RAM

Discussion in 'Computer Information' started by Kele, Apr 13, 2011.

  1. Kele

    Kele Guest

    I have a question for some feedback. I see mixed opinions about it on-line.
    Is it ok to use RAM cards of different sizes, ie: 512 + 256 if the speed and
    all that match? Is it true that mixing different RAM sizes, the system
    utilizes the RAM poorly in any way? Would you leave the 256 RAM card off?
    Will both combine to be an actual 768 MB of RAM? I should put the 512 in
    slot one and 256 in slot 2 or no matter?
    Kele, Apr 13, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Kele

    Paul Guest

    Kele wrote:
    > I have a question for some feedback. I see mixed opinions about it on-line.
    > Is it ok to use RAM cards of different sizes, ie: 512 + 256 if the speed and
    > all that match? Is it true that mixing different RAM sizes, the system
    > utilizes the RAM poorly in any way? Would you leave the 256 RAM card off?
    > Will both combine to be an actual 768 MB of RAM? I should put the 512 in
    > slot one and 256 in slot 2 or no matter?


    To make this more fun, why not name the make and model of motherboard ?

    That would narrow down the scope of the question considerably.

    On a site like Crucial or Kingston, they list available memory for
    somewhere around 10,000 motherboards. You'd have to expect a few
    peculiarities with that many designs. If you name the motherboard,
    there is a better chance you'll get information you can use.

    Paul
    Paul, Apr 13, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Kele snuck on to your hard drive to scribble:
    > I have a question for some feedback. I see mixed opinions about it on-line.
    > Is it ok to use RAM cards of different sizes, ie: 512 + 256 if the speed and
    > all that match? Is it true that mixing different RAM sizes, the system
    > utilizes the RAM poorly in any way? Would you leave the 256 RAM card off?
    > Will both combine to be an actual 768 MB of RAM? I should put the 512 in
    > slot one and 256 in slot 2 or no matter?


    Without further details, we'll go with this.

    Often, mixed RAM is incompatible. Not only differences in size and
    type, but sometimes, just brand differences won't mix.

    I've seen where one or more slots don't read properly. I've seen
    strange cases where the result wasn't even a multiple of the two. Then
    again, I've seen cases where they worked fine.

    Whenever possible, it's always better to match your RAM than mix since
    you can't be sure ahead of time what will and won't work.

    But if it's a computer you can fiddle around with, try it and see what
    happens. The worst that can happen is you totally destroy the computer
    :)

    Anyway, some of the memory chip sites like www.edgetechcorp.com and a
    few others I can't recall right now have it so you type in what system
    you're upgrading and it will tell you what memory you can use. Check a
    few of these to compare.

    --
    -There are some who call me...
    Jim


    "What do you mean?" he said. "Do you wish me a good morning, or mean
    that it is a good morning whether I want it or not; or that you feel
    good this morning; or that it is a morning to be good on?"
    -Gandalf, after Bilbo Baggins says "Good Morning"
    James D Andrews, Apr 13, 2011
    #3
  4. Kele

    Kele Guest

    I have two RAM cards that do work with my motherboard and do work together.
    It appears on my system info the sum total of both. But I'm wondering if
    that isn't the whole story. Just because it looks like I have the sum of
    two RAM cards, does that actually work well system preformance wise?

    I'm not trying to ensure I have or get the correct card(s) for my
    motherboard... hopefully the correct card is already ordered. I'm wondering
    that when I get it, and if the largest of my existing works with it, should
    I use them together, or should I just use the new one which is larger than
    both my existing cards combined?

    Should I use the 256 MB card if it works with the new one or just leave it
    out because two cards don't work as efficiently as one and the little extra
    the smaller card adds isn't worth destroying the harmony provided by one
    card? Feel me?

