4G ram upgrade makes no difference

I had posted this on another thread http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=404937 but since it seems to be a real problem here goes about upgrading the . I put 4G ram in my HP dv9420us, it had 2G with a supposed max of 2G, but the 4G does next to nothing to improve performance. It shows up as 4G in the BIOS and in Windows 7/64 and in PS. The Windows Experience Index even went from 4.9 to 5.5 for Memory Operations per Second.

BUT, nothing is faster. It boots in exactly the same amount of time, and I did some performance tests with Photoshop CS4/64, and there is virtually no difference in Photoshop processes that are memory and CPU intensive with both 2G and 4G.

I bought some Corsair DDR2 667mhz value select from MicroCenter across the street. Normally I am pretty good at catching things, but am not familiar with laptops.

Is this board and chipset built with a memory speed limit on it? Does everything recognize the RAM but the chipset wont actually use the extra memory? I cant thing of any other explanation.

 

Um, how bout the explanation that there is nothing for the extra memory to do? If you don't multi-task/load enough programs to use up 2GB of RAM, why would upgrading to 4GB make you think you'd experience some kind of performance increase? That doesn't make sense.

e.g. If you're only using 1GB of memory, then would it really matter if you have 1.5GB, 2GB, 3GB or 4GB available?

 

Possible. I use mostly ram intensive applications like Photoshop, I should see a difference.

1. Doesn't everyone say that Vista needs at least 2G to run properly and 4G is better?

2. Photoshop x64, running a filter that takes from 30 seconds to 2 minutes, should not be exactly the same amount of time with double the ram.

3. The processor is not that fast, the hard drive is 5200 rpm, so wont the ram make the difference in speed?

It just doesn't seem to react to extra ram the way a desktop does. Is the hardware preventing it from making use of the extra ram?

 

I watched the CPU and Memory usage while running the filter, and it uses the CPU almost all the time, and a little bit of extra ram. 7/64 used about 1G of ram while idle.

But then I opened all of the programs on the taskbar at the same time, Photoshop, Lightroom, Acrobat, Outlook, Word, Excel, and about 4 other photo programs and a database, just clicked them all in succession, while looking at the Performance Monitor and the Memory graph never went much above 1G, all these programs should be using ram when they open, right? Paging and swap files? Allocating space? Very strange. It never went above 1G ram in fact it seemed to freeze the laptop and I had to reboot.

 

1)32bit Windows only have 4GB worth of Addresses and Vista/Win7 Client only reserve 3GB for Programs. So 4GB is slightly redundant 3GB is just nice.

2)Photoshop depends on Processing Power as well

3)Depends a large RAM will enable Programs to be stored inside without swapping idle programs to disk.
Prefetch feature also enables Windows to load commonly use programs before you run it so it will already be there when you need it.
Performance Computing is all about eliminating the bottlenecks.

 

the only thing that will seem faster is loading a bunch of programs (or one huge one) and having it use more than 2gb of ram. your day to day operations - startup/shutdown/browsing/ms office - all those things will remain absolutely the same.

if you run a game that requires 1.5 to 2gb ram for example, you will definitely notice a difference there.

 

I started these 9 programs in succession from the taskbar

Breezebrowser pro
Downloader pro
ProSelect
Excel
Word
Outlook 2007
Acrobat
Photoshop CS4/64

4G-9s
2G-9s
1G-10s

What is the ram good for??? LOL! ;+) Games? Is the processor so crappy that it slows down the computer that much? I'm confused, there must be a bigger difference between laptops and desktops than i knew because when I make a desktop it has 8G ram, hoping for 16, more is better, but not with laptops.

If I put a 7200 drive in there that should help, yes?

BTW, thanks for your help, just trying to justify the $100.

 

This is probably because your real bottleneck is your CPU. A TL-64 is a bit on the slow end these days. No matter how much RAM you add, it's not going to speed up your CPU.

 

the 7200 drive will help but again it'll be a marginal difference. there are posts from others here saying that the move to a 7200rpm drive did give them a change in performance but nothing earth shattering.

from the research ive done so far, the biggest performance gains come from getting an SSD drive. certainly there are downsides to getting one but the performance improvements are huge. there are tons of threads on here about people that installed ssd drives and their bootup times were slashed in half and their shutdown times were well below 10 seconds. take a look around.

that will give you the biggest performance gain, IMO.

 

Getting racing spec spark plugs and a new Sears Diehard battery isn't going to turn a Yugo into a Ferrari. lol. You have excess capacity as far as RAM so the new additon isn't being utilzed. Your programs open are nothing special. A modern CPU can handle that. Memory isn't going to turbocharge the Yugo. lol. Can you return the memory?

 

^ Lmao!!!!!!!

 

I just feel like running into a wall...

How would RAM affect boot time? It can't.

