|
Home > Archive > Linux Debian support > October 2005 > Added Memory=difference in speed
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Added Memory=difference in speed
|
|
| SteveSch 2005-10-24, 9:42 am |
| Hello,
I just upgraded my system with an extra 1 Gig of RAM. I just thought
someone may be interested in the speed difference.
My main system is:
ECS KT-600A motherboard.
AMD Sempron 2800
Kingston Value RAM PC3200
160 Gig Seagate HD
512 Meg Swap
Nvidia BFG 256 Meg video Card
Debian Sarge 2.4.27-2-k7 kernel
My curiosity started after I ran a couple of tests against a dual
processor Dell I recently purchased:
Precision 410
2-750Mhz PIII
1 Gig RAM
27 Gig HD
1 Gig Swap
Old ATI video Card (16 or 32 meg RAM)
Debian Sarge 2.4.X smp kernel
Live CD eLive 0.3 Just to boot to the first selection screen
Dell 1:23.12
2800 1.5 Gig or 512 Meg same results 1:08.47
For firefox to start:
Dell 23.16 sec
2800 1.5 Gig or 512 Meg same results 20.0 sec
FreeBSIE 1.1 boot to first selection screen
Dell 1:17.40
2800 1.5 Gig or 512 Meg same results 1:44.60
Firefox
Dell 17.84 sec
2800 512 Meg 13.00 sec
Didn't try with 1.5 Gig
The main thing I do with my machine that takes time is using Gimp on maps
and editing videos. I haven't had time to do any tests on videos yet. I'm
still trying to learn the Linux way for videos.
To open a 12.7 Meg map file with Gimp
Dell 43.69 sec
2800 512 Meg 2:44.38
2800 1.5 Gig 23 seconds
To scale that image to 10%
Dell 28.65 sec
2800 512 Meg 1:37.44
2800 1.5 Gig 59.75 seconds
To open a 24.9 Meg map with Gimp
2800 512 Meg 6:59.05
2800 1.5 Gig 1:07.60
I didn't try this on the Dell
At least as important as the difference in speed in opening the maps is
the delay. Even after they open to select something or change something
causes a delay. I have not measured that delay but it is significantly
shorter with the extra RAM.
Anyway I though maybe someone would be interested. I can't believe how
much snappier the 2800 feels with 1.5 Gig compared to 512 Meg RAM. I still
can't believe how well that dual cpu does against a 2 Ghz chip (AMD 2800).
Too bad it maxes out at 1 Gig RAM. Makes me drool over the dual core chips
though.
I hope someone gets some value out of these numbers.
Steve
| |
|
| On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 17:14:16 -0600, SteveSch wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I just upgraded my system with an extra 1 Gig of RAM. I just thought
> someone may be interested in the speed difference.
>
> My main system is:
>
> ECS KT-600A motherboard.
> AMD Sempron 2800
> Kingston Value RAM PC3200
> 160 Gig Seagate HD
> 512 Meg Swap
> Nvidia BFG 256 Meg video Card
> Debian Sarge 2.4.27-2-k7 kernel
>
> My curiosity started after I ran a couple of tests against a dual
> processor Dell I recently purchased:
>
> Precision 410
> 2-750Mhz PIII
> 1 Gig RAM
> 27 Gig HD
> 1 Gig Swap
> Old ATI video Card (16 or 32 meg RAM)
> Debian Sarge 2.4.X smp kernel
>
>
> Live CD eLive 0.3 Just to boot to the first selection screen
> Dell 1:23.12
> 2800 1.5 Gig or 512 Meg same results 1:08.47
>
> For firefox to start:
> Dell 23.16 sec
> 2800 1.5 Gig or 512 Meg same results 20.0 sec
>
>
> FreeBSIE 1.1 boot to first selection screen
> Dell 1:17.40
> 2800 1.5 Gig or 512 Meg same results 1:44.60
>
> Firefox
> Dell 17.84 sec
> 2800 512 Meg 13.00 sec
> Didn't try with 1.5 Gig
>
> The main thing I do with my machine that takes time is using Gimp on maps
> and editing videos. I haven't had time to do any tests on videos yet. I'm
> still trying to learn the Linux way for videos.
>
> To open a 12.7 Meg map file with Gimp
> Dell 43.69 sec
> 2800 512 Meg 2:44.38
> 2800 1.5 Gig 23 seconds
>
> To scale that image to 10%
> Dell 28.65 sec
> 2800 512 Meg 1:37.44
> 2800 1.5 Gig 59.75 seconds
>
> To open a 24.9 Meg map with Gimp
> 2800 512 Meg 6:59.05
> 2800 1.5 Gig 1:07.60
> I didn't try this on the Dell
>
> At least as important as the difference in speed in opening the maps is
> the delay. Even after they open to select something or change something
> causes a delay. I have not measured that delay but it is significantly
> shorter with the extra RAM.
>
> Anyway I though maybe someone would be interested. I can't believe how
> much snappier the 2800 feels with 1.5 Gig compared to 512 Meg RAM. I still
> can't believe how well that dual cpu does against a 2 Ghz chip (AMD 2800).
> Too bad it maxes out at 1 Gig RAM. Makes me drool over the dual core chips
> though.
>
> I hope someone gets some value out of these numbers.
>
> Steve
Just out of curiosity, have you checked you hard drive optimiztion via
'hdparm'?
| |
| SteveSch 2005-10-24, 9:42 am |
| On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 18:36:34 -0600, ray wrote:
<<snip>>
> Just out of curiosity, have you checked you hard drive optimiztion via
> 'hdparm'?
