Bank Interleaving of RAM sticks

Mike

Nevertheless SiSoft Sandra is not free. As is stated on the
Freedownloadmanager site it is shareware and costs $29.00 US.

This really isn't worthwhile getting into an argument over but I'm sure
you will see from the above how I misunderstood your point of view.
The important thing is that Harry's happy now.
Paul

Just a thought, Paul........since you have two DDR slots available, have you
thought about using them instead of the SDR slots?
Memory is pretty cheap and the DDR may just be better than interleaving your
SDR. Check back with your computer shop, they would probably *give* you a
16M video card from an upgraded machine.........not much demand for those
anymore.....then you could have the best of both worlds :-).
Heirloom, old and pay no real attention,
just spouting off


"PaulFXH" wrote in message
oups.com...
Heirloom
Thanks again for your comments.
I woke up this morning with the full intention of trying out your
suggestion. Then I discovered that my two empty slots are DDR slots so
my SDR sticks can't be moved around.
However, in an attempt to get some encouragement for shoving in an AGP
card (yes, I do have a slot) I changed the BIOS setup to reduce the
shared memory from 32MB to 16MB. Sure enough, this brough my RAM memory
from 224MB to 240MB. However, it made no difference whatsoever to my
memory read or write speed, or the latency or the bandwidth efficiency
nor even to the cold boot time.
This surprised me and does not suggest that the AGP card would provide
the expected (or hoped for) performance boost.
Nevertheless, I went along to the local computer store to check out the
AGP card situation. The guy I spoke to there did not see much, or even
any benefit, as likely to arise from its installation. For him, WinME
is an irremediable blight on the computer world and he was quite
´prepared to attribute all of my computer ills, including the sluggish
memory performance, to the OS. He considered that WinME is particularly
prone to leaving unremovable residues in the registry which will slow
everything down after a few years of accumulation. So I came away
pondering the gravity of his claims but without the AGP card.
On the other hand, although my experience with WinME is only one month,
I really cannot say that it has been a dissappointment. Despite my
lamentations about the memory, I find that the machine I'm using is
actually quite sprightly. It starts up and shuts down quickly and apps
can be brought up very swiftly. The whole memory thing was really just
something I saw as an opportunity to squeeze a little more rapidity out
of a machine that is already performing well. It is not very much
slower than my other machine running on WinXP (with faster CPU and more
than twice the RAM) and actually does some things faster.
My only real problem on the WinME machine is that it tends to hang
unexpectedly now and again but this is something I could live with.
Thanks for your interest in my problem
Paul

PaulFXH wrote:

This really isn't worthwhile getting into an argument over but I'm
sure you will see from the above how I misunderstood your point of
view. The important thing is that Harry's happy now.

Agreed!
--
Mike Maltby

Hi Heirloom
Thanks for your thoughts.
However, just to make it plain that I don't have a crisis here. The
computer actually operates well and I really am not complaining.
If there were something I could do to improve even more the performance
preferably without spending any money or getting out of my chair, then
I'll do it.
I started this thread with that aim. Although no improvement was
achieved I did learn a lot and found the exchange of views most
enjoyable. Hey, what's life for but to keep learning and stay happy (or
to become happy if you are not already starting from that platform).
Nevertheless, your suggestion to track down a 16MB AGP is one I'll take
up next time I visit the computer store down the road.
I'll just finish with a further observation I made today in the same
context that might encourage comments from somebody. Because of a
problem I had today, I was forced to clear the CMOS memory. Strangely,
several items in the BIOS SetUp menu which had formerly been grayed out
(and, indeed, were the original reason for this thread) now became
capable of change after clearing the CMOS. These included Bank
Interleaving and CAS Latency.
However, the strange thing is that no matter what I changed the
Interleaving setting to (choice of 4-way, 2-way or none) it always
ended up as 4-way after making the change and saving it. In other
words, it seemed that irrespective of the settings put into the BIOS,
default settings always seemed to be preferentially used (for a reason
I cannot explain). This list of unchangeable BIOS options includes
SDRAM frequency which is fixed at 100 MHz although the option of 133
MHz is temptingly available in the BIOS.
Tinkle any bells?
Paul

YW, Paul. You should know that I am just an old fixture around here,
helping when I can......even if it is only to bring a smile to someone's
face. This is the best NG on the Internet, bar none. You won't find a
better group of people. That's why, even after building my new box and
installing XP, I am still here........this is 127.0.0.1 for me.

Honestly, I had never heard of 'memory interleaving' before you brought it
up......I did mess with the HD interleave on my old XT clone, had that baby
running at, almost, AT speeds before I was done! what you did today, I
don't have a clue. I would have to do a lot of research and reading to even
approach that one. One thing for sure, there are some bonerfried gurus in
this group.......if the answers are available, this would be your best shot.
Heirloom, old and "tinkle bells?".....wasn't
that a fairy?

