Author Topic: RAM vs CPU upgrade  (Read 2618 times)

DougB

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 407
    • View Profile
Re: RAM vs CPU upgrade
« Reply #15 on: 2012.04.20, 03:44:17 »
Quote
the same as any other x86 line of CPU's from Intel/AMD etc.

Well, no it isn't. That is why they are cheaper, and slower. (Duron is the AMD equivalent). Newer Celeron, and Duron, processors have added in some of the performance parts of the more capable chips, just to try to take some market share, but they still don't have all of the performance enhancements of their big brothers.

Quote
Just find it much easier on my eyes to use 800x600 when working Smiley.. on my 17" monitor.

There are many reasons to want larger text, or icons, etc. It is a bad misconception that running at 800x600 (especially on a 17 inch monitor) is easier on the eyes. If you want larger text, icons, etc. you should use a higher resolution, then set eCS to use larger icons etc. Look up "Controlling the Size of Fonts and Icons" in the SNAPOS2.PDF document. I expect that Panorama doesn't know about those things, but it may have something similar.

os2monkey

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
  • David Kiley
    • View Profile
Re: RAM vs CPU upgrade
« Reply #16 on: 2012.04.20, 05:59:07 »
I suspect it is because you only have 1 meg allocated for the video RAM (Aperture size). There should be a way (probably in the BIOS) to increase that to 8 meg (at least 4 meg).
I just booted into bios, and under video ram it is set for 8meg.. so i'm not sure why it's just reporting 1 under the benchmark, unless there is some ECS specific setting I need to find.

DougB

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 407
    • View Profile
Re: RAM vs CPU upgrade
« Reply #17 on: 2012.04.20, 06:05:48 »
Quote
i'm not sure why it's just reporting 1 under the benchmark

It could be because you are using 800x600x16 resolution.

os2monkey

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
  • David Kiley
    • View Profile
Re: RAM vs CPU upgrade
« Reply #18 on: 2012.04.20, 07:22:49 »
Your right.
I just realized I had my monitor setup to only have 64k colors under 800x600. I set it to 16M and then ran the benchmark test again and it then showed 2mb video ram.
I then switched to 1024x768 and ran the benchmark again and then it reported 4mb.
So why do lower resolutions not access more video ram?

I'm not sure if I am imagining it but it does seem much faster, even with just the 2MB under 800x600.

Andi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 264
    • View Profile
Re: RAM vs CPU upgrade
« Reply #19 on: 2012.04.20, 12:14:06 »
....
So why do lower resolutions not access more video ram?
...

You need 800x600x16 bits (65536 colors) which is about 960kByte. Just below 1MByte. But usually with acceleration video memory is double buffered so you would need 2MByte for this setting. No need and no benefit with more than 2MByte video RAM with OS/2 - eCS. Of course other video drivers on other OSes do benefit from more RAM in special cases...