Installed 6 gigs of Ram in Vista Ultimate x64 and its slower now

January 13, 2008

When I first installed Ultimate edition I was only running 2 gigs so I went

and purchased 2 x 2gig sticks and installed them. My computer has been

running much slower than before so I thought that maybe one of the ram slots

on my mobo was bad or that one of the new sticks was bad but I am reading all

6 gigs and I even swapped out all my chips in different slots and it seems

that when I am running with just 2 gigs everything is fine, no matter if I am

running with 2 x 1gig or with just 1 x 2gig. It is getting pretty annoying

and was hoping that someone might have some advice on anything that I could

try. Thank You

January 13, 2008

Re: Installed 6 gigs of Ram in Vista Ultimate x64 and its slower now

What is slower, and do you have sufficient space on your Vista drive for the

larger page and hibernate files which are assigned based on RAM.

"kungfumonkeyman" <kungfumonkeyman@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in

message news:F2D0BFD5-7D69-44B2-8821-AC16E450E76D@microsoft.com...

> When I first installed Ultimate edition I was only running 2 gigs so I

> went

> and purchased 2 x 2gig sticks and installed them. My computer has been

> running much slower than before so I thought that maybe one of the ram

> slots

> on my mobo was bad or that one of the new sticks was bad but I am reading

> all

> 6 gigs and I even swapped out all my chips in different slots and it seems

> that when I am running with just 2 gigs everything is fine, no matter if I

> am

> running with 2 x 1gig or with just 1 x 2gig. It is getting pretty

> annoying

> and was hoping that someone might have some advice on anything that I

> could

> try. Thank You

January 13, 2008

Re: Installed 6 gigs of Ram in Vista Ultimate x64 and its slower now

How much slower? If your mobo takes dual channel then three sticks will

take it out of dual-channel mode and it might run slightly slower, but

probably not enough to be noticeable. If the sticks are not exactly the

same it would probably run slower.

"kungfumonkeyman" <kungfumonkeyman@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in

message news:F2D0BFD5-7D69-44B2-8821-AC16E450E76D@microsoft.com...

> When I first installed Ultimate edition I was only running 2 gigs so I

> went

> and purchased 2 x 2gig sticks and installed them. My computer has been

> running much slower than before so I thought that maybe one of the ram

> slots

> on my mobo was bad or that one of the new sticks was bad but I am reading

> all

> 6 gigs and I even swapped out all my chips in different slots and it seems

> that when I am running with just 2 gigs everything is fine, no matter if I

> am

> running with 2 x 1gig or with just 1 x 2gig. It is getting pretty

> annoying

> and was hoping that someone might have some advice on anything that I

> could

> try. Thank You

January 13, 2008

Re: Installed 6 gigs of Ram in Vista Ultimate x64 and its slower n

Re: Installed 6 gigs of Ram in Vista Ultimate x64 and its slower n

the whole system is slower....from start up to idle, opening files, going to

controll panel....I get a lot of (not responding) and then going active

again. I did try to go in and lower my page file but it doesnt seem to be

taking properly. almost seemed to help out but now it is slowing down again.

Hard drive space is ample on my raptor so that wouldnt be it. My processor

seems to be kicking up to 100% a lot though....I have a Core 2 Duo

2.2gig....dont know where to go from here other than trying for a bios

upgrade maybe?....I am just fishing in the dark right now...lol

"John Barnes" wrote:

> What is slower, and do you have sufficient space on your Vista drive for the

> larger page and hibernate files which are assigned based on RAM.

>

> "kungfumonkeyman" <kungfumonkeyman@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in

> message news:F2D0BFD5-7D69-44B2-8821-AC16E450E76D@microsoft.com...

> > When I first installed Ultimate edition I was only running 2 gigs so I

> > went

> > and purchased 2 x 2gig sticks and installed them. My computer has been

> > running much slower than before so I thought that maybe one of the ram

> > slots

> > on my mobo was bad or that one of the new sticks was bad but I am reading

> > all

> > 6 gigs and I even swapped out all my chips in different slots and it seems

> > that when I am running with just 2 gigs everything is fine, no matter if I

> > am

> > running with 2 x 1gig or with just 1 x 2gig. It is getting pretty

> > annoying

> > and was hoping that someone might have some advice on anything that I

> > could

> > try. Thank You

>

January 13, 2008

Re: Installed 6 gigs of Ram in Vista Ultimate x64 and its slower n

Re: Installed 6 gigs of Ram in Vista Ultimate x64 and its slower n

I currently have 2 x 1gig and 2 x 2 gig sticks all running at 800. m to

ensure it wasnt the size difference I tried just the 2 x 2gig sticks and was

still acting slow. It is considerably slower...startup takes 2-3 minutes and

I understand that there is a memory check so that doesnt bother me too

much...it is still too long. even when I press alt cntrl del to get task

manager up there is about a 10-15 sec delay until the menu appears.

"Colin Barnhorst" wrote:

> How much slower? If your mobo takes dual channel then three sticks will

> take it out of dual-channel mode and it might run slightly slower, but

> probably not enough to be noticeable. If the sticks are not exactly the

> same it would probably run slower.

>

> "kungfumonkeyman" <kungfumonkeyman@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in

> message news:F2D0BFD5-7D69-44B2-8821-AC16E450E76D@microsoft.com...

