Memory Question
in [Windows 98]
|
From: Daave on 15 Dec 2006 13:40 lb wrote: > Do not think you will see much improvement in streaming video > performance by adding ram. I only have 256 and I can play that video > you have trouble with with no problems. Go ahead and get the ram, as > it never hurts to have extra ram. I probably would not go higher than > the 384 you are condidering. Your streaming video bottlenecks are > either your internet connection, your cpu or your video card or any > combination of the three. I would first start by trying to tweak your > connection. Start here and run their test: > http://www.dslreports.com/tweaks > They will reccomend a tweaking program. If your efficiency is in the > high 90's then that is good. > > You can test your bandwidth to see if you are getting what you are > paying for here, I like the Speakeasy tests: > http://home.cfl.rr.com/eaa/Bandwidth.htm > If that is good then your cpu or video card may be bottlenecking the > feed. I tested my Cavalier DSL throughput on the following sites and got the following results: http://gemal.dk/browserspy/bandwidth.html : 601.7 kbps http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest Parsippany, NJ, USA, nac.net (net @ccess) : 626 kbps So it's the 500 MHz Celeron or the onboard video card. Perhaps I should look into getting a proper video card. Any recommendations for an EliteGroup P6SET-ML motherboard with 32 KB primary memory cache and 128 KB secondary memory cache? (I'm already considering a faster Pentium III.) (I also used the Java tweak tool at dslreports.com and tweaked accordingly to optimize my settings.) -- Dave
From: lb on 15 Dec 2006 14:07 Daave wrote: > lb wrote: > > > Do not think you will see much improvement in streaming video > > performance by adding ram. I only have 256 and I can play that video > > you have trouble with with no problems. Go ahead and get the ram, as > > it never hurts to have extra ram. I probably would not go higher than > > the 384 you are condidering. Your streaming video bottlenecks are > > either your internet connection, your cpu or your video card or any > > combination of the three. I would first start by trying to tweak your > > connection. Start here and run their test: > > http://www.dslreports.com/tweaks > > They will reccomend a tweaking program. If your efficiency is in the > > high 90's then that is good. > > > > You can test your bandwidth to see if you are getting what you are > > paying for here, I like the Speakeasy tests: > > http://home.cfl.rr.com/eaa/Bandwidth.htm > > If that is good then your cpu or video card may be bottlenecking the > > feed. > > I tested my Cavalier DSL throughput on the following sites and got the > following results: > > http://gemal.dk/browserspy/bandwidth.html : 601.7 kbps > > http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest > Parsippany, NJ, USA, nac.net (net @ccess) : 626 kbps > > So it's the 500 MHz Celeron or the onboard video card. Perhaps I should > look into getting a proper video card. Any recommendations for an > EliteGroup P6SET-ML motherboard with 32 KB primary memory cache and 128 > KB secondary memory cache? (I'm already considering a faster Pentium > III.) > > (I also used the Java tweak tool at dslreports.com and tweaked > accordingly to optimize my settings.) > -- > Dave If you are paying for 1500 dsl and only getting 600's, I would complain. I have no way to correlate download speed in kbps to processor mhz. If you processor cannot feed the video card as fast as it can take it then that is a bottleneck. Works the other way too. I might also have a great connection to the google video feeds whereas you may not. One thing I can tell you is that my cpu is running at 2133 mhz so it can tke on most of what the net throws at it. My vid card is an old 3dfx voodoo 5 that from what I have heard matches up well with the processor speed so all my bottlenecks are from slow servers. If your onboard vid card has 32 mb of ram, then it is probably OK. You can test app memory usage with Sisoft sandra. I would use an older version , I am using a 2004 version. Google up old version for a list of places to get older software.
