Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

How much ram do you really need?

<< < (3/3)

Carol Haynes:
Also, there's a LargeSystemCache=1 setting which lets windows use a lot of ram for filesystem cache - this gave me some okay speed boosts back when I used it. However, DO NOT USE IT WITH ATi VIDEO CARDS, the drivers are bugged and it will result in data loss that may even look like a physical harddrive error (clicking drive-head sounds, spinup problems, etc.)

On Win2k, you had to do this setting manually. On XP, you can find it in System Properties -> Advanced -> Performance Settings -> Advanced -> "Memory Usage = System Cache". The bug only happens on "some" systems if you're to believe ATi, but I'd stay away from it.
-f0dder (December 14, 2005, 12:30 PM)
--- End quote ---

Does that apply to the MS version of the ATI WDM drivers included with WindowsXP (which I am using for the first time and actually seem better than any of the Catalyst releases I have tried)?

f0dder:
I don't know, Carol - I would assume MS WDM drivers to be based off ATi. Note that the drivers are generally pretty well-working, and I have only had one or two driver crashes while using a ATi r9600xt (and those were heat-based back then I think).

But if you have an ATi system, I would recommend NOT using LargeSystemCache=1 (and if on XP, go the control panel way and check that your system is optimized for "Programs" and not "System Cache"). Not all systems will show up this bug, and probably only systems with 1+ GB of ram. But if it does show up, you'll need to dig out your NTFS recovery tools...


See this thread: http://win.asmcommunity.net/board/index.php?topic=17926.0

Edvard:
On a side note, I used to have Slackware Linux installed on a 450MHz AMD K6/2 and it sped up like nobody's business when I upgraded my hard drive from 850M/5400 rpm to 2.1G/7200rpm. Same size paging file and RAM, EVERYTHING went faster, not just save/load times.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page