> > When I first installed Ultimate edition I was only running 2 gigs so I

> > went

> > and purchased 2 x 2gig sticks and installed them. My computer has been

> > running much slower than before so I thought that maybe one of the ram

> > slots

> > on my mobo was bad or that one of the new sticks was bad but I am reading

> > all

> > 6 gigs and I even swapped out all my chips in different slots and it seems

> > that when I am running with just 2 gigs everything is fine, no matter if I

> > am

> > running with 2 x 1gig or with just 1 x 2gig. It is getting pretty

> > annoying

> > and was hoping that someone might have some advice on anything that I

> > could

> > try. Thank You

>

January 13, 2008

Re: Installed 6 gigs of Ram in Vista Ultimate x64 and its slower n

Re: Installed 6 gigs of Ram in Vista Ultimate x64 and its slower n

Are you showing both cores in your task management? If so, is one core

hitting 100% while the other sits at a lower usage? I have had that problem

and had to manually set the affinity of some of my processes in task manager

to keep from the hanging problem. That doesn't explain the startup problem,

but might be worth looking at.

"kungfumonkeyman" <kungfumonkeyman@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in

message news:AD5297FD-B08E-43C8-9F17-736A4C07E2BB@microsoft.com...

> the whole system is slower....from start up to idle, opening files, going

> to

> controll panel....I get a lot of (not responding) and then going active

> again. I did try to go in and lower my page file but it doesnt seem to

> be

> taking properly. almost seemed to help out but now it is slowing down

> again.

> Hard drive space is ample on my raptor so that wouldnt be it. My

> processor

> seems to be kicking up to 100% a lot though....I have a Core 2 Duo

> 2.2gig....dont know where to go from here other than trying for a bios

> upgrade maybe?....I am just fishing in the dark right now...lol

>

> "John Barnes" wrote:

>

>> What is slower, and do you have sufficient space on your Vista drive for

>> the

>> larger page and hibernate files which are assigned based on RAM.

>>

>> "kungfumonkeyman" <kungfumonkeyman@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in

>> message news:F2D0BFD5-7D69-44B2-8821-AC16E450E76D@microsoft.com...

>> > When I first installed Ultimate edition I was only running 2 gigs so I

>> > went

>> > and purchased 2 x 2gig sticks and installed them. My computer has been

>> > running much slower than before so I thought that maybe one of the ram

>> > slots

>> > on my mobo was bad or that one of the new sticks was bad but I am

>> > reading

>> > all

>> > 6 gigs and I even swapped out all my chips in different slots and it

>> > seems

>> > that when I am running with just 2 gigs everything is fine, no matter

>> > if I

>> > am

>> > running with 2 x 1gig or with just 1 x 2gig. It is getting pretty

>> > annoying

>> > and was hoping that someone might have some advice on anything that I

>> > could

>> > try. Thank You

>>

January 13, 2008

Re: Installed 6 gigs of Ram in Vista Ultimate x64 and its slower n

Re: Installed 6 gigs of Ram in Vista Ultimate x64 and its slower n

I do show both cores, but they are both spiking most of the time but now at

idle core 1 if at full and core 2 is about 10%. I will look further into

changing those settings though....thanks

"John Barnes" wrote:

> Are you showing both cores in your task management? If so, is one core

> hitting 100% while the other sits at a lower usage? I have had that problem

> and had to manually set the affinity of some of my processes in task manager

> to keep from the hanging problem. That doesn't explain the startup problem,

> but might be worth looking at.

>

> "kungfumonkeyman" <kungfumonkeyman@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in

> message news:AD5297FD-B08E-43C8-9F17-736A4C07E2BB@microsoft.com...

> > the whole system is slower....from start up to idle, opening files, going

> > to

> > controll panel....I get a lot of (not responding) and then going active

> > again. I did try to go in and lower my page file but it doesnt seem to

> > be

> > taking properly. almost seemed to help out but now it is slowing down

> > again.

> > Hard drive space is ample on my raptor so that wouldnt be it. My

> > processor

> > seems to be kicking up to 100% a lot though....I have a Core 2 Duo

> > 2.2gig....dont know where to go from here other than trying for a bios

> > upgrade maybe?....I am just fishing in the dark right now...lol

> >

> > "John Barnes" wrote:

> >

> >> What is slower, and do you have sufficient space on your Vista drive for

> >> the

> >> larger page and hibernate files which are assigned based on RAM.

> >>

> >> "kungfumonkeyman" <kungfumonkeyman@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in

> >> message news:F2D0BFD5-7D69-44B2-8821-AC16E450E76D@microsoft.com...

> >> > When I first installed Ultimate edition I was only running 2 gigs so I

> >> > went

> >> > and purchased 2 x 2gig sticks and installed them. My computer has been

> >> > running much slower than before so I thought that maybe one of the ram

> >> > slots

> >> > on my mobo was bad or that one of the new sticks was bad but I am

> >> > reading

> >> > all

> >> > 6 gigs and I even swapped out all my chips in different slots and it

> >> > seems

> >> > that when I am running with just 2 gigs everything is fine, no matter

> >> > if I

> >> > am

> >> > running with 2 x 1gig or with just 1 x 2gig. It is getting pretty

> >> > annoying

> >> > and was hoping that someone might have some advice on anything that I

> >> > could

> >> > try. Thank You

> >>

>

January 13, 2008

Re: Installed 6 gigs of Ram in Vista Ultimate x64 and its slower n

Re: Installed 6 gigs of Ram in Vista Ultimate x64 and its slower n

With three times the RAM you really shouldn't LOWer your page file. It

should be set at 1.5 times 6, which is 9. One trick that could speed up your

page file is to set the 'Min/Max' values to the same size, to prevent the

system wanting to resize the file, which probably would take enough time to

make you worry.

