1GB chip alone better than 1GB + 256MB Chip?

I just added a 1GB RAM chip to my 1.6 Ghz PPC iMac. Would it be even worth it to leave the original 256MB chip in the second slot? Or would it cause more problems than the 256MBs are worth? (I know it's not a dual processor so matching RAM chips may not be as important, but I've heard that even single PPC processors prefer matching chips).

Hi Enio Rigolin2-
Although you might see a small speed up if you used matched pairs, having the additional RAM will be just as useful and it won't be any slower than using the 1GB by itself.
Luck-
-DP

Similar Messages

  • Is 2x 512 MB sticks better than 1x 256MB and 1x 1GB stick?

    Its what the title says, the reason I say this is because I am trying to be very cost effective but get the best performance possible for the price. So is 1 GBs of RAM with even amounts better than 1.2 GBS with non-equal amounts of RAM?
    Also, another RAM question - When I do replace the RAM, does it matter which stick I take out of the MacBook?

    Depends. If your intent is to get to 2GB then yes, going to 1.25GB is better. Otherwise, performance-wise I think going to 1GB in 2 x 512MB a matched pair would be nicer.
    The difference in Xbench tests seem to be around 5%.

  • ATI Radeon HD 4870 not better than the Nvidea Geforce 120?

    I bought av new ATI Radeon HD 4870 card to my MacPro. But are wery disappointed. My old NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 performes almost better than ATI. I ran Cinebench test and this is the results:
    *NVIDIA GeForce*
    Rendering (Single CPU): 3225 CB-CPU
    Rendering (Multiple CPU): 18880 CB-CPU
    Multiprocessor Speedup: 5.85
    Shading (OpenGL Standard): 6107 CB-GFX
    *ATI Radeon HD 4870*
    Rendering (Single CPU): 3218 CB-CPU
    Rendering (Multiple CPU): 18852 CB-CPU
    Multiprocessor Speedup: 5.86
    Shading (OpenGL Standard): 5846 CB-GFX
    I also ran the Photoshop Actiontest from www.retouchartists.com on a large .tiff file, and my ATI Radeon used 1,10,2 and NVidea used 1,09,4. That is almost 1 second better for the old card.
    Apple says that the ATI 4870 card performs 2x better than the Nvidea 120. That is not my experience!

    Hello,
    I currently have a 2008 3.0Ghz Harpertown mac pro and I am trying to figure out what to do here. I just purchased the 24 inch cinema display, but yet I have a nice 1GB 4870 ati radeon I got off ebay. Its more powerful than the Apple version, but lacks the mini-display port.
    Currently, I have the ATI RADEON 2600 XT connected, though inactive, while my 4870 is active.
    So, should I just get the Nvidia GT 120 and keep my 1GB 4870, or should I get rid of the 4870 I have and just buy Apple's? Either way, the GT 120 works in a 2008 mac pro despite what Apple says on their site that it only works in 2009 mac pros.

  • Is the external isight better than the internal?

    I have a macbook, but I am considering purchasing an external isight as well. I know the external has auto focus (I do not believe the internal does) but I am more interested in color. Does the external have better color and low-light picture? Is the same 1/4 inch chip from the external used in the internal, or is the internal a lessor chip?
    I enjoy the macbooks isight, but I would like to make some movies with iMovie. The internal is not overly impressive with it's colors when doing this. Sharpness is also not excellent, it seems the external will definitly improve upon this.
    Any input is greatly appreciated. I would really like to hear from owners of both cameras who could possibly compare and contrast these two.
    Kalel

    Hi Kalel,
    I agree with Eddie. I have an external mounted on my G5 at the office and an internal on an Intel iMac at home. If nothing else, the ability to reposition makes the external the hands down winner.
    Personally, I believe the external records ambient light better than the internal, but I have different lighting situations at both locations.
    Both the internal and external have autofocus.
    One of the best additions you can get for either one is a program called iGlasses. I has been mentioned many times in this forum with plenty of user comments.
    Good Luck
    John

  • Is Intel better than Power PC?

