I do the same thing. Why is a motherboard with dual channel putting a bunch of triple channel RAM in the supported list?
There's really no such thing as dual or triple channel RAM. Basically how it works is this. If your motherboard supports dual channel, and you put in an even number of sticks in the correct slots, and the motherboard recognizes the identical sticks, the memory bandwidth will double. Triple channel is the same only it will triple the bandwidth with sticks in sets of three.
The thing is that some motherboards will refuse to enable dual/triple channel if the sticks aren't exactly matching. When someone sells a dual or triple channel set, all they are doing is selling a matched set. multiple sticks all from the same batch that should cooperate very nicely, and get the motherboard to enable the feature.
Does dual channel really improve performance, or is it one of those situations of "It's simple to do, why not?"
Yes, it really improves performance in bandwidth heavy applications. However, there is some debate as to whether tri-channel ram really provides meaningful benefit over dual-channel.
Yes, it really improves performance in bandwidth heavy applications. However, there is some debate as to whether tri-channel ram really provides meaningful benefit over dual-channel.
I think it theoretically would, there just aren't any applications that will us that much memory bandwidth. This is what they talk about when they use the world bottleneck. Imagine a giant sewer pipe. That can handle a lot of water per second. Now the data coming off of your hard drive is a kitchen faucet. Yeah, making the sewer pipe bigger really isn't helping you.
I think it theoretically would, there just aren't any applications that will us that much memory bandwidth. This is what they talk about when they use the world bottleneck. Imagine a giant sewer pipe. That can handle a lot of water per second. Now the data coming off of your hard drive is a kitchen faucet. Yeah, making the sewer pipe bigger really isn't helping you.
Well there's also the fact that adding channels adds overhead. I remember way back when I tested such things, that single channel would yield X bandwidth, but dual channeling the same ram only yielded 1.5X bandwidth or so. I presume that tri-channel has similar issues.
It's part of windows design, it likes to keep whatever is in RAM in the swap to. So it doesn't have to move it there if it needs to swap.
Show me where this is documented.
If it were true, my hard drive would be ticking like crazy, constantly, which it is not. Also, that is not what swapping is.
Swapping, as the name implies, is a swap. You have a program that is running in memory. You have another program also running, but there is not enough RAM for both programs to be in memory simultaneously. Therefore, the operating system will write the memory of one of the processes to disk and execute instructions for the other program which is in memory. Then when the scheduler gives CPU time to the other program, it will swap them. The currently executing process always needs to be in RAM, so it writes the unscheduled process to disk, so execution can be resumed later.
You will know when a computer is swapping because the hard drive will tick like crazy, non-stop, and it will slow to a crawl. Is anyone here experiencing those symptoms?
I'll have to try and dig the source on that, I read it about a year ago. Also, I know what swapping is. I know how it's supposed to work. All I can say is, it's Windows, it's fucking bizarro land of OS design. :P
I'll have to try and dig the source on that, I read it about a year ago. Also, I know what swapping is. I know how it's supposed to work. All I can say is, it's Windows, it's fucking bizarro land of OS design. :P
Well, even if what you described is true, it's not swapping. It's a swap cache, which is really pointless, and too stupid of an idea even for Windows. Though, it may provide some really slight improvement if it were activate on machines with very low amounts of RAM.
Well, even if what you described is true, it's not swapping. It's a swap cache, which is really pointless, and too stupid of an idea even for Windows. Though, it may provide some really slight improvement if it were activate on machines with very low amounts of RAM.
I would personally downgrade the video card and use that money to get a 1366 motherboard to where you can future proof yourself for the new socket platform that intel will continue developing on. As it is much easier to upgrade the video card then the processor which can require a new motherboard.
Ya, I realize that probably would've been a better way to go. I've already purchased the mobo and cpu though. The reason I did what I did was I realized that the i7-920 performed similarly to the i5-750 (or was close enough for my uses) and was much cheaper. I now know the extra cost was for a newer motherboard and hyperthreading. Still, this motherboard should keep me going for a while. (I hope)
It's my turn now: I have the following which I think I can cannibalize, unless better suggestions are made: Tall, ATX-type case. It's an old Gateway 700XL tower, but it's relatively quiet and has a bunch of space inside plus front-side USB ports. I also have a CD writer and a DVD writer that function perfectly, but are very old. Two LCD screens, so new ones are not necessary.