"PaulFXH" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hi Heirloom
Thanks for your thoughts.
However, just to make it plain that I don't have a crisis here. The
computer actually operates well and I really am not complaining.
If there were something I could do to improve even more the performance
preferably without spending any money or getting out of my chair, then
I'll do it.
I started this thread with that aim. Although no improvement was
achieved I did learn a lot and found the exchange of views most
enjoyable. Hey, what's life for but to keep learning and stay happy (or
to become happy if you are not already starting from that platform).
Nevertheless, your suggestion to track down a 16MB AGP is one I'll take
up next time I visit the computer store down the road.
I'll just finish with a further observation I made today in the same
context that might encourage comments from somebody. Because of a
problem I had today, I was forced to clear the CMOS memory. Strangely,
several items in the BIOS SetUp menu which had formerly been grayed out
(and, indeed, were the original reason for this thread) now became
capable of change after clearing the CMOS. These included Bank
Interleaving and CAS Latency.
However, the strange thing is that no matter what I changed the
Interleaving setting to (choice of 4-way, 2-way or none) it always
ended up as 4-way after making the change and saving it. In other
words, it seemed that irrespective of the settings put into the BIOS,
default settings always seemed to be preferentially used (for a reason
I cannot explain). This list of unchangeable BIOS options includes
SDRAM frequency which is fixed at 100 MHz although the option of 133
MHz is temptingly available in the BIOS.
Tinkle any bells?
Paul

Hi everybody
This is just an update on some progress I made in getting the memory
measurements (read/write speeds, CAS latency from Everton) on my
computer a little more respectable.
When I started this thread, the RAM measured (typically) 374 Mb/s Read,
169 Mb/s Write and 475 ns Latency.
These now measure 613, 273 and 286 in the same order [Latency is a
delay and therefore the lower the better in contrast to Read/Write
which should be fast]
Although this is a major improvement, the benefits of which are clearly
seen in the computer operation, it is still less than 40% of the way
towards the benchmark for my type of mobo as quoted by Everton.
The major factors involved in the improved memory performance were (in
decreasing order of importance):

1. Moving graphics display from 32-bit True Color to 16-bit High Color
2. Changing graphics display from 1280x1024 to 1024x768
3. Enabling 4-way bank interleaving
4. Moving CAS Latency from 3 to 2 (only improved latency and not the
Read/Write figures).

I have yet to install an external AGP card as suggested by Heirloom
(given that my mobo has an integrated video chip that shares memory
with, and therefore robs from, the RAM sticks) but this is coming up.
I have further tried to improve matters by increasing the CPU frequency
from 100MHz to 133MHz. However, even though jumpers to make this change
are available on the mobo, the computer simply does not boot when I
switch the jumpers. Unfortunately, I have no idea as to the reason for
this.
Neverthess, I now have the impression that my SDRAM PC133 sticks are
being penalized, in comparison with those from which I took the Everton
benchmark numbers, simply because they are running on a lower speed bus
(100MHz rather than 133MHz for which they are designed).
All-in-all, the computer is running extremely well and is by no means
left behind by my more modern, and faster, WinXP machine. Indeed, it
does some things better.
Who says WinME is out-dated?
Paul

Thanks for the update. Based on the improvements you have seen, which I
believe to be mostly a result of of display changes, I think your best bet
will still be to get the graphics card. Let us know after you get
it.......I, for one, am quite curious about the pending results.
Heirloom, old and don't like shared
video

"PaulFXH" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hi everybody
This is just an update on some progress I made in getting the memory
measurements (read/write speeds, CAS latency from Everton) on my
computer a little more respectable.
When I started this thread, the RAM measured (typically) 374 Mb/s Read,
169 Mb/s Write and 475 ns Latency.
These now measure 613, 273 and 286 in the same order [Latency is a
delay and therefore the lower the better in contrast to Read/Write
which should be fast]
Although this is a major improvement, the benefits of which are clearly
seen in the computer operation, it is still less than 40% of the way
towards the benchmark for my type of mobo as quoted by Everton.
The major factors involved in the improved memory performance were (in
decreasing order of importance):

1. Moving graphics display from 32-bit True Color to 16-bit High Color
2. Changing graphics display from 1280x1024 to 1024x768
3. Enabling 4-way bank interleaving
4. Moving CAS Latency from 3 to 2 (only improved latency and not the
Read/Write figures).

I have yet to install an external AGP card as suggested by Heirloom
(given that my mobo has an integrated video chip that shares memory
with, and therefore robs from, the RAM sticks) but this is coming up.
I have further tried to improve matters by increasing the CPU frequency
from 100MHz to 133MHz. However, even though jumpers to make this change
are available on the mobo, the computer simply does not boot when I
switch the jumpers. Unfortunately, I have no idea as to the reason for
this.
Neverthess, I now have the impression that my SDRAM PC133 sticks are
being penalized, in comparison with those from which I took the Everton
benchmark numbers, simply because they are running on a lower speed bus
(100MHz rather than 133MHz for which they are designed).
All-in-all, the computer is running extremely well and is by no means
left behind by my more modern, and faster, WinXP machine. Indeed, it
does some things better.
Who says WinME is out-dated?
Paul