    Hi
    Is Intel better than Power PC?
    The reason I ask this is that Iv been transferring data from my old 350 G4 to my new Mac Book Via Fire wire (G4 in target mode) and Iv had some crashes with the Finder. This pretty much never happened with my old Mac. Force quitting does not save me like it use to if an app crashed. It just goes into a spin and stays there, thinking. Reminds me of Windows XP.
    Any Ideas. Thoughts. Etc.
    MacBook   Mac OS X (10.4.7)   1G Ram

    Daimon,
    I would say it's a subjective answer based on use. Be glad that you have a machine that supports target mode. My B&W is a nightmare for transfers. The only irritating crashes I've had are the same as with any of my machines (Safari), which is probably due to a plugin.
    I have had the experience of force quitting not quitting an application. A kill -9 doing the same thing. It looks like force quitting does quit the problem applications (processor usage drops back down), but they stay active in the dock. A restart functioned normally for me and that went away. The only applications this happens with were popcorn 2 and toast 7.1. Both of those are PPC apps that just made the intel transition and basically device drivers..so I would almost expect them to have been problematic. Everything else has been basically fine.
    As to what's better. Security wise, there might be some concern about the Out-of-order execution distribution system of the PPC vs x86. PPC could be considered slightly more secure as it is difficult to gain data from the stack w/o being able to accurately predict the position. However, this is trivial first and is probably remedied a lot by the dual core setup....and it requires a level of access that Mac OS X doesn't just give up to anyone. When you get to performance...to me it's night and day.
    I like to put a lot of my video content on my machine in a highly compressed state. It makes it convenient to watch movies or a series and you don't need to have a loud optical drive spinning around. If I was to use something like Handbrake or Instant Handbrake: http://handbrake.m0k.org/ to encode to h.264 on a G5 it would take long enough that I would have to go do something else. On the dual core chips it's almost unbelievable. It's not that the 950 chipset does hardware h.264 encoding (I know some ATI 1xxx cards have this capability, but the only intel data http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gma950/ I've seen indicate MPEG-2 playback is the highest video optimization ), it's that SSE(1,2,3) on a dual core processor with an application designed for multiple cores/processors (not the same physically, but application wise it's close enough), flies. We're talking something going from 7 fps to 48 fps (better than real time).
    There is definitely a Wow factor to these machines. Maybe you just need to try something like that to find it.
    I think the instability is due to transitional software. Another thing you may want to consider is that many included applications and parts of Mac OS X aren't pushing the chips anywhere near the limit. Many things just use 100 of 200% . Wait a while and more things will be introduced or updated that make your new machine fly.
    I haven't had a finder crash that I recall. Nor a beach ball I couldn't get out of. If it is just limited to the dock (as it appears to be for me), then it's a minor issue. There have been comments about the Rosetta process translated quitting (IIRC), and I will add that twice I have experienced a situation where PPC apps bounced w/o launching. A restart fixed that.
    Windows isn't that bad. Even on a core duo (not a centrino duo Tiger is still easier to stabilize/ 'more stable'.
    I think a lot of the issues you are having are just growing pains and transfer of apps or files that, while they may have been updated to 'universal binary', aren't designed for the chips in these machines from the ground up.
    Give it some time and try some of the things that make these machines better, because subjectively...I think these machines are better.
    Another idea...running PPC apps takes a LOT of memory for speed (otherwise you're paging like a maniac) so either up your machines memory or run one PPC app at a time.
    Good Luck,
    -j

  • Is iPod Touch 5G better than earlier iPod Touch? (Including iPod Touch 3G)

    I brought my new iPod Touch 5G on Jan 10 during Chinese New Year Special. Is there anyway for iPod Touch 5th Generation better than old iPod Touch 3G? iPod Touch 5G has A5 chip. It can be running fast. Please tell me is better or not? I like the new iPod Touch better. :)

    1004blueAppleSupportCommunties wrote:
    I like the new iPod Touch better.
    Isn't that the real test then?
    Answer; "yes it is!"

  • Is 1.3 Bios really better than 1.52B?? Neo2 Board and Some Observations!