Also, I probably would go for a BIOS update, if there is one!

Oh - and if you are using any CPU frequency scaling driver, I would probably

uninstall that and reinstall it after a reboot. It's a long shot, but who

knows?

Tony. . .

"kungfumonkeyman" <kungfumonkeyman@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in

message news:AD5297FD-B08E-43C8-9F17-736A4C07E2BB@microsoft.com...

> the whole system is slower....from start up to idle, opening files, going

> to

> controll panel....I get a lot of (not responding) and then going active

> again. I did try to go in and lower my page file but it doesnt seem to

> be

> taking properly. almost seemed to help out but now it is slowing down

> again.

> Hard drive space is ample on my raptor so that wouldnt be it. My

> processor

> seems to be kicking up to 100% a lot though....I have a Core 2 Duo

> 2.2gig....dont know where to go from here other than trying for a bios

> upgrade maybe?....I am just fishing in the dark right now...lol

>

> "John Barnes" wrote:

>

>> What is slower, and do you have sufficient space on your Vista drive for

>> the

>> larger page and hibernate files which are assigned based on RAM.

>>

>> "kungfumonkeyman" <kungfumonkeyman@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in

>> message news:F2D0BFD5-7D69-44B2-8821-AC16E450E76D@microsoft.com...

>> > When I first installed Ultimate edition I was only running 2 gigs so I

>> > went

>> > and purchased 2 x 2gig sticks and installed them. My computer has been

>> > running much slower than before so I thought that maybe one of the ram

>> > slots

>> > on my mobo was bad or that one of the new sticks was bad but I am

>> > reading

>> > all

>> > 6 gigs and I even swapped out all my chips in different slots and it

>> > seems

>> > that when I am running with just 2 gigs everything is fine, no matter

>> > if I

>> > am

>> > running with 2 x 1gig or with just 1 x 2gig. It is getting pretty

>> > annoying

>> > and was hoping that someone might have some advice on anything that I

>> > could

>> > try. Thank You

>>

January 14, 2008

Re: Installed 6 gigs of Ram in Vista Ultimate x64 and its slower n

Re: Installed 6 gigs of Ram in Vista Ultimate x64 and its slower n

well memtest on the 2x2gigs

are all 4 stix the same maker, list ram type on the stixs

and motherboard make n model would be needed

although this may be better covered in a motherboard forum

like tomshardware.com or tweaktown.com

"kungfumonkeyman" <kungfumonkeyman@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in

message news:8974A783-E19F-4213-A7B8-B6F4B66FC0DA@microsoft.com...

>I currently have 2 x 1gig and 2 x 2 gig sticks all running at 800. m to

> ensure it wasnt the size difference I tried just the 2 x 2gig sticks and

> was

> still acting slow. It is considerably slower...startup takes 2-3 minutes

> and

> I understand that there is a memory check so that doesnt bother me too

> much...it is still too long. even when I press alt cntrl del to get

> task

> manager up there is about a 10-15 sec delay until the menu appears.

>

> "Colin Barnhorst" wrote:

>

>> How much slower? If your mobo takes dual channel then three sticks will

>> take it out of dual-channel mode and it might run slightly slower, but

>> probably not enough to be noticeable. If the sticks are not exactly the

>> same it would probably run slower.

>>

>> "kungfumonkeyman" <kungfumonkeyman@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in

>> message news:F2D0BFD5-7D69-44B2-8821-AC16E450E76D@microsoft.com...

>> > When I first installed Ultimate edition I was only running 2 gigs so I

>> > went

>> > and purchased 2 x 2gig sticks and installed them. My computer has been

>> > running much slower than before so I thought that maybe one of the ram

>> > slots

>> > on my mobo was bad or that one of the new sticks was bad but I am

>> > reading

>> > all

>> > 6 gigs and I even swapped out all my chips in different slots and it

>> > seems

>> > that when I am running with just 2 gigs everything is fine, no matter

>> > if I

>> > am

>> > running with 2 x 1gig or with just 1 x 2gig. It is getting pretty

>> > annoying

>> > and was hoping that someone might have some advice on anything that I

>> > could

>> > try. Thank You

>>

January 14, 2008

Re: Installed 6 gigs of Ram in Vista Ultimate x64 and its slower n

Re: Installed 6 gigs of Ram in Vista Ultimate x64 and its slower n

thanks tony...I will give it a try. I was just a little confused cause the

max range was set at 12 and I was thinking that that was a little high...lol.

"Tony Sperling" wrote:

> With three times the RAM you really shouldn't LOWer your page file. It

> should be set at 1.5 times 6, which is 9. One trick that could speed up your

> page file is to set the 'Min/Max' values to the same size, to prevent the

> system wanting to resize the file, which probably would take enough time to

> make you worry.

>

> Also, I probably would go for a BIOS update, if there is one!

>

> Oh - and if you are using any CPU frequency scaling driver, I would probably

> uninstall that and reinstall it after a reboot. It's a long shot, but who

> knows?

>

> Tony. . .

>

> "kungfumonkeyman" <kungfumonkeyman@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in

> message news:AD5297FD-B08E-43C8-9F17-736A4C07E2BB@microsoft.com...

