Upgraded RAM Rating stayed the same

  • Thread starter Thread starter Neal
  • Start date Start date
N

Neal

I have to say this has me stumped. I just upgraded my 2x512mb cheap DDR PQI
RAM to some good 2x1GIG OCZ Platnum ram and after I refreshed my rating it
did not move it is still at 3.6. I do not get this at all. I would say if
I did not see any gains in Vista I could understand this but now Vista runs
so much better and smother that I did have a large gain. I am just not sure
if I found a bug in Vista or what.
 
The rating is not an average. It is the lowest of the individual items
rated. It is the weakest link theory because one bottleneck is sufficient
to offset everything else. Anyway, 3.6 is a good rating.
 
I think some of the performance rating is pretty inaccurate right now. My
RAM gets just barely a 3.0. It's PC-2700 and I have 1.5GB. You're running
dual channel (and probably faster speeds) with a litle bit more RAM and
still only getting a 3.6. What does it take to get a 5 for RAM?
 
I know it's the weakest link (you are the weakest link, goodbye.) theory but
how can 2GB of RAM get a 3.6 when you're running fast RAM, lots of RAM, and
it's in dual-channel? I would think it would be at least in the 4-range. I
could only imagine what '5'-rated RAM would have to be. I can see where my
RAM might get a '3' due to it being only PC-2700 and not dual-channel, but
wouldn't you think that the Windows Performance Rating would factor in how
much memory you have also? Having more RAM is almost better than having
faster RAM in Vista. (Although both are important.)
 
Travis said:
I know it's the weakest link (you are the weakest link, goodbye.)
theory but how can 2GB of RAM get a 3.6 when you're running fast RAM,
lots of RAM, and it's in dual-channel? I would think it would be at
least in the 4-range. I could only imagine what '5'-rated RAM would
have to be. I can see where my RAM might get a '3' due to it being
only PC-2700 and not dual-channel, but wouldn't you think that the
Windows Performance Rating would factor in how much memory you have
also? Having more RAM is almost better than having faster RAM in
Vista. (Although both are important.)
Click to expand...

2 GB is not a lot of RAM.
 
It would not have to factor in the amount of ram. If the amount of ram
impacted performance, the performance would still be the only measure needed
for a rating.
 
What bothers me is there are still new computers (the cheap line, anyway)
coming with only 256MB of RAM. They should start releasing computers that
come with at least 512MB (as the cheapest computers) and then the $500-range
come with a gig. $800 should come with 2GB. At the time XP released, the
cheapest computer I saw in the adds was an eMachines T1090 (I have one) and
it came with 128MB of RAM, which is what Microsoft recommended you have for
XP, so if you put that in theory, (I know it doesn't mean much) the cheapest
of the line computers when Vista comes out should have a gig of RAM as this
would be what MS recommends for Vista. The mid-range would have 2GB, and
the higher-end range would have 4GB.
 
Aaaaaagh! I remember paying $500 for 16 Megs of RAM. Back then 16 Megs was a
lot. Maybe it was 64? I think I still have it somewhere in a box.
 
Travis said:
What bothers me is there are still new computers (the cheap line,
anyway) coming with only 256MB of RAM. They should start releasing
computers that come with at least 512MB (as the cheapest computers)
and then the $500-range come with a gig. $800 should come with 2GB. At
the time XP released, the cheapest computer I saw in the adds was
an eMachines T1090 (I have one) and it came with 128MB of RAM, which
is what Microsoft recommended you have for XP, so if you put that in
theory, (I know it doesn't mean much) the cheapest of the line
computers when Vista comes out should have a gig of RAM as this would
be what MS recommends for Vista. The mid-range would have 2GB, and
the higher-end range would have 4GB.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately computers are being marketed as a commodity with price being
the most important consideration. With 64 bit CPUs becoming prevalent and
RAM prices dropping I think you will see 2 - 4 GB of RAM becoming the norm
for any decent system. The cheap systems will still come with the minimum
recommended for whatever OS they have on them. You get what you pay for.
 
That's coming. Such low end computers are sold into today's markets where
the buyers probably don't even know there is such a thing as a Vista in the
works, and frankly don't care.

Travis King said:
What bothers me is there are still new computers (the cheap line, anyway)
coming with only 256MB of RAM. They should start releasing computers that
come with at least 512MB (as the cheapest computers) and then the
$500-range come with a gig. $800 should come with 2GB. At the time XP
released, the cheapest computer I saw in the adds was an eMachines T1090
(I have one) and it came with 128MB of RAM, which is what Microsoft
recommended you have for XP, so if you put that in theory, (I know it
doesn't mean much) the cheapest of the line computers when Vista comes out
should have a gig of RAM as this would be what MS recommends for Vista.
The mid-range would have 2GB, and the higher-end range would have 4GB.
Click to expand...
 
My first home computer had 8k (not mb) of ram.

Mario Rosario said:
Aaaaaagh! I remember paying $500 for 16 Megs of RAM. Back then 16 Megs was
a lot. Maybe it was 64? I think I still have it somewhere in a box.
Click to expand...
 
My first upgrade from 8k to 32k cost about that much. Floppy drives cost
$400 each.
 
FWIW Mine is rated 5.0 2gb (4x512) Corsair XMS 2-2-2-5 dual channel
Other ratings don't fare so well :-)
 
"... Gee our old LaSalle ran great! Those were the days!"


My first upgrade from 8k to 32k cost about that much. Floppy drives cost
$400 each.
 
A Pharmicist that I knew wanted to put his prescription files on a computer.
I figured that he could get the information that he needed on the computer
on a 20 Meg hard drive, which at that time cost about $2200.00.

Todd
 
I do not know for sure, but probably 4+ GB of DDR2 RAM.
I have 4 GB of DDR400 RAM and my rating is 4.8

My machine is only a 3 due to my Hard disk(3.7) and slow processor AMD 64
3800+(3.8)
 
Back
Top