Need advice - Vista says the slowest thing in my rig is memory

S

shaunh20

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
331
Hey all, I just did that test in Vista of the machine and my rig all rates 5.9 with the lowest setting being 5.1 for my memory...so my machine is a 5.1. I'm wondering if i could buy better or faster memory to speed up my machine or if i'm off on a wild goose chase.

Here are my specs:

# THERMALTAKE, Tsunami Dream Black Mid-Tower Case w/ Window, ATX, No PSU

# Corsair 650 High Efficiency Power Supply, 650W, 24-pin ATX12V EPS12V, SLI Ready, 120mm LED Fan, 5-Year Warranty

# ASUS, P5N-E SLI, LGA775, nForce 650i SLI, 1066MHz FSB, DDR2-800 8GB /4, PCIe x16 SLI /2, SATA RAID 5 /5, HDA, GbLAN, FW /2, ATX, Retail

# INTEL, Core™ 2 Quad Q6600 Quad-Core, 2.4GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 8MB (2 x 4MB) L2 Cache, 65nm, 105W, EM64T EIST VT XD, Retail

# OCZ, 2GB (2 x 1GB) Gold GX XTC PC2-6400 DDR2 800MHz CL 5-5-5-12 SDRAM DIMM, Non-ECC

# eVGA, GeForce GTX 260 Core 216 Superclocked, GTX 260 626MHz, 896MB GDDR3 2106MHz, PCIe x16 SLI, DVI /2, HDTV Out, Retail

# WESTERN DIGITAL, 150GB WD Raptor®, SATA 150MB/s, 10000 RPM, 16MB cache

# WESTERN DIGITAL, 250GB WD Caviar® SE16, SATA 3.0 Gbit/s, 7200 RPM, 16MB cache

# LITE-ON, LH-20A1L Black/Beige 20x DVD±RW Dual-Layer Burner w/ LightScribe, SATA, Retail

# MICROSOFT, Windows Vista Home Premium Edition 32-bit, OEM
 
At DDR800 you should be much better off... It could be the fact that MAYBE your RAM timings are bad, or it is not running at DDR800 speeds. Do memtest to see if it is ok.

But, 4gb is a must these days. Throw 2 more GB in your rig :).
 
VISTA is full of shit on those performance ratings. Ignore it. It's meaningless.

I have the same speed memory, but 4GB, and it rates it at 5.7. I'm thinking it's a capacity issue factoring into your score.

Go bench with something like sisoft sandra, or whatever other synthetic benchmark if your wanting to stroke your epeen.
 
shaunh20 said:
Hey all, I just did that test in Vista of the machine and my rig all rates 5.9 with the lowest setting being 5.1 for my memory...so my machine is a 5.1. I'm wondering if i could buy better or faster memory to speed up my machine or if i'm off on a wild goose chase.

Here are my specs:
# OCZ, 2GB (2 x 1GB) Gold GX XTC PC2-6400 DDR2 800MHz CL 5-5-5-12 SDRAM DIMM, Non-ECC
Click to expand...

Well, those are pretty terrible timings. I would try 4-4-4-12 or at least 4-5-5-12. If you run into stability problems your ram is rated for 1.9V, try upping it to that.

4GB DDR2 kits 800MHz with 4-4-4-12 timings are available for $50 or less now. (don't even think about paying more!)
 
ÆonTrinity;1033745052 said:
Well, those are pretty terrible timings. I would try 4-4-4-12 or at least 4-5-5-12. If you run into stability problems your ram is rated for 1.9V, try upping it to that.

4GB DDR2 kits 800MHz with 4-4-4-12 timings are available for $50 or less now. (don't even think about paying more!)
Click to expand...

Thanks everyone for the input. I'm pretty much a geek but not real familiar with the whole timings issue. I guess i'll have to read up on it.

Also, since I've got a 1gig video card in my machine and run Vista 32 would adding 2 more gig to my rig be worth it? I know Vista 32 will only recognize 3 gig but i've heard various opinions as to whether or not the video ram is included in that 3 gig total.

I will say I have no complaints whatsoever about how games or anything else runs. This is more just the enduring obsession I think most of us here have about how to make things better, LOL
 
shaunh20 said:
Thanks everyone for the input. I'm pretty much a geek but not real familiar with the whole timings issue. I guess i'll have to read up on it.

Also, since I've got a 1gig video card in my machine and run Vista 32 would adding 2 more gig to my rig be worth it? I know Vista 32 will only recognize 3 gig but i've heard various opinions as to whether or not the video ram is included in that 3 gig total.