> > the whole system is slower....from start up to idle, opening files, going

> > to

> > controll panel....I get a lot of (not responding) and then going active

> > again. I did try to go in and lower my page file but it doesnt seem to

> > be

> > taking properly. almost seemed to help out but now it is slowing down

> > again.

> > Hard drive space is ample on my raptor so that wouldnt be it. My

> > processor

> > seems to be kicking up to 100% a lot though....I have a Core 2 Duo

> > 2.2gig....dont know where to go from here other than trying for a bios

> > upgrade maybe?....I am just fishing in the dark right now...lol

> >

> > "John Barnes" wrote:

> >

> >> What is slower, and do you have sufficient space on your Vista drive for

> >> the

> >> larger page and hibernate files which are assigned based on RAM.

> >>

> >> "kungfumonkeyman" <kungfumonkeyman@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in

> >> message news:F2D0BFD5-7D69-44B2-8821-AC16E450E76D@microsoft.com...

> >> > When I first installed Ultimate edition I was only running 2 gigs so I

> >> > went

> >> > and purchased 2 x 2gig sticks and installed them. My computer has been

> >> > running much slower than before so I thought that maybe one of the ram

> >> > slots

> >> > on my mobo was bad or that one of the new sticks was bad but I am

> >> > reading

> >> > all

> >> > 6 gigs and I even swapped out all my chips in different slots and it

> >> > seems

> >> > that when I am running with just 2 gigs everything is fine, no matter

> >> > if I

> >> > am

> >> > running with 2 x 1gig or with just 1 x 2gig. It is getting pretty

> >> > annoying

> >> > and was hoping that someone might have some advice on anything that I

> >> > could

> >> > try. Thank You

> >>

>

January 14, 2008

Re: Installed 6 gigs of Ram in Vista Ultimate x64 and its slower n

Re: Installed 6 gigs of Ram in Vista Ultimate x64 and its slower n

the 2 gig stix are the same and the 1 gig stix are the same but it happens

when even just the 2 2gig stix are in without the 1 gig stix. I will check

out those other forums if Tony's response doesnt do the trick....thanx

"Patrick" wrote:

> well memtest on the 2x2gigs

> are all 4 stix the same maker, list ram type on the stixs

> and motherboard make n model would be needed

>

> although this may be better covered in a motherboard forum

>

> like tomshardware.com or tweaktown.com

>

> "kungfumonkeyman" <kungfumonkeyman@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in

> message news:8974A783-E19F-4213-A7B8-B6F4B66FC0DA@microsoft.com...

> >I currently have 2 x 1gig and 2 x 2 gig sticks all running at 800. m to

> > ensure it wasnt the size difference I tried just the 2 x 2gig sticks and

> > was

> > still acting slow. It is considerably slower...startup takes 2-3 minutes

> > and

> > I understand that there is a memory check so that doesnt bother me too

> > much...it is still too long. even when I press alt cntrl del to get

> > task

> > manager up there is about a 10-15 sec delay until the menu appears.

> >

> > "Colin Barnhorst" wrote:

> >

> >> How much slower? If your mobo takes dual channel then three sticks will

> >> take it out of dual-channel mode and it might run slightly slower, but

> >> probably not enough to be noticeable. If the sticks are not exactly the

> >> same it would probably run slower.

> >>

> >> "kungfumonkeyman" <kungfumonkeyman@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in

> >> message news:F2D0BFD5-7D69-44B2-8821-AC16E450E76D@microsoft.com...

> >> > When I first installed Ultimate edition I was only running 2 gigs so I

> >> > went

> >> > and purchased 2 x 2gig sticks and installed them. My computer has been

> >> > running much slower than before so I thought that maybe one of the ram

> >> > slots

> >> > on my mobo was bad or that one of the new sticks was bad but I am

> >> > reading

> >> > all

> >> > 6 gigs and I even swapped out all my chips in different slots and it

> >> > seems

> >> > that when I am running with just 2 gigs everything is fine, no matter

> >> > if I

> >> > am

> >> > running with 2 x 1gig or with just 1 x 2gig. It is getting pretty

> >> > annoying

> >> > and was hoping that someone might have some advice on anything that I

> >> > could

> >> > try. Thank You

> >>

>

January 14, 2008

Re: Installed 6 gigs of Ram in Vista Ultimate x64 and its slower n

Re: Installed 6 gigs of Ram in Vista Ultimate x64 and its slower n

oh yea... the mobo is an MSI nvidia 650i and the 2x 2gig stix are

elixer....the 1 gigs are generic.

"Patrick" wrote:

> well memtest on the 2x2gigs

> are all 4 stix the same maker, list ram type on the stixs

> and motherboard make n model would be needed

>

> although this may be better covered in a motherboard forum

>

> like tomshardware.com or tweaktown.com

>

> "kungfumonkeyman" <kungfumonkeyman@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in

> message news:8974A783-E19F-4213-A7B8-B6F4B66FC0DA@microsoft.com...

> >I currently have 2 x 1gig and 2 x 2 gig sticks all running at 800. m to

> > ensure it wasnt the size difference I tried just the 2 x 2gig sticks and

> > was

> > still acting slow. It is considerably slower...startup takes 2-3 minutes

> > and

> > I understand that there is a memory check so that doesnt bother me too

> > much...it is still too long. even when I press alt cntrl del to get

> > task

> > manager up there is about a 10-15 sec delay until the menu appears.