    And I'm not trying to dodge the question about what motherboard I have; it's
    not a mystery. I wouldn't know how to go about telling you. I supplied
    Crucial's scan return info and my Dell service tag number to the computer
    shop who ordered the card. They will have a recommendation about mixing
    cards. I'm gathering data to formulate my own oppinion.
    Kele, Apr 13, 2011
    #4
  5. Kele

    Paul Guest

    Kele wrote:
    > I have two RAM cards that do work with my motherboard and do work together.
    > It appears on my system info the sum total of both. But I'm wondering if
    > that isn't the whole story. Just because it looks like I have the sum of
    > two RAM cards, does that actually work well system preformance wise?
    >
    > I'm not trying to ensure I have or get the correct card(s) for my
    > motherboard... hopefully the correct card is already ordered. I'm wondering
    > that when I get it, and if the largest of my existing works with it, should
    > I use them together, or should I just use the new one which is larger than
    > both my existing cards combined?
    >
    > Should I use the 256 MB card if it works with the new one or just leave it
    > out because two cards don't work as efficiently as one and the little extra
    > the smaller card adds isn't worth destroying the harmony provided by one
    > card? Feel me?
    >
    > And I'm not trying to dodge the question about what motherboard I have; it's
    > not a mystery. I wouldn't know how to go about telling you. I supplied
    > Crucial's scan return info and my Dell service tag number to the computer
    > shop who ordered the card. They will have a recommendation about mixing
    > cards. I'm gathering data to formulate my own oppinion.


    You will get the total benefit of 512 + 256 = 768.

    768 works better than 512 would, in the sense you have more room
    for programs to load their stuff. So that's good.

    The timing used, when the two sticks are installed, could be
    slightly different. The BIOS uses the slowest of the timings
    of the two (because all modules run at the same clock and timings).
    But the effect of this is so small, it can hardly be measured.

    There are situations where I might use just one stick. If I
    was attempting an overclock of the memory module, to a higher
    clock rate, then I'd try one stick. When I had a stick of
    DDR400 once, and wanted to test it, I tried just the one
    stick, and got it to run at DDR500. The other two sticks,
    from the same lot, wouldn't go nearly as high. And once
    two sticks were installed, they would only overclock a
    little bit. So that is a situation where one stick is preferred.

    But if you aren't doing any of those kinds of things, you'll
    want to install both. Only Windows 98 has trouble with more
    than 512MB of RAM, and with other OSes, the more the better.

    Test the memory with memtest86+ from memtest.org , before you
    boot into Windows. The download on that web page, is about
    half way down the page (it's a long page). Run at least one
    full pass. No errors are acceptable, so if any errors are
    reported, post back for help. Or just return to your
    original configuration for the time being.

    Paul
    Paul, Apr 13, 2011
    #5
  6. Kele

    Kele Guest

    That's an awesome answer! It helps when I clearly ask the question.

    I heard something about the system uses the lesser of two cards, but didn't
    know what "lesser" was... must be "slowest timing" you spoke of.

    It's so complicated; I thought two cards don't work together unless the
    timing is identical. Must be the card timing has to be compatible with the
    motherboard and not the other card... or both!? The computer shop has a few
    cards laying around, so even if my old 256 doesn't work with the new one,
    maybe one of theirs will - hopefully I can just trade. I went in there
    about a video card a few weeks ago and at the same time tried to acquire
    some cheap to free RAM. But none of their laying around cards worked with
    my existing 256 when I tried to have two 256 cards. So my bulb isn't yet
    glowing brightly.

    Thank you also for the link. I didn't know about that. There's allot of
    program install options... I'm leaning to the following of their downloads.
    Since it's an iso; they must want me to burn it onto disc so when I power
    off and on, it will boot from disc... I think my system checks disc drive
    first so should work. [my system also checks my floppy drive when booting;
    I'd like to turn that off; might as well - for another post].

    Download - Pre-Compiled Bootable ISO (.zip)

    I have a loose appointment to pick-up video card and RAM on Friday coming...
    If you don't hear from me after that, I'm toast.



    -----------
    "Paul" <> wrote:
    You will get the total benefit of 512 + 256 = 768.

    768 works better than 512 would, in the sense you have more room
    for programs to load their stuff. So that's good.

    The timing used, when the two sticks are installed, could be
    slightly different. The BIOS uses the slowest of the timings
    of the two (because all modules run at the same clock and timings).
    But the effect of this is so small, it can hardly be measured.

