fsb in the bios to 200 and its now showing as an xp3200+ . only just had another look at the mobo manual with regards to running it dual channel. so put the 2nd stick of ram in the 3rd slot?. rebooted and now shows as "dual channel enabled" on bootup.. seems to be running a little better. and a bit faster . now dont really understand the benefit of dual channel.. the book says it will now run at 400 mhz fsb.. but with the overclock.. its already running at 400 mhz fsb?.. so reallly want to understand in my situation how much of a benefit will duall channel be and also.. what other things can i do to make my system as efficient as possible.. checked google and the other suggestion was if you have 2 hard drives to have no pagefile on C: and have the page file only on d: with a page file size min ( 2 x total ram size) max ( 3 x total ram size). also knocked out some uneccessary running processes.. any more suggestions please would be helpful. Run win xp pro cheers :-) Term X |
Term_X (560) | ||
| 281816 | 2004-10-17 06:58:00 | Bump | Mrs Bump (5694) | ||
| 281817 | 2004-10-17 07:06:00 | thanks for that Mrs Bump :-) and now that im back on the top.... please someone knowledgeable help meee!! cheers Term X |
Term_X (560) | ||
| 281818 | 2004-10-17 08:38:00 | Dual channel is faster becuase it creates two effective pathways to the memory and theortically runs at twice the speed as if it was single channel. In fact it is not quite twice the memory speed but pretty close if you just run pure memory tests. In real life you get quite a benifet out of it but you really need quite a bit of it to make the most of it. The programs you run will determine the benifet of the dual channel but everything will be affected for the better in some way. As for the drives you dont have to have 2 physical drives. You can partition a single drive into multiple partions which then show up as individual drives. ie C, D, E etc. If you put the swap file on one by itself then it will not get fragmented as much as other data is not written to that partition. Me I let the system run the swap file as it needs but then on my big machine I have 1GB of ram and it does not need the swap file very often. Also I run it on a RAID0 SATA drive that is made of 2 Segate 120GB 7200rpm 8MB cache drives which gives me 240GB space. As it is RAID0 it is a lot faster than a straight drive and this is especially noticeable when copying files from one place to another. |
Big John (551) | ||
| 281819 | 2004-10-17 08:51:00 | thanks for that Big John! just made things a little more clearer for me and i have definately noticed an improvement in performance. I do a lot of video encoding and any improvement in processing/encoding time is a bonus. cheers Term X |
Term_X (560) | ||
| 281820 | 2004-10-17 19:12:00 | If there is only 1 drive, the page file is better off left in the Windows partition. Pagefile fragmentation only occurs if the initial size is so small that the file has to expand frequently. Each time you reboot the pagefile index is rewritten so all old content is ignored. Copying files from one place to another is faster when there is a separate source and destination drive than within a RAID array |
PaulD (232) | ||
| 281821 | 2004-10-18 02:31:00 | > If there is only 1 drive, the page file is better off > left in the Windows partition. Pagefile fragmentation > only occurs if the initial size is so small that the > file has to expand frequently. Each time you reboot > the pagefile index is rewritten so all old content is > ignored. That is right. So if you make a partition with exactly the size of the swap file you want (making sure it has plenty of room) and then manually set it so that it forces it to be the same size all the time then there is absolutely no fragmentation at all. This had been proved to work much better than having it on a drive with it amongst files. But as I said I left mine on C: because mine barely gets used. > Copying files from one place to another is faster > when there is a separate source and destination drive > than within a RAID array Most times but then a RAID0 array is the best of all worlds and fast all the time during writing data to the disk as well. |
Big John (551) | ||
| 281822 | 2004-10-18 04:31:00 | cheers again Paul and Big John, very informative information :-) Term X |
Term_X (560) | ||
| 1 | |||||