    Hi All... I read this post on the forums and it got me thinking and i did some fiddling and made some observations..
    This is whith regard to the 1.3Bios being better than the 1.52B Bios.. because it would let you run in turbo mode...
    Ok i've spent the last 60mins testing and i came up with the following..
    1.3BIOS
    With the 1.3Bios.. no matter what memory timings u set... it does'nt show in CPU-Z and it does'nt make a difference in the memory bandwith scores...
    For example my ram was rated at 2.5-3-3-8 .. i changed it to 2.5-2-3-8 .. it did'nt change and my scores remained the same..
    Going from Slow to Fast to Turbo.. did'nt incrase my scores.. actually.. donno how.. but i got a decrease in scores..
    The only thing that was noticable was that MSI core-center overclocks the CPU a lil more than what is set in BIOS..
    1.52B BIOS
    With the 1.52B Bios... u can change the memory timings and it does show in CPU-Z and it makes a massive difference with Sisoft sandra.. 250mbps more..
    What u set in the bios .. u get with the 1.52B.. Corecenter does'nt mess around and overclock it more..
    Going from Slow to Turbo did give me an increase in scores.. slightly..
    Im now running Ultra-Turbo.. and i get a sisoft bandwith score of 5250Mbps at 3.21G..
    CONCLUSION
    So infact i think the 1.52B is better than the 1.3 . I don't have a Radeon so i donno how these bios's work with the cards cause i've read about some problems... I'm getting one soon so 'ill post some info about that in a fortnight..
    I personally think this board is great.. atleast the one i have.. never had a problem.. had it for 3 months.. i have a revision 1.. no DOT sticker.. and just the Neo2-S version... I've used Spectec 333 on this board too (dual) had no problems..
    Wish i had some DDR-500 so i could test whether this board can do 1:1 above 250...whether it has a 1:1 limitation above 285 like some other boards.. that is my only doubt.. anywayz.. i hope atleast some of u are sailing as smoothly with this board as i have..
    Get some nice ram .. this Twinmos Dual channel kit DDR400 with the Twinmos chips are really great.. and i recommend it..

    Quote
    Originally posted by DeReD
    1.3BIOS
    With the 1.3Bios.. no matter what memory timings u set... it does'nt show in CPU-Z and it does'nt make a difference in the memory bandwith scores...
    For example my ram was rated at 2.5-3-3-8 .. i changed it to 2.5-2-3-8 .. it did'nt change and my scores remained the same..
    Going from Slow to Fast to Turbo.. did'nt incrase my scores.. actually.. donno how.. but i got a decrease in scores..
    That´s wrong. RAM-Settings are displayed fine. Turbo does make a BIG difference in scores. About 15% more performance. In Games and in benchmarks like 3dmark and sandra, too.

  • Upgrading RAM... 4 + 2 GB better than 2 + 2?

    Hi,
    I have a
    MacBook Pro 2.26GHz Intel Core 2 Duo (13-inch DDR3) MB990LL/A Mid-2009
    capable of holding 8 GB of RAM. Right now it only has 2 GB RAM, though I'm not sure if that is 1+1 or just one 2 GB if that makes sense. I don't particularly want to spend the money to get 4+4 for the full 8 GB, but I want more than 4 GB. I was planning on buying 4 GB of RAM and doing it myself along with the 2 GB of RAM I already have (obviously this only works if the 2 GB is in one cell (?)). My question is... because 6 GB of RAM would necessitate a mismatched pair, would it be better just to get 2 + 2 for 4 GB RAM total? Is having a matched pair more important for overall speed and efficiency, or is the sheer number more important?
    Thanks!

    In general, more RAM is better, and matched RAM is better than unmatched.  So 4GB + 2GB is better than 2GB + 2GB, but 2GB + 2GB is better than 4GB + an empty slot.
    However, in your case, if the RAM you have was the original RAM that shipped with the computer, then it is probably 1GB + 1GB.  And while I don't know of any technical reasons you couldn't run 4GB + 1GB, I suspect that the size difference would be very inefficient.  I've seen 2GB + 1GB before, and I have an older MBP with 4GB + 2GB right now....but if the size differential between the two slots is too great, I suspect the MMU will begin to behave unpleasantly.
    So, either get a 2GB + 2GB pair and pay again later to upgrade, or fork out for a 4GB + 4GB pair.  In any case, make sure the RAM is of the same kind (as per Kappy's instructions) and that both sticks are from the same manufacturer.
    And, of course, it's possible I'm wrong and you do have 2GB + empty slot...you can always open it up and look.