An increase in RAM is only useful if you actually hit the RAM limit - if I never use more than 2GB RAM, it doesn't matter if I have 2GB, 3GB, 4GB or 16GB - the performance will be that same.

Then your Photoshop - you say yourself CPU intensive, how on earth will something that is CPU intensive benefit from RAM? If you car is too slow, do you upgrade the stereo?

And with respect to Photoshop - did you increase the maximal amount of RAM Photoshop may use in the settings for the RAM intensive tasks?

Sorry, but I'm a bit annoyed by that post...

 

I can put a SSD in this Yugo and it will be a Lamborghini, ya? ;+)

Mr.KL say talofa to all the beach bums, especially in Ewa Beach.

Off to search for SSD threads . . .

 

???? - A SSD will only help if the HDD is a bottleneck.

 

Oh come on gang, be nice. He made a semi-logical attempt to speed up his system, and came here for help when it didn't work as expected. I think we've given him a couple of directions to go in (HD or CPU upgrade), and lets see what he does. No need to beat up on him.

 

Just get an SSD Most of the things you expected to improve by upgrading your ram will improve dramatically with an SSD. It'll feel like getting a new machine.

 

You're annoyed??? I just spent $100 on more useless computer junk. Cant throw out all the old stuff I have now there is so much of it. ;+)

I get the idea, laptops are not desktops.

thanks again.

Can I put RAID on this thing? JK . . .

 

True, but apparently he get's a part of the idea.
(speaks of CPU load and asks why RAM doesn't help)

Yes, SSDs will speed up quite a few things - I have one myself - but its not the answer to all questions.
If your CPU is the bottleneck a SSD will not help.

The OS will boot faster and programmes will start faster on a SSD though.

Another aspect of this - SSDs are expensive - especially the good ones.

Well, this is why you don't just buy stuff - but did you check how much RAM photoshop is set to use?
You can set it to 100% - that will allow it to use more RAM (and it does not take away system RAM)

RAID - only if you have space for 2 HDDs/SSDs and a raid controller.

Yes, laptop's aren't desktops, they aren't easily upgradeable and ideally you buy the best you can get to replace it a few years down the line.

 

I agree for AMD K8 Mobile Processor, Taylor, Tyler and my Griffin. They are the bottlenecks for platform.
That K8 design are EOL.
No matter how much you up the frequency you won't get much performance increase.
And they are not upgradable as well.

 

Yes, it does have 2 hard drive bays, how would I attach a hardware raid controller?

 

Its either built in or you don't get one as far as I am aware.

All "small" components are generally soldered to the motherboard.

 

Look in the bios, under AHCI mode. If RAID is an option, it should be there. If it's not, check the latest revisions to see if it was added at a later point in time. Unfortunately just having two drive bays doesn't meant they allowed for RAID capability.

 

no such luck, guess I'll return the ram and get a bigger faster HD.

 

What about asking on NBR first what would give you the best performance increase for tasks that you state - just before you go out buy a HDD and find its not doing what you expect.

 

How about a suggestion on how to remove the bottom plastic cover? I unscrewed all of the screws and thought it would snap off, but not so, the screws holding in the hard drive are below the level of the plastic

 

can't help there - but you are storming off head over heals again...

 

hi i didn't mean to be harsh so apologize if it came across that way. was just trying to use analogies so explain things. also, bring some levity into the situation.

have you ever thought the extra capex you are pouring in isnt going to help that much and saving the money and waiting say another year to get a newer tech computer is actually more cost effective and smarter? the hdd may be a little faster but if you dont need the space why bother? it ran fine before.

 

Yes, it runs fine now, sort of, just was trying to tweak it. Wasn't planning on buying another soon is the main reason, and a new replacement would be about the same cost as this one was 2 years ago, $950 or so.

 

You do realize how far entry level systems have advanced in 2 years?

500$ will get you good competition to your current system.

 

Yes, nothing will be faster; you'll just be able to do more things at once than before (not at the same speed as running each one individually, but more productive than having to wait for each task to finish before starting the next one).

See:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?p=5611835#post5611835

 

The problem is probably the following. In the old days ram was a good cheap way of increasing speed. Hence most people still equate this to increasing speed.

In my experience for general tasks Vista performance is essentially the same over 1.5GB of ram.

For Photoshop the only time ram makes a difference is if you are opening a massive files. Opening a 20-30mb file would not icnrease your ram usage much.

 

Well, Vista idles at about 1,2GB for me - Photoshop would like at least 900MB of RAM...
And "massive files" you sometime open simultaneous files...

 

The Turion X2 is on-par with a Core Duo, and the TL-64 is a high-end variant. I doubt that such a CPU is the bottleneck. What I'm sure of is that Photoshop does not always require a great deal of power; even with this program, it still largely depends on what you're doing with it. If the OP is just cropping pictures or eliminating red-eye, I doubt any upgrade will make a difference. So my question is, is the OP doing anything demanding with Photoshop?