I will say I have no complaints whatsoever about how games or anything else runs. This is more just the enduring obsession I think most of us here have about how to make things better, LOL
Click to expand...

Vista 32 can recognize 4.0GB exactly. The 32 in Vista 32 means it sees the the system as having a 32bit wide memory adress bus, which has 2^32 (4294967296) comginations, each one representing a byte, thus it can see 4294967296 bytes. 4294967296/1024[kB]/1024[MB]/1024[GB] = 4.00GB.

Included in that 4.0GB is this handy little file Vista uses to acess the page file, which is a couple hundred MB big (not the page file itselft, but an intermediate, the page file itself can be 4 or 8GB big). The Video card memory is also handled by Windows Memory Management and thus included in that 32bit wide address. This brings your total possible system ram down to what: 4.0 - 0.3 - .896 = 2.8? Theres also a couple other caches which might eat up a few more MB.

64bit operating systems are painless these days, so painless in fact that HP believes even its mass market consumers able to use Vista 64.

Vista is giving you a score of 5.1 not because of the memory frequency but because of the FSB. 1066MHz going to 4 cores just doesn't do it.

If I were you I'd buy either a 4GB of 2GB kit, upgrade to Vista 64, OC the Q6600 mildly (get it up to 1333MHz or 1500MHz FSB if possible), and you'll see that 5.1 shoot up to 5.6 or 5.7.
 
You could always raise the front side bus speed but lower your CPU speed multiplier to compensate if you aren't comfortable overclocking your chip. You'd simply be raising your motherboard and memory frequency, both of which should be able to take quite a bit more FSB speed. The end result would be much faster memory access at the same CPU speed.
 
Uhmmm... that post above with the RAM mathematics... is like, so full of inaccuracies I don't even know where to start... wow.

I have a Q6600 running stock at 2.4 GHz - 9 x 266 on a 1066 FSB (quad pumped, yanno) with Patriot Viper DDR2 800 at 4-4-4-12 stock and I get 5.9 solid on the RAM score itself with Vista x86/x64, in Windows 7 Beta 1 Build 7000 (x64) I have a 7.1 on the RAM score itself soooo...

The biggest issue here? That the OP would use the WinSAT scores to judge his or her PC at all. They're useless and so easily misinterpreted - they are not meant to be a benchmark for comparing your system to others. The entire idea of the WinSAT is to make it easier for your average Joe (not me, I assure you) to go out, find a game or some entertainment software, and instead of having to read all the little fine print about what video card, what DirectX to have, what OS, how much RAM, etc etc...

There's this number, from 1.0 to 5.9 (for Vista, that is, Windows 7 now changes that from 1.0 to 7.9 iirc) and if your system rates a 5.1 and the box says 4.5 you can be assured of having a "good experience" when playing the game.

If it shows 5.1 and you have a 4.5 system, to flip it around, it won't play nearly as well overall and probably have some hiccups and slow play from time to time.

It's not meant as a system benchmark, so people really should stop using it as a way of comparison with other machines. That defeats the purpose entirely.

As for the OP, I'm going to suspect his timings aren't being used at 4-4-4-12 natively, perhaps even his actual RAM speed is more like 667 or something. Go get CPU-Z from www.cpuid.org and run it. Look at the Memory tabs and the SPD ones and see what it shows for timings, then report back here.

EDIT:

Here's a screenshot and I'll explain why it's bullshit:



First, I've got an 8800GT 512MB running at stock also, it damned well rates higher than the old Vista limit of 5.9, look at the Aero score, it's sick and maxed out. :D Using the Windows Update Nvidia drivers too, 179.43, just put up today. Might not rate a full blown 7.9 for that score, but certainly above 5.9 which was maxed out in Vista already.

Second, I've got 2 80GB Velociraptors in RAID 0 as my primary system drive; they're shortstroked to the first 40GB on each, so 2x40GB = 80GB of the fastest hard drive platter storage on the planet, with sub-6.5 ms access times across the array. And WinSAT is maxing it at 5.9? With 215MB/s average sustained read speeds?

Absolute bullshit I tell ya... absolutely. :D And yes, under Vista x86/x64 this is a 5.9 box solid on all 5 scores.

I know it's a beta OS so far and that means even the WinSAT tests are being smoothed out for bugs, etc... but those two numbers are just so wrong it's not even funny. This box rates a 7 at least, and if I push it to 3 GHz and 1000 GHz on the RAM at 5-5-5-15, it'll go up, of course, and I could overclock the video card too... but the WinSAT is pointless, that's the point.
 
I have 2x1gb of pc3200 running at 460 2.5/3/3/6 and I score a 5.7.
 