  • Why is mac better than pc?

    Hi guys.
    I'm doing a speech on why macs are better than pcs and have to come up with two college-level citations to support the point. Would you guys be able to help me with that? All I need is some data that can help me support the point.
    Thank you !

    Funny ... as my wife worked on her masters a couple years ago, Cal State Fullerton would not allow ANY citations from the Internet.
    But here's some background info for you ...
    http://www.apple.com/mac/
    You say you're a new MacBook Pro user ... What do YOU think about your new Mac?
    I was a Windows devotee for about 20 years. Until my wife brought home a co-worker's 17" MBP for me to play with. And I turned it on and played with it. And played with it. Realized it was about 3am the next morning - it was so enjoyably engrossing. I ordered my own that very day, and haven't looked back for a moment. Like excellent shoes that you can FEEL make a difference in your posture and spinal health, switching to a Mac was darned near a religious experience for me.
    And I am not alone ... (grin)
    Good luck with your research.
    Clint Bradford
    Riverside CA US

  • Is java 8 better than java 7 ..??

    Is java 8 better than java 7 ..??

    define "better".
    I'm not planning to switch any time soon. Not only are we using Java 6 on servers that aren't supported on Java 7, let alone 8, but I also tend to wait for the initial bugs to be ironed out before adopting something new.

  • Is firefox adblock plus make it better than safari?

    hi
    just quick shoot question.
    i 99% uses firefox browser with add on called adblock plus 2.03
    it never shows advertisement like the mackeeper that so frequently harrased me when i used safari. this made me scared of unintended clicking on my part.
    are there similar thing on safari?
    i just dont feel secure with safari, because once i opened it, and in few minutes pop up ads and mackeeper coming out of nowhere....
    hope ur not mad at me for favoring firefox. but i really think if safari has same adblock i would move back, as i feel it is wierd that firefox could do better than mac... its nigh impossible... ?

    You're certainly free to use Firefox if that works for you. There are similar add-on web blockers for Safari, including a version of AdBlock:
    http://code.google.com/p/adblockforchrome/
    Personally I don't like browser-specific blocking add-ons since they can break with any browser upgrade, so I use GlimmerBlocker. It's a stand-alone ad blocker (it works sort of like a web proxy system) and hence works with any browser you run on your system, so you don't need an ad blocking add-on for each browser.
    But if Firefox works for you, by all means use it. Many people do.
    Regards.

  • Why is illustrator better than corel?

    hello forumers.
    im an illustrator freak,but my annoying boss wants me to learn corel ;-( ,i need some facts why illustrator is better than corel so i can shove his face in it if possible.
    VIVA illi
    thank you very much.