Hi,
Well, not really. I ran these earlier and thought the numbers looked
pretty good. Here the results are again.
hdparm -tT /dev/hdb
/dev/hdb:
Timing cached reads: 1288 MB in 2.00 seconds = 644.00 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 156 MB in 3.03 seconds = 51.49 MB/sec
hdparm /dev/hdb
/dev/hdb:
multcount = 16 (on)
IO_support = 1 (32-bit)
unmaskirq = 1 (on)
using_dma = 1 (on)
keepsettings = 0 (off)
readonly = 0 (off)
readahead = 8 (on)
geometry = 19457/255/63, sectors = 312581808, start = 0
Any suggestions?
Steve
| |
|
| On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 20:05:06 -0600, SteveSch wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 18:36:34 -0600, ray wrote:
>
> <<snip>>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Well, not really. I ran these earlier and thought the numbers looked
> pretty good. Here the results are again.
>
> hdparm -tT /dev/hdb
>
> /dev/hdb:
> Timing cached reads: 1288 MB in 2.00 seconds = 644.00 MB/sec
> Timing buffered disk reads: 156 MB in 3.03 seconds = 51.49 MB/sec
>
> hdparm /dev/hdb
>
> /dev/hdb:
> multcount = 16 (on)
> IO_support = 1 (32-bit)
> unmaskirq = 1 (on)
> using_dma = 1 (on)
> keepsettings = 0 (off)
> readonly = 0 (off)
> readahead = 8 (on)
> geometry = 19457/255/63, sectors = 312581808, start = 0
>
> Any suggestions?
>
> Steve
Not specifically, I get 750 and 50 with a two year old 2.4ghz P4 system; I
might have thought it would do a little better, but that's not really my
domain.
Anyone else have thoughts??
| |
|
| adding extra ram is a definite plus. i am a bit unsure of the
actual ram installed after upgrade, and the swap file size.
also i guess you are running a linux o/s with this system, so
my $0.02 is the size of swap >1gig under linux will not give any appreciable
benefit. (from an article i had read
awhile ago.
cheers
scott
"SteveSch" <THIS_EMAIL@IS.FAKE> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.10.19.23.14.16.940080@IS.FAKE...
> Hello,
>
> I just upgraded my system with an extra 1 Gig of RAM. I just thought
> someone may be interested in the speed difference.
>
> My main system is:
>
> ECS KT-600A motherboard.
> AMD Sempron 2800
> Kingston Value RAM PC3200
> 160 Gig Seagate HD
> 512 Meg Swap
> Nvidia BFG 256 Meg video Card
> Debian Sarge 2.4.27-2-k7 kernel
>
> My curiosity started after I ran a couple of tests against a dual
> processor Dell I recently purchased:
>
> Precision 410
> 2-750Mhz PIII
> 1 Gig RAM
> 27 Gig HD
> 1 Gig Swap
> Old ATI video Card (16 or 32 meg RAM)
> Debian Sarge 2.4.X smp kernel
>
>
> Live CD eLive 0.3 Just to boot to the first selection screen
> Dell 1:23.12
> 2800 1.5 Gig or 512 Meg same results 1:08.47
>
> For firefox to start:
> Dell 23.16 sec
> 2800 1.5 Gig or 512 Meg same results 20.0 sec
>
>
> FreeBSIE 1.1 boot to first selection screen
> Dell 1:17.40
> 2800 1.5 Gig or 512 Meg same results 1:44.60
>
> Firefox
> Dell 17.84 sec
> 2800 512 Meg 13.00 sec
> Didn't try with 1.5 Gig
>
> The main thing I do with my machine that takes time is using Gimp on maps
> and editing videos. I haven't had time to do any tests on videos yet. I'm
> still trying to learn the Linux way for videos.
>
> To open a 12.7 Meg map file with Gimp
> Dell 43.69 sec
> 2800 512 Meg 2:44.38
> 2800 1.5 Gig 23 seconds
>
> To scale that image to 10%
> Dell 28.65 sec
> 2800 512 Meg 1:37.44
> 2800 1.5 Gig 59.75 seconds
>
> To open a 24.9 Meg map with Gimp
> 2800 512 Meg 6:59.05
> 2800 1.5 Gig 1:07.60
> I didn't try this on the Dell
>
> At least as important as the difference in speed in opening the maps is
> the delay. Even after they open to select something or change something
> causes a delay. I have not measured that delay but it is significantly
> shorter with the extra RAM.
>
> Anyway I though maybe someone would be interested. I can't believe how
> much snappier the 2800 feels with 1.5 Gig compared to 512 Meg RAM. I still
> can't believe how well that dual cpu does against a 2 Ghz chip (AMD 2800).
> Too bad it maxes out at 1 Gig RAM. Makes me drool over the dual core chips
> though.
>
> I hope someone gets some value out of these numbers.
>
> Steve
| |
| SteveSch 2005-10-24, 9:42 am |
| On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 00:02:54 +0000, Scott wrote:
> adding extra ram is a definite plus. i am a bit unsure of the
> actual ram installed after upgrade, and the swap file size.
> also i guess you are running a linux o/s with this system, so
> my $0.02 is the size of swap >1gig under linux will not give any appreciable
> benefit. (from an article i had read
> awhile ago.
> cheers
> scott
Hi Scott,
Ran Debian Sarge on both machines. 1.5 Gig after the upgrade but I tested
with 512 Meg and 1.5 Gig.
After using the upgraded machine for a while, it doesn't use much swap at
all now. There are times now when the swap usage is zer0.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|