Actually Joe, I'm betting that Windows 7 is set to max out at 5.9 on the 3d gaming and business score for video cards that don't have DX11.
 
Obi_Kwiet said:
Actually Joe, I'm betting that Windows 7 is set to max out at 5.9 on the 3d gaming and business score for video cards that don't have DX11.
Click to expand...

False, I'm getting 6.4 with a GTX 260, pic enclosed:


As to the op's question, I'm thinking more memory will give a bigger score, as 2gb vs 4gb vs 8gb will net higher than latency timings. Improving bandwidth won't help, I moved my DDR2 800 up to DDR2 1066 and no improvement in score.

But joe is right, the scoring system is worthless as to how well the system will really perform.
 
your memory speed is fine, Vista is probably rating you at 5.1 because you only have 2gb of ram, just make sure you are not in single-channel mode for some crazy reason. Gaming on Vista with only 2gb ram is not pretty, unless you have a high tollerance for hdd thrashing. Get another 2gb ram and you will be fine, memory bandwidth doesn't affect most games much if at all. Vista 32 will only probably recognize 3.2 but that's a lot better than 2 (when I play games in Vista I look at Task manager in the other monitor and with many it will use 2.5-3gb total with Firefox and some other things running in background) and you can always get Vista x64 which is better anyway.
 
So wait, does Windows 7 go higher in ratings? I didn't think it was possible to go above 5.9 on Vista....
 
Meh. It's silly to tailor your system around such a horrible benchmark, if you can call it that.
 
Agree with Kwit.

I say just add another 2gb for 4gb and call it a day, which is meant to be towards that 2gb is kinda bad in my books after upgrading to 4gb from 2gb ;p
 
Wow, I have been living in a cave and didn't even know it. I never once looked at my "performance rating", so after seeing this thread I checked it out. It had rated my "Graphics" and "Gaming Graphics" at a "1". I literally lol'ed. I don't know if it tested between drivers or what. I wasn't about to let that fly, whether it meant anything or not, I had been insulted and there was going to be a duel! I refreshed it and it came back with 5.9's accross the board (Vista 64). I was like "dern skippy". ;)

Anyway, the point of all that is that it enabled "Aero" and now I'm enjoying a whole new experience! Wo0t! So if you're a newb like me who thought he was getting the full monty, but you've never checked your score, you might want to just for the things refreshing it could unlock. :cool:
 
aFive said:
So wait, does Windows 7 go higher in ratings? I didn't think it was possible to go above 5.9 on Vista....
Click to expand...

Thats correct. 5.9 highest in vista but 7 goes higher. That said, as others have noted its a useless benchmark
 
Well its not completely useless, i used mine once to remind me that i did not install my graphic drivers. Thanks microsoft.
 
You guys make me laugh with the "Vista score is not important". There aint a nutswinger here, that if he didn't get a 5.9 wouldn't be shakin his shit to see wtf is up. :eek:

bunch of liars :D
 
I got a 5.9 with 2 gigs of RAM, so that isn't holding you back. However, if you decide to add another 2 gigs you don't need to worry about video memory taking up any of your 32-bit address space since PAE will be used.
 
Ignore it. Vista scores are for people who don't even know what hardware they have.
 
I ordered two new sticks of ram today so I will go to 4 gigs (I just now typed 4 megs, LOL, those were the days eh?). I will let you guys know later this week if the score changed.

Also, just FYI to any of you guys who said I was worried or whatnot, not really worried just always looking for ways to improve, i'm sure most all of you can relate.
 
MrWizard6600 said:
Vista 32 can recognize 4.0GB exactly. The 32 in Vista 32 means it sees the the system as having a 32bit wide memory adress bus, which has 2^32 (4294967296) comginations, each one representing a byte, thus it can see 4294967296 bytes. 4294967296/1024[kB]/1024[MB]/1024[GB] = 4.00GB.

Included in that 4.0GB is this handy little file Vista uses to acess the page file, which is a couple hundred MB big (not the page file itselft, but an intermediate, the page file itself can be 4 or 8GB big). The Video card memory is also handled by Windows Memory Management and thus included in that 32bit wide address. This brings your total possible system ram down to what: 4.0 - 0.3 - .896 = 2.8? Theres also a couple other caches which might eat up a few more MB.

64bit operating systems are painless these days, so painless in fact that HP believes even its mass market consumers able to use Vista 64.

Vista is giving you a score of 5.1 not because of the memory frequency but because of the FSB. 1066MHz going to 4 cores just doesn't do it.