Other than that, I am looking to put together a new system. I know the basics like, how much HD space I want, how much ram minimum, etc. But I want 'expert' opinions. I want a rig that I can run Photoshop on flawlessly, and do some gaming as well. Needless to say, it needs to have some muscle. However I do not want anything like, redundant hard drives, or water cooling, or any other of the crazy shit that can get crammed in there. I am looking for suggestions for a MoBo/Proscessor/Ram combination that would suit me, and I want to try and keep costs down as much as possible. Under $500 would be fucking amazing, under $1000 is necessary.
My computer is not breaking, but even after a new HD it is starting to run noticeably slower. The inability to push the RAM past 1g is also disappointing. I have time to make this decision, and will look to purchase possibly near the end of December if at all.
Under $500 would be fucking amazing, under $1000 is necessary.
You can get the god of gods for $800. Also, almost nothing in your old computer will be worth bringing over. Yeah the optical drives still work, but a new one that is SATA is $20.
Do you have any preference on dual-core versus quad-core? What about the quantity of RAM? 4? 6? 8?
You get an i5 with 4 gigs of RAM. Simple as that. There's no reason to get less because prices are so low, and no reason to get more, because it won't make a difference.
This. I built my tower almost a year ago for $700-$900. It still runs brand new games at max settings flawlessly (except for Crysis, which for some reason I can't get past the main menu).
Yeah the optical drives still work, but a new one that is SATA is $20.
Yeah. I tried to salvage an IDE drive, but it was too much work. My tower doesn't even have an internal optical drive right now; I just use an external when I need to.
Do you have any preference on dual-core versus quad-core? What about the quantity of RAM? 4? 6? 8?
i7 overclocked to 4.00GHz per core, 16 GB DDR3 RAM @ 1600MHz, lowest latency possible.
I just threw this together. God of gods, for < $800. Far from perfect, but what do you expect for 5 minutes of work? You can definitely shave off $100 or so to get a SATA hard drive and an optical drive in there.
Comments
The thing is that some motherboards will refuse to enable dual/triple channel if the sticks aren't exactly matching. When someone sells a dual or triple channel set, all they are doing is selling a matched set. multiple sticks all from the same batch that should cooperate very nicely, and get the motherboard to enable the feature.
EDIT: Under normal use. Anyone can load up every game in their Steam library all at once.
If it were true, my hard drive would be ticking like crazy, constantly, which it is not. Also, that is not what swapping is.
Swapping, as the name implies, is a swap. You have a program that is running in memory. You have another program also running, but there is not enough RAM for both programs to be in memory simultaneously. Therefore, the operating system will write the memory of one of the processes to disk and execute instructions for the other program which is in memory. Then when the scheduler gives CPU time to the other program, it will swap them. The currently executing process always needs to be in RAM, so it writes the unscheduled process to disk, so execution can be resumed later.
You will know when a computer is swapping because the hard drive will tick like crazy, non-stop, and it will slow to a crawl. Is anyone here experiencing those symptoms?
I have the following which I think I can cannibalize, unless better suggestions are made:
Tall, ATX-type case. It's an old Gateway 700XL tower, but it's relatively quiet and has a bunch of space inside plus front-side USB ports.
I also have a CD writer and a DVD writer that function perfectly, but are very old.
Two LCD screens, so new ones are not necessary.
Other than that, I am looking to put together a new system. I know the basics like, how much HD space I want, how much ram minimum, etc. But I want 'expert' opinions. I want a rig that I can run Photoshop on flawlessly, and do some gaming as well. Needless to say, it needs to have some muscle. However I do not want anything like, redundant hard drives, or water cooling, or any other of the crazy shit that can get crammed in there. I am looking for suggestions for a MoBo/Proscessor/Ram combination that would suit me, and I want to try and keep costs down as much as possible. Under $500 would be fucking amazing, under $1000 is necessary.
My computer is not breaking, but even after a new HD it is starting to run noticeably slower. The inability to push the RAM past 1g is also disappointing. I have time to make this decision, and will look to purchase possibly near the end of December if at all.
http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/PublicWishDetail.aspx?WishListNumber=14746352