> >

> > "Colin Barnhorst" wrote:

> >

> >> How much slower? If your mobo takes dual channel then three sticks will

> >> take it out of dual-channel mode and it might run slightly slower, but

> >> probably not enough to be noticeable. If the sticks are not exactly the

> >> same it would probably run slower.

> >>

> >> "kungfumonkeyman" <kungfumonkeyman@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in

> >> message news:F2D0BFD5-7D69-44B2-8821-AC16E450E76D@microsoft.com...

> >> > When I first installed Ultimate edition I was only running 2 gigs so I

> >> > went

> >> > and purchased 2 x 2gig sticks and installed them. My computer has been

> >> > running much slower than before so I thought that maybe one of the ram

> >> > slots

> >> > on my mobo was bad or that one of the new sticks was bad but I am

> >> > reading

> >> > all

> >> > 6 gigs and I even swapped out all my chips in different slots and it

> >> > seems

> >> > that when I am running with just 2 gigs everything is fine, no matter

> >> > if I

> >> > am

> >> > running with 2 x 1gig or with just 1 x 2gig. It is getting pretty

> >> > annoying

> >> > and was hoping that someone might have some advice on anything that I

> >> > could

> >> > try. Thank You

> >>

>

January 14, 2008

Re: Installed 6 gigs of Ram in Vista Ultimate x64 and its slower n

Re: Installed 6 gigs of Ram in Vista Ultimate x64 and its slower n

Hello "kungfumonkeyman":

The MSI website says your board supports "up to 8 GBs" of ram and can

use 553/667/800 Mhz memory. I wonder if your board is similar to my Intel

board?

It can support up to 8 GBs RAM of the same speed as yours, but they on to

specify that you can only use 4 GB of 800 Mhz or up to 8 GBs of 667. You

might check the manual and see if they have the same limitations. Up to 8 GB

can mean many different things sometimes.

xiowan........in tucson

"kungfumonkeyman" wrote:

> oh yea... the mobo is an MSI nvidia 650i and the 2x 2gig stix are

> elixer....the 1 gigs are generic.

>

> "Patrick" wrote:

>

> > well memtest on the 2x2gigs

> > are all 4 stix the same maker, list ram type on the stixs

> > and motherboard make n model would be needed

> >

> > although this may be better covered in a motherboard forum

> >

> > like tomshardware.com or tweaktown.com

> >

> > "kungfumonkeyman" <kungfumonkeyman@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in

> > message news:8974A783-E19F-4213-A7B8-B6F4B66FC0DA@microsoft.com...

> > >I currently have 2 x 1gig and 2 x 2 gig sticks all running at 800. m to

> > > ensure it wasnt the size difference I tried just the 2 x 2gig sticks and

> > > was

> > > still acting slow. It is considerably slower...startup takes 2-3 minutes

> > > and

> > > I understand that there is a memory check so that doesnt bother me too

> > > much...it is still too long. even when I press alt cntrl del to get

> > > task

> > > manager up there is about a 10-15 sec delay until the menu appears.

> > >

> > > "Colin Barnhorst" wrote:

> > >

> > >> How much slower? If your mobo takes dual channel then three sticks will

> > >> take it out of dual-channel mode and it might run slightly slower, but

> > >> probably not enough to be noticeable. If the sticks are not exactly the

> > >> same it would probably run slower.

> > >>

> > >> "kungfumonkeyman" <kungfumonkeyman@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in

> > >> message news:F2D0BFD5-7D69-44B2-8821-AC16E450E76D@microsoft.com...

> > >> > When I first installed Ultimate edition I was only running 2 gigs so I

> > >> > went

> > >> > and purchased 2 x 2gig sticks and installed them. My computer has been

> > >> > running much slower than before so I thought that maybe one of the ram

> > >> > slots

> > >> > on my mobo was bad or that one of the new sticks was bad but I am

> > >> > reading

> > >> > all

> > >> > 6 gigs and I even swapped out all my chips in different slots and it

> > >> > seems

> > >> > that when I am running with just 2 gigs everything is fine, no matter

> > >> > if I

> > >> > am

> > >> > running with 2 x 1gig or with just 1 x 2gig. It is getting pretty

> > >> > annoying

> > >> > and was hoping that someone might have some advice on anything that I

> > >> > could

> > >> > try. Thank You

> > >>

> >

January 14, 2008

Re: Installed 6 gigs of Ram in Vista Ultimate x64 and its slower n

Re: Installed 6 gigs of Ram in Vista Ultimate x64 and its slower n

also check voltage req.. for each set

"xiowan" <xiowan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:9E9140F3-F841-406F-BA5E-7FD5762CE2A1@microsoft.com...

> Hello "kungfumonkeyman":

> The MSI website says your board supports "up to 8 GBs" of ram and can

> use 553/667/800 Mhz memory. I wonder if your board is similar to my Intel

> board?

> It can support up to 8 GBs RAM of the same speed as yours, but they on to

> specify that you can only use 4 GB of 800 Mhz or up to 8 GBs of 667. You

> might check the manual and see if they have the same limitations. Up to 8

> GB

> can mean many different things sometimes.

>

> xiowan........in tucson

>

> "kungfumonkeyman" wrote:

>

>> oh yea... the mobo is an MSI nvidia 650i and the 2x 2gig stix are

>> elixer....the 1 gigs are generic.