If I were you I'd buy either a 4GB of 2GB kit, upgrade to Vista 64, OC the Q6600 mildly (get it up to 1333MHz or 1500MHz FSB if possible), and you'll see that 5.1 shoot up to 5.6 or 5.7.
Click to expand...

3.5G in general... above that it couldn't be read...
 
shansoft said:
3.5G in general... above that it couldn't be read...
Click to expand...

That's true for your average system. get a 512MB or 1GB graphics card and that number could dip into the high 2's.

I sent average Joe a PM asking him why he thinks my post is "so full of inaccuracies [he doesn't] even know where to start". I'm not interested in a flame war but I'd really like to know: I've looked into this a fair deal as its a call I get at least once a week. The windows memory address space is 32bits wide. ~300MB is lost to an extension in memory that links this space to the virtual memory. There are also a handful of other (smaller) caches that further eat into this 4GB cap.

But I digress: I was a little over-zealous in pushing the "overclock your CPU!" message. But I have seen it hurt performance. I think it was Tweaktown who did a 7X333MHz vs 9X266MHz on the Q6600 and the 7X333MHz config took the majority of benchmarks, despite the slower CPU speed.
 
MrWizard6600 said:
That's true for your average system. get a 512MB or 1GB graphics card and that number could dip into the high 2's.

I sent average Joe a PM asking him why he thinks my post is "so full of inaccuracies [he doesn't] even know where to start". I'm not interested in a flame war but I'd really like to know: I've looked into this a fair deal as its a call I get at least once a week. The windows memory address space is 32bits wide. ~300MB is lost to an extension in memory that links this space to the virtual memory. There are also a handful of other (smaller) caches that further eat into this 4GB cap.

But I digress: I was a little over-zealous in pushing the "overclock your CPU!" message. But I have seen it hurt performance. I think it was Tweaktown who did a 7X333MHz vs 9X266MHz on the Q6600 and the 7X333MHz config took the majority of benchmarks, despite the slower CPU speed.
Click to expand...

I read your post and it's accurate as far as I know.

A 32bit OS can only address 4Gb of memory total, of this pool of addresses you have to map all your hardware and various other pools of memory for the OS to function. Certain bits of hardware will not work without all of their addressable memory mapped to the OS, such as video cards, so these are mapped early to ensure they get what they require to function. The amount of RAM you can address can vary without any real issue, if you have 4Gb installed and you can only address 2Gb that isn't going to break anything, so RAM is mapped last and gets whatever address space is left over.

If you pop in to device manager and go to the properties of pieces of hardware, some will have a resources tab and that will display the memory ranges assigned to that piece of hardware. For most hardware it's quite small for example your network card, sound card, floppy drive, they will all need a small amount of mappable memory, this all eats away at your 4Gb total pool of address space.

Purely in my experience a typical low end rig will use about 400-500Mb that is going to be all the common components that need addressable memory plus all the memory pools the OS needs to function. So total available memory for RAM would be approx 4 - 0.5 = 3.5Gb

But a high end rig that uses a video card with lots of onboard video RAM like 1Gb will see 4 - 0.5 - 1 = 2.5Gb.

These numbers vary with your exact hardware but the general rule remains.
 
well i got the 2gb of ram today, just installed and looks like my memory rating is now 5.0...LOL...oh well, i'm not going to stress about it, it only cost me $40 for another 2gb and like I said, everything runs great with the new video card (GTX260).
 
shaunh20 said:
well i got the 2gb of ram today, just installed and looks like my memory rating is now 5.0...LOL...oh well, i'm not going to stress about it, it only cost me $40 for another 2gb and like I said, everything runs great with the new video card (GTX260).
Click to expand...

WHAT?!? You spend $40 on a 2 gig kit?!?

4 gig kits with better timings are going for $50!! You should have got the $50 4-gig kit and threw out your old memory, not added another 2 gigs.
 
ÆonTrinity;1033778224 said:
WHAT?!? You spend $40 on a 2 gig kit?!?

4 gig kits with better timings are going for $50!! You should have got the $50 4-gig kit and threw out your old memory, not added another 2 gigs.
Click to expand...

I didn't know, i'm pretty computer savvy but never paid much attention to memory and especially never really learned much about how timings affect things. I only plan to use this memory for about a year or less because at some point i'm going to ditch all of it and get 8gb when i upgrade to a 64 bit OS.
 
Blackstone said:
The slowing thing in your system is VISTA.
Click to expand...

FUD. It's been explained many times. Why there are even people spreading this on a hardware enthusiast forum baffles me.

OP, check to make sure your RAM isn't single-channel. I have the same speed RAM, and get 5.9
 
Don't upgrade your ram to just get a better windows experience "score". If your gaming is good, forget about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top