From: Daave on 15 Dec 2006 14:48 lb wrote: > Daave wrote: >> I tested my Cavalier DSL throughput on the following sites and got >> the following results: >> >> http://gemal.dk/browserspy/bandwidth.html : 601.7 kbps >> >> http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest >> Parsippany, NJ, USA, nac.net (net @ccess) : 626 kbps >> >> So it's the 500 MHz Celeron or the onboard video card. Perhaps I >> should look into getting a proper video card. Any recommendations >> for an EliteGroup P6SET-ML motherboard with 32 KB primary memory >> cache and 128 KB secondary memory cache? (I'm already considering a >> faster Pentium III.) >> >> (I also used the Java tweak tool at dslreports.com and tweaked >> accordingly to optimize my settings.) > If you are paying for 1500 dsl and only getting 600's, I would > complain. I have no way to correlate download speed in kbps to > processor mhz. If you processor cannot feed the video card as fast as > it can take it then that is a bottleneck. Works the other way too. I > might also have a great connection to the google video feeds whereas > you may not. One thing I can tell you is that my cpu is running at > 2133 mhz so it can tke on most of what the net throws at it. My vid > card is an old 3dfx voodoo 5 that from what I have heard matches up > well with the processor speed so all my bottlenecks are from slow > servers. If your onboard vid card has 32 mb of ram, then it is > probably OK. > > You can test app memory usage with Sisoft sandra. I would use an > older version , I am using a 2004 version. Google up old version for > a list of places to get older software. Thanks for the Sandra suggestion. I believe I have a version from 2000 somewhere on a disc. Regarding my dsl connection, I'm far away enough from the CO that I won't ever get 1500 kbps. However, the last few times I checked (before today), my throughput was always over 1,000, which I considered adequate. I am concerned about today's results; I will need to monitor this to see if it is just a hiccup or something more permanent. How do I determine how much RAM my onboard video card has? And is there a way to divert more RAM to it? -- Dave
From: lb on 15 Dec 2006 15:09 Daave wrote: > lb wrote: > > Daave wrote: > > >> I tested my Cavalier DSL throughput on the following sites and got > >> the following results: > >> > >> http://gemal.dk/browserspy/bandwidth.html : 601.7 kbps > >> > >> http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest > >> Parsippany, NJ, USA, nac.net (net @ccess) : 626 kbps > >> > >> So it's the 500 MHz Celeron or the onboard video card. Perhaps I > >> should look into getting a proper video card. Any recommendations > >> for an EliteGroup P6SET-ML motherboard with 32 KB primary memory > >> cache and 128 KB secondary memory cache? (I'm already considering a > >> faster Pentium III.) > >> > >> (I also used the Java tweak tool at dslreports.com and tweaked > >> accordingly to optimize my settings.) > > > If you are paying for 1500 dsl and only getting 600's, I would > > complain. I have no way to correlate download speed in kbps to > > processor mhz. If you processor cannot feed the video card as fast as > > it can take it then that is a bottleneck. Works the other way too. I > > might also have a great connection to the google video feeds whereas > > you may not. One thing I can tell you is that my cpu is running at > > 2133 mhz so it can tke on most of what the net throws at it. My vid > > card is an old 3dfx voodoo 5 that from what I have heard matches up > > well with the processor speed so all my bottlenecks are from slow > > servers. If your onboard vid card has 32 mb of ram, then it is > > probably OK. > > > > You can test app memory usage with Sisoft sandra. I would use an > > older version , I am using a 2004 version. Google up old version for > > a list of places to get older software. > > Thanks for the Sandra suggestion. I believe I have a version from 2000 > somewhere on a disc. > > Regarding my dsl connection, I'm far away enough from the CO that I > won't ever get 1500 kbps. However, the last few times I checked (before > today), my throughput was always over 1,000, which I considered > adequate. I am concerned about today's results; I will need to monitor > this to see if it is just a hiccup or something more permanent. I got a rather poor number for download speed from that first link you posted and did better from the 2nd. I usually do a number of tests from different sites and determined that I liked the speakeasy tests as they are the most consistent and give numbers that I expedt to find with my connection. > > How do I determine how much RAM my onboard video card has? And is there > a way to divert more RAM to it? > > -- > Dave Oops ,it was my 550 mhz cpu computer with the voodoo 5 that was a good match for each other and I was on dialup then. I am still using the voodoo 5. You will have to look it up on the spec sheet for your motherboard. I am just using the 32 mb number to establish that you have a vid card that is not much older than 5-6 years. That also helps to establish whether it has a halfway decent core speed. The amount of video memory itself was not a significant issue. You should be able to determine the exact brand of card it is from the spec sheet.
From: Daave on 15 Dec 2006 15:59
lb wrote: > You will have to look it up on the spec sheet for your motherboard. I > am just using the 32 mb number to establish that you have a vid card > that is not much older than 5-6 years. That also helps to establish > whether it has a halfway decent core speed. The amount of video > memory itself was not a significant issue. You should be able to > determine the exact brand of card it is from the spec sheet. So much for 32! From the manual: The mainboard includes a graphics accelerator that uses up to 8 MB of main memory as video memory. The graphics accelerator complies with the AGP Ver. 2 specification. The graphics controller can deliver extended VGA resolutions of up to 1600 x 1200 pixels. 8MB AGP SiS 620 Graphics Controller... weakest link? -- Dave |