>>

>> "Patrick" wrote:

>>

>> > well memtest on the 2x2gigs

>> > are all 4 stix the same maker, list ram type on the stixs

>> > and motherboard make n model would be needed

>> >

>> > although this may be better covered in a motherboard forum

>> >

>> > like tomshardware.com or tweaktown.com

>> >

>> > "kungfumonkeyman" <kungfumonkeyman@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in

>> > message news:8974A783-E19F-4213-A7B8-B6F4B66FC0DA@microsoft.com...

>> > >I currently have 2 x 1gig and 2 x 2 gig sticks all running at 800. m

>> > >to

>> > > ensure it wasnt the size difference I tried just the 2 x 2gig sticks

>> > > and

>> > > was

>> > > still acting slow. It is considerably slower...startup takes 2-3

>> > > minutes

>> > > and

>> > > I understand that there is a memory check so that doesnt bother me

>> > > too

>> > > much...it is still too long. even when I press alt cntrl del to

>> > > get

>> > > task

>> > > manager up there is about a 10-15 sec delay until the menu appears.

>> > >

>> > > "Colin Barnhorst" wrote:

>> > >

>> > >> How much slower? If your mobo takes dual channel then three sticks

>> > >> will

>> > >> take it out of dual-channel mode and it might run slightly slower,

>> > >> but

>> > >> probably not enough to be noticeable. If the sticks are not exactly

>> > >> the

>> > >> same it would probably run slower.

>> > >>

>> > >> "kungfumonkeyman" <kungfumonkeyman@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote

>> > >> in

>> > >> message news:F2D0BFD5-7D69-44B2-8821-AC16E450E76D@microsoft.com...

>> > >> > When I first installed Ultimate edition I was only running 2 gigs

>> > >> > so I

>> > >> > went

>> > >> > and purchased 2 x 2gig sticks and installed them. My computer has

>> > >> > been

>> > >> > running much slower than before so I thought that maybe one of the

>> > >> > ram

>> > >> > slots

>> > >> > on my mobo was bad or that one of the new sticks was bad but I am

>> > >> > reading

>> > >> > all

>> > >> > 6 gigs and I even swapped out all my chips in different slots and

>> > >> > it

>> > >> > seems

>> > >> > that when I am running with just 2 gigs everything is fine, no

>> > >> > matter

>> > >> > if I

>> > >> > am

>> > >> > running with 2 x 1gig or with just 1 x 2gig. It is getting pretty

>> > >> > annoying

>> > >> > and was hoping that someone might have some advice on anything

>> > >> > that I

>> > >> > could

>> > >> > try. Thank You

>> > >>

>> >

January 14, 2008

Re: Installed 6 gigs of Ram in Vista Ultimate x64 and its slower n

Re: Installed 6 gigs of Ram in Vista Ultimate x64 and its slower n

thank you for the input.

I have tried running just 4 gigs of 800 and still have the same slow speeds.

I am currently adjusting my poagefile size to 9 gigs but in the resource

meter am now showing 24 gigs. just keep getting different numbers left and

right and am thinking about just upgrading my mobo to a BFG or something

along those lines. I know one thing is for sure....I have played enough for

today and need to crash :\

"xiowan" wrote:

> Hello "kungfumonkeyman":

> The MSI website says your board supports "up to 8 GBs" of ram and can

> use 553/667/800 Mhz memory. I wonder if your board is similar to my Intel

> board?

> It can support up to 8 GBs RAM of the same speed as yours, but they on to

> specify that you can only use 4 GB of 800 Mhz or up to 8 GBs of 667. You

> might check the manual and see if they have the same limitations. Up to 8 GB

> can mean many different things sometimes.

>

> xiowan........in tucson

>

> "kungfumonkeyman" wrote:

>

> > oh yea... the mobo is an MSI nvidia 650i and the 2x 2gig stix are

> > elixer....the 1 gigs are generic.

> >

> > "Patrick" wrote:

> >

> > > well memtest on the 2x2gigs

> > > are all 4 stix the same maker, list ram type on the stixs

> > > and motherboard make n model would be needed

> > >

> > > although this may be better covered in a motherboard forum

> > >

> > > like tomshardware.com or tweaktown.com

> > >

> > > "kungfumonkeyman" <kungfumonkeyman@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in

> > > message news:8974A783-E19F-4213-A7B8-B6F4B66FC0DA@microsoft.com...

> > > >I currently have 2 x 1gig and 2 x 2 gig sticks all running at 800. m to

> > > > ensure it wasnt the size difference I tried just the 2 x 2gig sticks and

> > > > was

> > > > still acting slow. It is considerably slower...startup takes 2-3 minutes

> > > > and

> > > > I understand that there is a memory check so that doesnt bother me too

> > > > much...it is still too long. even when I press alt cntrl del to get

> > > > task

> > > > manager up there is about a 10-15 sec delay until the menu appears.

> > > >

> > > > "Colin Barnhorst" wrote:

> > > >

> > > >> How much slower? If your mobo takes dual channel then three sticks will

> > > >> take it out of dual-channel mode and it might run slightly slower, but

> > > >> probably not enough to be noticeable. If the sticks are not exactly the

> > > >> same it would probably run slower.

> > > >>

> > > >> "kungfumonkeyman" <kungfumonkeyman@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in

> > > >> message news:F2D0BFD5-7D69-44B2-8821-AC16E450E76D@microsoft.com...

