Memory speed; cache size?

Paul D. Buck
Paul D. Buck
Joined: 17 Jan 05
Posts: 754
Credit: 5,385,205
RAC: 0

> I have a computer running

Message 9426 in response to message 9423

> I have a computer running BOINC E@H with 128 MB RAM & WIN98, usually
> without much else running. Whether there is a significant penalty for such a
> small amount of memory is not clear. The CPU is an AthlonXP at 1700 MHz &
> does an E@H work unit in 30500 sec. I tried win2k first & it would not
> run.

This is a little about personal preferences and "feel", but, since Win95 I have been recommending 256M for systems as a minimum, for the Windows NT line, now including all versions of XP should have minimum of 512M.

People do say that they can get by with less, but, it is *MY* belief that performance suffers. WIth memory being as cheap as it has been for quite some time there is not much cause to not get more than "needed".

I usually don't put less than 1G now, in part because of this. When you start to add things like "Keep in Memory", well, the more memory the better.

gravywavy
gravywavy
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 392
Credit: 68,962
RAC: 0

My posting was /relatively/

My posting was /relatively/ off topic, so I moved it to a new thread in the cafe, see:

http://einsteinathome.org/node/188762

apols to Paul D Buck who'd already replied...

~~gravywavy

Paul D. Buck
Paul D. Buck
Joined: 17 Jan 05
Posts: 754
Credit: 5,385,205
RAC: 0

> Again, real world

Message 9428 in response to message 9427

> Again, real world constraints make real-world machines slower than the
> theoretical limits, but I find it mind boggling that our home computers are
> now fast enough that relativity sets meaningful limits to their performance,
> and within a factor of five of the practical limits.

One of the reasons that the Cray computers at one time were made in a semi-circle ... to reduce the path lengths ...

However, this is the reason that the clock speed mania is comming to a halt ... and on a chip by chip basis we are moving to more and more paralellism to improve performance.

JW Davidson
JW Davidson
Joined: 25 Mar 05
Posts: 1
Credit: 193,450
RAC: 0

I have just discovered that

I have just discovered that Disabling the Windows Services:

Telephony and Remote Access Connection Manager

can make a large performance difference, especially on a slower CPU or one with less memory.

Of course you can only turn these off if they are unneeded. They are required for VOIP, VPN or modem use at least. It is necessary to set the service properties to diabled and then reboot the computer for this change to work.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.