    There are situations where I might use just one stick. If I
    was attempting an overclock of the memory module, to a higher
    clock rate, then I'd try one stick. When I had a stick of
    DDR400 once, and wanted to test it, I tried just the one
    stick, and got it to run at DDR500. The other two sticks,
    from the same lot, wouldn't go nearly as high. And once
    two sticks were installed, they would only overclock a
    little bit. So that is a situation where one stick is preferred.

    But if you aren't doing any of those kinds of things, you'll
    want to install both. Only Windows 98 has trouble with more
    than 512MB of RAM, and with other OSes, the more the better.

    Test the memory with memtest86+ from memtest.org , before you
    boot into Windows. The download on that web page, is about
    half way down the page (it's a long page). Run at least one
    full pass. No errors are acceptable, so if any errors are
    reported, post back for help. Or just return to your
    original configuration for the time being.

    Paul
    Kele, Apr 13, 2011
    #6
  7. Kele

    Kele Guest

    For two months I've had a 16:9 aspect ratio monitor connected to a 4:3
    aspect video card incapable of wide screen. Now, with this new video card,
    everything looks tall and skinny by comparison. Circles no longer look like
    footballs, and no more fat chicks. I battled getting the NVIDIA control
    panel to open. Prior NVIDIA driver traces all over were the problem I
    think. See the end of this post which I also did to clean so the control
    panel would install - so I could mess with gamma, etc.

    The video card has some built-in memory, and the new RAM card DOES work with
    the old 256 card... I have a whopping 768 of RAM + 128 on the video card!!
    I'm smokin' ...actually it seems I can click more than one thing at a time
    without it choking as bad. No errors running the memchecker.exe Painless;
    the computer shop guyz did good, and they gave me a dated computer with
    similar internals as mine... for when my leaky capacitors explode. It seems
    I no longer need eBoostr+flash-stick (similar to ReadyBoost) to supplement
    RAM; I have a program that wouldn't work without it, but now it does.


    Go to DOS command prompt (cmd.exe) as an Administrator if you have that
    option. At the blinking prompt, type "SFC ScanNow" without the quotes. On
    the XP, after typing sc scannow, there are four choices; type sfc/scannow or
    pick one of the other options. On the XP it called for my Windows disc to
    recover missing dlls. Better than reinstalling Windows.
    Kele, Apr 17, 2011
    #7
  8. Set the resolution to 1440 x 900, the aspect ratio will straighten itself
    out.

    Never mind. You are amazed at how the world looks when it looks right...


    "Kele" <> wrote in message
    news:4daa54a9$0$1073$4all.se...
    > For two months I've had a 16:9 aspect ratio monitor connected to a 4:3
    > aspect video card incapable of wide screen. Now, with this new video
    > card,
    > everything looks tall and skinny by comparison. Circles no longer look
    > like
    > footballs, and no more fat chicks. I battled getting the NVIDIA control
    > panel to open. Prior NVIDIA driver traces all over were the problem I
    > think. See the end of this post which I also did to clean so the control
    > panel would install - so I could mess with gamma, etc.
    >
    > The video card has some built-in memory, and the new RAM card DOES work
    > with
    > the old 256 card... I have a whopping 768 of RAM + 128 on the video card!!
    > I'm smokin' ...actually it seems I can click more than one thing at a
    > time
    > without it choking as bad. No errors running the memchecker.exe
    > Painless;
    > the computer shop guyz did good, and they gave me a dated computer with
    > similar internals as mine... for when my leaky capacitors explode. It
    > seems
    > I no longer need eBoostr+flash-stick (similar to ReadyBoost) to supplement
    > RAM; I have a program that wouldn't work without it, but now it does.
    >
    >
    > Go to DOS command prompt (cmd.exe) as an Administrator if you have that
    > option. At the blinking prompt, type "SFC ScanNow" without the quotes. On
    > the XP, after typing sc scannow, there are four choices; type sfc/scannow
    > or
    > pick one of the other options. On the XP it called for my Windows disc to
    > recover missing dlls. Better than reinstalling Windows.
    >
    >
    Jeff Strickland, Apr 17, 2011
    #8
  9. Kele

