|
|
|
|
![]() ![]() |
Jul 3 2006, 04:50 PM
Post
#11
|
|
|
Way Out Of Control - You need a life :) Group: [HOSTED] Posts: 1,087 Joined: 2-August 05 From: Kapellen (Antwerp, Belgium) Member No.: 7,585 |
I realy doubt this is going to help (either on Win9x as on XP). A HDD is slow, and RAM is fast.
If the computer has to work hard and can't process all data that comes from a HDD, then the small amount of data is saved in the RAM, afterwards it's read a tad faster, but 4Mb @ 3GBs is not even a second. If the CPU or chipset can handle all data, the buffer is practicaly useless, since data is read right after it's written in the buffer. It's the same for HDD's with 2, 8 or 16Mb cache. It hardly improves speed, maybe only when it comes to smaller files, but the improvements are small. The only way to improve HDD speed is a) tweaking the filesystem (but the improvement is again very small, and sometimes even not noticable) c) creating a (decent) (hardware) RAID array |
|
|
|
Jul 5 2006, 02:22 AM
Post
#12
|
|
|
Newbie [ Level 1 ] Group: Members Posts: 3 Joined: 30-June 06 Member No.: 14,217 |
I realy doubt this is going to help (either on Win9x as on XP). A HDD is slow, and RAM is fast. If the computer has to work hard and can't process all data that comes from a HDD, then the small amount of data is saved in the RAM, afterwards it's read a tad faster, but 4Mb @ 3GBs is not even a second. If the CPU or chipset can handle all data, the buffer is practicaly useless, since data is read right after it's written in the buffer. It's the same for HDD's with 2, 8 or 16Mb cache. It hardly improves speed, maybe only when it comes to smaller files, but the improvements are small. The only way to improve HDD speed is a) tweaking the filesystem (but the improvement is again very small, and sometimes even not noticable) c) creating a (decent) (hardware) RAID array cant agree more btw, was looking around the other day when i came across these interresting tweaks. take a look, and let me know what you think. will need alittle more ram myself, to try em out, but sure looks interresting if you ask me. look here.... http://kadaitcha.cx/performance.html |
|
|
|
Jul 7 2006, 10:52 AM
Post
#13
|
|
|
Way Out Of Control - You need a life :) Group: [HOSTED] Posts: 1,087 Joined: 2-August 05 From: Kapellen (Antwerp, Belgium) Member No.: 7,585 |
cant agree more btw, was looking around the other day when i came across these interresting tweaks. take a look, and let me know what you think. will need alittle more ram myself, to try em out, but sure looks interresting if you ask me. look here.... http://kadaitcha.cx/performance.html #3; ok, this is great, much more easy than changing it in the registry #5; must have for everybody (programs are less dependant on explorer) #6; Avoid this tweak, altough foreground applications get higher CPU priority, background application could hang while doing cpu intensive tasks (gaming, encoding/decoding, ...). You can also forget doing some heavy multitasking on a single or even multi core (if the amount of tasks > the amount of cores). Most tweaks online are more or less useless (not to mention that most tweaks are to be found a billion times on the net). The only good tweaks are those that disable load on the system (disabling luna/glass/...) or those that change hardware settings (memory timings, FSB, overclocking, ...). |
|
|
|
![]() ![]() |
Similar Topics
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 5th December 2008 - 08:35 AM |