[email protected] said: > > I agree with Rick. Just pop in 3x4GB sticks into the empty slots. You > won't notice the speed mismatch. BUT... > > More importantly, performance will be governed by how your kernel was > compiled for memory utilization (memory paging). If using a 32-bit > kernel compiled as a desktop, you most likely were not ever using any > memory above 4GB. However, you may want to investigate the following > before buying RAM: > > 1. The bigger bang for you buck is to first convert everything to > 64-bit. That way, you will use all your available memory. > > 2. Consider a modern GPU, such as Nvidia, to off load video processing. > Modern GPUs encode/decode one hell of a lot faster than any CPU. > > 3. If you are using UBUNTU, well...let just say pure Debian, Mint, and a > few other Debian distros are much faster. > > 4. Consider larger, faster Hard drives, maybe even SSD. No matter how > much RAM you have, you will still be HD speed limited. Optimize your > HD/partition scheme: I use a second SATA drive for storing/processing. > > 5. Use hdparm/sdparm to optimize your hard drive. > > 6. File system: ext2/3/4 vs XFS vs BtrFS. Remember, HD partitions do > not need to be all the same file system. > > I am surprised by you statement the 64-bit video processing was not > available when you bought the core-i7 920. That CPU was released end of > 2008. I was running full 64-bit before 2005 on an Athlon64 single core > - All audio and video processing was in 64bit. >
We're getting WAY off-track now. I just need more memory. Period. I'm just trying to figure out the best way to do it. You notice I never mentioned the OS. It's 64-bit Windows, not Linux. I had my reasons. I've been a hard-core Linux user since something like 1995 (and Unix before/since), but that doesn't mean I exclude other systems. You can argue Linux/Open Source all you want, but those video tools weren't and still aren't mature enough. I want plug-and-play. Trust me, I spent a lot of time looking at all the options (Windows/Mac/Linux/Open Source/ Commercial). 64-bit Windows applications were available then, but I also had (and still have) a budget. Back then the 64-bit software was the pro versions that cost as much as or more than the hardware I put together, so I had to compromise. But now the consumer version of the software I have is 64-bit, so I have the opportunity to take advantage of the extra memory. Everything else I have is currently "fast enough". The software is multithreaded, and uses all 8 processor threads. And the 1366 core-i7 with the triple-channel memory is still a kick-ass system. If I need more, I can upgrade the GPU since the newer software now has hooks to use the later GPUs for mpeg encoding. But that's also a trade-off.... I have the card I use now specifically because it's fanless - I spent a lot of time/money trying to make these systems as quiet as possible since at the moment I have 5 desktop boxes and a laptop sitting here. I don't recall seeing any current-gen graphics cards that use passive cooling. I suppose it's not worth spending much more time thinking about. I have a coupon code for 10% off memory at NewEgg, so I guess I'll just go ahead and get the 3x4G of 1333 RAM, and see if I can find a home for the old 1066 sticks. Thanks for all the feedback and comments. john- _______________________________________________ PLUG mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
