Going from 2gig to 3gig on my PC

[tonyvdb]

Is there going to be any benefit with going from my current 2gig of ram to 3 on my PC? I run win xp pro on a AMD 2core 4600+
I run one program in particular called Trainz Railroad sim 2006 that is a real CPU hog because of all the 3D it has.

I just realized that the 2 gig of ram I have runs at 533mHz and the 1gig stick is only 400mHz so maybe this is a bad idea?

[oleimann]

Perhaps updating the Graphics Card to offload some of the 3D processing would have been a better Idea ?

More memory does not speed up the CPU...

[tonyvdb]

The railroad sim sometimes uses just over 1 gig of ram on its own. I have had this stick of ram lying around for over a year but haven't been able to use it until now as I just upgraded my PC. The graphics card is a ATI x1300pro PCIe

[Gwion]

I would recomed changing the graphics card do a fairly recent one I had the same proble when i was running sims to i updated my graphics card and it all speeded up!!

[Tomas]

Are you running XP 64 bit? if not, then i dont think there will be much point as i think standard XP is only able to really use 2 gigs.
I know Trainz is a memory hog, but i highly doubt that more 2 gigs will help noticable. I think then you would notice more improvement by upgrading your graphic card or even your HD to something along the lines of 10k rpm sata.

[Bazzaq]

I vote graphics card, of the geforce 7600gt or higher variety.. Or a used 6800xt from ebay maybee...

[GreggBz]

Things get a little funny when you venture to 3GB.

I'm not sure you'll see an improvement.

Theoretically, a 32 bit processor / operating system can only address 4GB of memory and Windows isn't really equipped (and does not really need) to use so much memory.

Maybe a faster video card like others have suggested?

[Nostalgiac]

Are you running XP 64 bit? if not, then i dont think there will be much point as i think standard XP is only able to really use 2 gigs

I agree - in normal circumstances, Windows XP is only capable of assigning 2 Gb of address space to any process.
Due to the PCI "gap" more then this is not really useful and might even be hidden from use anyhow.

So unless you use a process that wants 2 Gb of "real" memory AND other processes that can actually use an additional 1 Gb of "real" mem... there is no use for more then 2Gb of real memory on a 32 bit based Windows system at all.

ta
Tom

ps: and yes I know about the flag of using 3gb for a process... in my opinion NOT very useful

[Tahoe]

Forget about the stick; 400Mhz does not go well with 533 unless you bump the whole machine back to 400.

Go get yourself a decent GPU. The 1300 is nice as a basic videocard; but if you want a little performance you should be on the lookout for a X1900XT or higher. Always go for XT version if you choose ATI, the GT/PRO or whatever are crippled cards. Often an older (XT1800XT) is better then a X1900GT/Pro.

[Zac67]

Definitely - the X1300 is crap for playing. The nVidia 7600GT comes with a very nice perfomance / price ratio (just bought two), for ATI you need at least an X1800 for decent throughput.

[motrucker]

Bad idea - RAM has to be the same speed to work. Otherwise it will drop to the lowest speed used, and have a tendency to crash (a lot!!)
The 1300 card you have is not a good one. ATI does make some excellent hardware, but this isn't one of their stellar efforts.

[jj]

I would just add, if your on a budget and not playing latest games.  Going with the topend of the last technology works.

Get an 850XT , this thing flys as long as you dont need shader 3 tech....

it even beats the 1900xt on some benchmarks (has more pipelines)

[nyder]

I have an agp x1950 pro 256mb, and it kicks butt.  You can get them for around $200 if you shop around.  It's argueably the fastest agp card you can get.

I'm assuming you are running an agp vid card slot.

Plus you can run folding@home on it, if you are so inclined.  =)

Or if you can only spend just over $100, get it's younger sibling, the x1650, it's about 2/3 the speed of the x1950 from the benchmarks i've seen.