    Kele Guest

    With the new video card & this monitor, I have many wide screen resolutions
    to choose from. I gotta say the native resolution (1920x1080) looks so
    crisp all other resolutions look blurry by comparison. However, the native
    resolution on this size monitor (23") makes things too small when not
    sitting up strait. I prefer to see the screen content when not in such an
    intense eye to screen distance, so I modified the computer's DPI to 123%
    (118 dpi vs 96-default). Text is large enough to be readable from a
    distance with few exceptions. Taskbar icons are a little blocky, but it's
    worth it for the benefits of native resolution+modified DPI IMO. Desktop
    icons aren't affected by changing DPI.

    When changing display DPI (WinXP), the system font has changed. It looks
    like Arial instead of Tahoma (XP default). It's not bad, but I'd like to
    know how to change this. It's no where on-line. Changing the default DPI
    apparently uses an alternate font, where is that stored, and possibly can I
    safely replace the alternate font with another?

    @Jeff, my old graphics card didn't have a wide screen (16:9 or 1440x900)
    aspect ratio choice; I was stuck with 4:3 aspect ratio choices only, but
    using a wide monitor. I could have right and left bands to keep the
    resolution correctly proportioned, but I chose to stretch the square
    resolution to fit the wide monitor thus stretching everything on-screen.
    Not good for making accurate layout, photo judgments.

    ---

    Note - using high resolution monitor settings has a slowing affect on mouse
    speed. My mouse speed accelerator is currently maxed out (400 dpi), but I
    desire faster for the cursor to move around with less physical mouse
    movement. Apparently, a high DPI rated mouse is desirable with modern
    (high) monitor resolutions. Who knew?! Prolly a mouse with 800-1200 DPI
    capability would be a good minimum with a 1920x1080 display resolution.







    -----------
    "Jeff Strickland" <> wrote:
    Set the resolution to 1440 x 900, the aspect ratio will straighten itself
    out.

    Never mind. You are amazed at how the world looks when it looks right...
    Kele, Apr 17, 2011
    #9
  10. "Kele" <> wrote in message
    news:4dab523b$0$1074$4all.se...
    > With the new video card & this monitor, I have many wide screen
    > resolutions
    > to choose from. I gotta say the native resolution (1920x1080) looks so
    > crisp all other resolutions look blurry by comparison. However, the
    > native
    > resolution on this size monitor (23") makes things too small when not
    > sitting up strait. I prefer to see the screen content when not in such an
    > intense eye to screen distance, so I modified the computer's DPI to 123%
    > (118 dpi vs 96-default). Text is large enough to be readable from a
    > distance with few exceptions. Taskbar icons are a little blocky, but it's
    > worth it for the benefits of native resolution+modified DPI IMO. Desktop
    > icons aren't affected by changing DPI.
    >
    > When changing display DPI (WinXP), the system font has changed. It looks
    > like Arial instead of Tahoma (XP default). It's not bad, but I'd like to
    > know how to change this. It's no where on-line. Changing the default DPI
    > apparently uses an alternate font, where is that stored, and possibly can
    > I
    > safely replace the alternate font with another?
    >
    > @Jeff, my old graphics card didn't have a wide screen (16:9 or 1440x900)
    > aspect ratio choice; I was stuck with 4:3 aspect ratio choices only, but
    > using a wide monitor. I could have right and left bands to keep the
    > resolution correctly proportioned, but I chose to stretch the square
    > resolution to fit the wide monitor thus stretching everything on-screen.
    > Not good for making accurate layout, photo judgments.
    >



    I got that you were writing about how nice the universe is with a card that
    actually makes what the monitor can produce. I missed it when I started, but
    I was all caught up later on.

    You know that setting to MORE DPI makes the image smaller, right? You said
    you set from 96 to 112, or whatever. The smaller dots will make the display
    more crisp, but smaller.

    Take a stab at setting the DPI back to 96, and the resolution to 1440 x 900.
    This should give a setting that is pleasing as well as readable.