> > > >> > When I first installed Ultimate edition I was only running 2 gigs so I

> > > >> > went

> > > >> > and purchased 2 x 2gig sticks and installed them. My computer has been

> > > >> > running much slower than before so I thought that maybe one of the ram

> > > >> > slots

> > > >> > on my mobo was bad or that one of the new sticks was bad but I am

> > > >> > reading

> > > >> > all

> > > >> > 6 gigs and I even swapped out all my chips in different slots and it

> > > >> > seems

> > > >> > that when I am running with just 2 gigs everything is fine, no matter

> > > >> > if I

> > > >> > am

> > > >> > running with 2 x 1gig or with just 1 x 2gig. It is getting pretty

> > > >> > annoying

> > > >> > and was hoping that someone might have some advice on anything that I

> > > >> > could

> > > >> > try. Thank You

> > > >>

> > >

January 14, 2008

Re: Installed 6 gigs of Ram in Vista Ultimate x64 and its slower n

Re: Installed 6 gigs of Ram in Vista Ultimate x64 and its slower n

On Jan 13, 9:26 pm, kungfumonkeyman

<kungfumonkey...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

> thank you for the input.

>

> I have tried running just 4 gigs of 800 and still have the same slow speeds.

> I am currently adjusting my poagefile size to 9 gigs but in the resource

> meter am now showing 24 gigs. just keep getting different numbers left and

> right and am thinking about just upgrading my mobo to a BFG or something

> along those lines. I know one thing is for sure....I have played enough for

> today and need to crash :\

>

> "xiowan" wrote:

> > Hello "kungfumonkeyman":

> > The MSI website says your board supports "up to 8 GBs" of ram and can

> > use 553/667/800 Mhz memory. I wonder if your board is similar to my Intel

> > board?

> > It can support up to 8 GBs RAM of the same speed as yours, but they on to

> > specify that you can only use 4 GB of 800 Mhz or up to 8 GBs of 667. You

> > might check the manual and see if they have the same limitations. Up to 8 GB

> > can mean many different things sometimes.

>

> > xiowan........in tucson

>

> > "kungfumonkeyman" wrote:

>

> > > oh yea... the mobo is an MSI nvidia 650i and the 2x 2gig stix are

> > > elixer....the 1 gigs are generic.

>

> > > "Patrick" wrote:

>

> > > > well memtest on the 2x2gigs

> > > > are all 4 stix the same maker, list ram type on the stixs

> > > > and motherboard make n model would be needed

>

> > > > although this may be better covered in a motherboard forum

>

> > > > like tomshardware.com or tweaktown.com

>

> > > > "kungfumonkeyman" <kungfumonkey...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in

> > > > messagenews:8974A783-E19F-4213-A7B8-B6F4B66FC0DA@microsoft.com...

> > > > >I currently have 2 x 1gig and 2 x 2 gig sticks all running at 800. m to

> > > > > ensure it wasnt the size difference I tried just the 2 x 2gig sticks and

> > > > > was

> > > > > still acting slow. It is considerably slower...startup takes 2-3 minutes

> > > > > and

> > > > > I understand that there is a memory check so that doesnt bother me too

> > > > > much...it is still too long. even when I press alt cntrl del to get

> > > > > task

> > > > > manager up there is about a 10-15 sec delay until the menu appears.

>

> > > > > "Colin Barnhorst" wrote:

>

> > > > >> How much slower? If your mobo takes dual channel then three sticks will

> > > > >> take it out of dual-channel mode and it might run slightly slower, but

> > > > >> probably not enough to be noticeable. If the sticks are not exactly the

> > > > >> same it would probably run slower.

>

> > > > >> "kungfumonkeyman" <kungfumonkey...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in

> > > > >> messagenews:F2D0BFD5-7D69-44B2-8821-AC16E450E76D@microsoft.com...

> > > > >> > When I first installed Ultimate edition I was only running 2 gigs so I

> > > > >> > went

> > > > >> > and purchased 2 x 2gig sticks and installed them. My computer has been

> > > > >> > running much slower than before so I thought that maybe one of the ram

> > > > >> > slots

> > > > >> > on my mobo was bad or that one of the new sticks was bad but I am

> > > > >> > reading

> > > > >> > all

> > > > >> > 6 gigs and I even swapped out all my chips in different slots and it

> > > > >> > seems

> > > > >> > that when I am running with just 2 gigs everything is fine, no matter

> > > > >> > if I

> > > > >> > am

> > > > >> > running with 2 x 1gig or with just 1 x 2gig. It is getting pretty

> > > > >> > annoying

> > > > >> > and was hoping that someone might have some advice on anything that I

> > > > >> > could

> > > > >> > try. Thank You

How about flogging the memory using a boot CD rather than testing it

in windows. This way you could isolate the problem, i.e. hardware or

OS. I know suse linux has a memory test on the first CD, but I bet

there are CDs just for memory flogging. I know the memory tester that

suse uses indicates the throughput.

You need a program that can address 64 bits. The more I think about

it, maybe downloading the first CD of suse is a good idea. A lot of

the existing memory testers may not be 64 bit.

January 15, 2008

Re: Installed 6 gigs of Ram in Vista Ultimate x64 and its slower now

HI,

putting in additional mem may have caused your Bios to set the "new" config

to default values (slower speeds)

like the other told : if you have hibernating (same amount of ram size), it

may eat your system drive (c:), where it sits,

that for , your swapfile may now run on a different (may be fragmented)

drive.

regards

January 15, 2008

Re: Installed 6 gigs of Ram in Vista Ultimate x64 and its slower n

Re: Installed 6 gigs of Ram in Vista Ultimate x64 and its slower n

"Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling@dbmail.dk> wrote in message

news:%23NNRf0jVIHA.4196@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> With three times the RAM you really shouldn't LOWer your page file. It

> should be set at 1.5 times 6, which is 9. One trick that could speed up

> your

Why? Post a reference please.