    I've got a Vizio 24-inch TV connected to a notepad, and it's set to 1440 x
    900, and looks great. I have a foreign visitor and an unused netbook and TV,
    so I cobbled together something that she could load her pictures into on
    their way to a portable HDD to take back home. Your video card might give
    more options for setting, but 1440 x 900 is a true widescreen setting that
    should work on anything that can display widescreen. It's true there are
    more settings, but consider that 800 x 600 is a setting that works on a 4:3
    display.

    I believe you will enjoy the 1440 x 900, it should give a crisp image and
    icons that are sized so that they are useful.
    Jeff Strickland, Apr 18, 2011
    #10
  11. Kele

    Kele Guest

    What you said about DPI makes sense, but check it out... Windows must state
    the numbers incorrectly. Increasing from 96 to 112 "does" make on-screen
    text bigger. Maybe don't try it, your desktop icons will get moved around.

    Yes sir, 1440x900 was my first choice. I toggled between that and native
    (1920x1080) trying to decide if I could stand the displayed text smallness
    using the native resolution. My monitor is a 16:9 aspect ratio while it's
    more common for a wide screen computer monitor to be 16:10. Possibly that's
    why 1440x900, for me, isn't as sharp as the native. I would have elected
    1440x900 until discovering DPI adjusting. Changing DPI (WinXP) doesn't give
    perfect results in that some things are and are not affected. The Windows7
    has better results when modifying DPI - even icons resize and stay fairly
    smooth. Yes, my IPS monitor is more awesome that I thought with this new
    card, and native resolution helps (me).

    Here's a useful site to adjust an LCD display:
    http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/gamma_calibration.php

    If a monitor is not using it's native resolution, the gamma chart will have
    horizontal bands; sometimes so severe it's hard to set gamma using this
    tool. With native resolution, and the first time I've seen this correctly
    with my LCD monitor, the gamma chart is smooth. Gamma, brightness, contrast
    are related. I care because if I adjust something, a web page or a photo
    for example, to look correct on an improperly calibrated display, the
    person(s) I'm sending it too may not see it as I see it. This sort of tool
    helps to promote standardization. I get somewhat different results when
    adjusting my display with non-native and the native resolution.

    PS: I'm guessing a 1920x1080 resolution needs a 27" monitor and no DPI
    adjustment needed to make text big enough for Average Joe. I'll give my kid
    a math assignment... 900 is to 1440 as 1080 is to 1920?







    ----------
    "Jeff Strickland" <> wrote:
    I got that you were writing about how nice the universe is with a card that
    actually makes what the monitor can produce. I missed it when I started, but
    I was all caught up later on.

    You know that setting to MORE DPI makes the image smaller, right? You said
    you set from 96 to 112, or whatever. The smaller dots will make the display
    more crisp, but smaller.

    Take a stab at setting the DPI back to 96, and the resolution to 1440 x 900.
    This should give a setting that is pleasing as well as readable.

    I've got a Vizio 24-inch TV connected to a notepad, and it's set to 1440 x
    900, and looks great. I have a foreign visitor and an unused netbook and TV,
    so I cobbled together something that she could load her pictures into on
    their way to a portable HDD to take back home. Your video card might give
    more options for setting, but 1440 x 900 is a true widescreen setting that
    should work on anything that can display widescreen. It's true there are
    more settings, but consider that 800 x 600 is a setting that works on a 4:3
    display.

    I believe you will enjoy the 1440 x 900, it should give a crisp image and
    icons that are sized so that they are useful.
    Kele, Apr 18, 2011
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Daz

    Mixing SDR Ram with DDR Ram?

    Daz, Sep 14, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    771
    Ralph Wade Phillips
    Sep 14, 2003
  2. Morph
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    574
    Morph
    Oct 9, 2004
  3. Allan Birnbaum Ditlevsen

    NEW RAM V OLD RAM

    Allan Birnbaum Ditlevsen, May 29, 2004, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    594
    Stuart
    Jun 7, 2004
  4. Morph
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    494
    Plato
    Oct 10, 2004
  5. ZF
    Replies:
    27
    Views:
    2,041
Loading...

Share This Page