I've researched this in the past, because I've seen claims like this in the

past (all the way back to NT 3.1), but no documentation exists (afaik) which

supports your claim. 1.5x (or physical mem size + 11MB) is the suggested

amount. AFAICT, the suggestion is based on the hypothesis that more memory

means you'll use more memory intensive apps, and you have a higher chance of

spillover. I've seen people suggest that the kernel wants (or even expects)

to be able to page all physical memory to file, but no documentation (again

AFAIK) supports this claim.

--

Rune

January 15, 2008

Re: Installed 6 gigs of Ram in Vista Ultimate x64 and its slower n

Re: Installed 6 gigs of Ram in Vista Ultimate x64 and its slower n

"kungfumonkeyman" <kungfumonkeyman@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in

message news:3BD48B46-D01E-498B-964A-86307B2A5870@microsoft.com...

>I do show both cores, but they are both spiking most of the time but now at

> idle core 1 if at full and core 2 is about 10%. I will look further into

Which process(es) use the CPUs?

Add the "CPU time" column to task manager. (or just watch the CPU% gauge per

process)

--

Rune

January 15, 2008

Re: Installed 6 gigs of Ram in Vista Ultimate x64 and its slower n

Re: Installed 6 gigs of Ram in Vista Ultimate x64 and its slower n

Oh - this is much too old that I can possibly remember - attached here, you

can check with the Windows System Recommendations for my setup which runs on

'2GB'.

I do vaguely remember something about the claim you make, but this goes all

the way back to Windows 3.11 and the 'plus 11MB' doesn't make sense since

most machines had 10 - 40 MB HD's around that time - I suspect those 11MB's

were originally another percentage value that YOU at some point in time

calculated as being 11MB on your - then, current system?

Honestly, I don't have any idea of what is absolutely correct in this

matter, but it is (and has been) firmly supported by almost everyone plus

the Devil and his Grandma since as long as I can remember, Windowswize.

Check with your own Virtual Memory settings tab - I'm sure you'll come to

the conclusion that there is very little to 'fuzz' over whether you use the

one calculation formula or the other.

Tony. . .

January 15, 2008

Re: Installed 6 gigs of Ram in Vista Ultimate x64 and its slower now

Hibernation is usually disabled with that much ram aboard.

"Juergen Kluth" <jkluth@t-onlinr.de> wrote in message

news:uL8v%23U2VIHA.4448@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> HI,

> putting in additional mem may have caused your Bios to set the "new"

> config to default values (slower speeds)

>

> like the other told : if you have hibernating (same amount of ram size),

> it may eat your system drive (c:), where it sits,

> that for , your swapfile may now run on a different (may be fragmented)

> drive.

>

> regards

>

January 15, 2008

Re: Installed 6 gigs of Ram in Vista Ultimate x64 and its slower n

Re: Installed 6 gigs of Ram in Vista Ultimate x64 and its slower n

"Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling@dbmail.dk> wrote in message

news:epytrh3VIHA.4448@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> Oh - this is much too old that I can possibly remember - attached here,

> you can check with the Windows System Recommendations for my setup which

> runs on '2GB'.

I am intimately familiar with that dialog box.

As I said, it is a generic recommendation and I've never seen anyone backing

it up. I've asked some microsofties about this, and no answer there either.

I would be very surprised if you could find a benchmark showing an increase

in performance by increasing the pagefile size from half a GB to 6GB on a

4GB memory system...

This question has been discussed over at the sysinternals.com forums without

any conclusion there either. (other than "make sure you don't run out of

virtual memory and you'll be fine")

But think about this for a while. What are you trying to gain by increasing

the size of the pagefile? System stability? (You'd think there would be a

warning then) Increase in performance? (How? By leaving the system with more

opportunity to use the disk instead of physical memory?)

I know you need a pagefile on the system drive in order to generate a memory

dump. You need the pagefile to support memory mapped files, but these are

limited to 2GB (assuming 32-bit Windows) anyway and 2GB memory mapped files

aren't all that common.

> I do vaguely remember something about the claim you make, but this goes

> all the way back to Windows 3.11 and the 'plus 11MB' doesn't make sense

> since

The +11MB recommendation was the NT 3.1 - 4.0 recommendation IIRC. I do not

recall the 16 bit recommendation, and it has no bearing here since there is

a big difference between swapping (win 3.11) and paging (NT 3.1 +).

+11MB or 1.5X the size of physical memory doesn't really matter. Both

settings will work just fine in most situations given the amount of system

memory we're talking about here... They're both overkill. (but disk space is

cheap, and it doesn't hurt... Except for those of us using SCSI drives)

> matter, but it is (and has been) firmly supported by almost everyone plus

> the Devil and his Grandma since as long as I can remember, Windowswize.

I have seen almost everyone plus the devil and his grandma suggest regular

re-installation cycles of Windows XP, but that does not make them right.

Most people, when it comes to computers, are simply parroting old "truths".

There are many Windows myths out there, and this is most likely one of them.

I doubt the devil and his grandma can come up with any reasonable

explanation as to why they made their recommendation.

--

Rune

January 15, 2008