    Do not, I repeat do not, ask James or Scott or Hans.
    Indeed.
    Only ask Jacob, who is still using a four-version out-of-date copy of Illustrator and who tries to personify it as a female idol.
    If the comparison is to be "fair" (which it clearly will not be, at least from your perspective), it should compare Corel Draw X4 to Illustrator CS3 or CS4. Release dates being what they were, X4 would more legitimately be considered Draw's answer to CS3; since it long predates CS4.
    Talking about earlier versions of either program is not very meaningful, except in the sense of history of development. When I compare the release histories of Draw, FreeHand, Canvas, and Illustrator, Illustrator comes in an often-embarrassing last in terms of features long taken-for-granted in other programs.
    im an illustrator freak,but my annoying boss wants me to learn corel...i need some facts [that] I can shove his face..
    Shove in your boss's face? For presenting you an opportunity to escape fearful dependency upon a single software?
    i need the pros and cons...to outline to him why illustrator is better...
    Why don't you simply welcome this opportunity to actually know something about that which you claim a completely bogus "preference"?
    Were you at all interested in gaining input that would help you help your boss reach a rational and objective decision, you would at least describe something about the kind of work your boss pays you to do. What kind of business employs you? Is the Macintosh platform even relevant to your boss's business market? How large a workgroup is affected by the software choice? What kind of artwork does that workgroup produce? How is it delivered? What are its initial content sources? Who are the end-users of the artwork? In how many different ways is it delivered, and in what formats?
    Yet here you are, soliciting predisposed "why Illustrator is 'better' than Draw" advice from a handful of users who, so far, admit themselves having either no, or practically no, experience with Draw! If that's not blind-leading-the-blind, I don't know what is.
    You are by admission predisposed toward Illustrator, even though you are not at all equipped to say why. Reason is pointless with so irrational a mindset. Since no one responding yet seems to actually know anything about Draw, I will instead offer some ammunition I hope your boss uses to see if you are even objective enough to consider it.
    The following is a just-off-the-top list. Should you actually try to counter it, you should be prepared for more:
    General:
    Lower cost, both initially and in upgrades
    Better support for non-current versions
    Faster performance
    Better support for several vertical-market industries (signage, embroidery, engineering-related)
    More robust CAD and more business-centric import/export formats
    Better multiple page implementation
    Better-organized interface
    Highly-customizable workspace
    Features:
    User-defined drawing scales
    Reliable snaps
    Dimension tools
    Callout tools
    Connector lines
    Flowchart Tools
    No-nonsense, 2D vector face extrusion
    Live shape primitives
    Smart Drawing tools (freehand shape recognition)
    Virtual Segment tool
    Ability to properly cut/crop vector and raster content
    Contour tool (multiple parallels)
    Export selection only
    Barcodes
    Print Merge
    Bundle for Output Bureau
    Scan directly into Draw
    Trim (not merely mask) vector artwork to any path
    Fit Text To Path
    Text stats
    Export artwork as Type 1 font.
    Lens Fills (live details)
    Live Perspective
    Object Data (spreadsheet-formatted database of user-defined object data fields)
    Fillet / Chamfer / Scallop
    User-defined Arrowheads
    Shared Features Better Implemented in Draw:
    Mesh Grads
    Dynamic Guides (with increment snaps)
    Independent control over Snaps for Guides, Grid, Objects, Dynamic Grids
    Property Bar (far more sensible and useable than AI's poorly-designed and buggy Control Panel)
    Status Bar with context-sensitive instructions
    Elastic Mode (vs. AI's Reshape tool)
    Add/remove/line/curve/cusp/symmetrical curve commands properly implemented for all nodes (points) in a selected path
    Logarithmic and Symmetrical spirals
    Macro Recording (vs. AI Actions)
    Envelopes (retract envelope handles without wrecking artwork)
    Old-Saw Arguements Based on Overstatement, if not Myths:
    Adobe's cross-app "integration" is more hype than substantive advantage.
    Illustrator's text handing is worst among Adobe apps and worst-of-class among its direct competitors.
    Draw opens and creates PDFs just fine.
    Claims of AI superiority regarding importing of raster images is practically immaterial. In fact, Corel Draw's interaction with Corel PhotoPaint is at least as "smooth and seamless" as AI/PS, if not more so.
    Using vector artwork created in Draw (or any other mainstream Bezier drawing program) in page-layout programs is no more difficult than using AI. This stuff has been being done for decades.
    Again, this is just a beginning. You do yourself a huge disservice by declaring (let alone attempting to defend) a "preference" to the only choice with which you have experience (and evidently only beginning experience at that). That's true regardless of which program you claim to "favor." How can one, with any trace of intellectual honesty, claim to have a "favorite" of anything--when one has no exposure to any of the considered alternatives?
    Since you already have Illustrator, you should absolutely welcome your Boss's willingness to provide you a current copy of Corel Draw. Here's an opportunity for you--at no personal cost--to actually learn something about another program; to potentially have some clue as to what you're talking about when you claim to "prefer" one over the other; to benefit from knowing more than one particular tool, and to overcome the fear of learning your way around more than one offering among similar programs. For all you know, you may be arguing against the program you would actually end up preferring.
    I could also build a bullet list of better-than-Draw AI features. It would not be as long as its opposite. Nor would the AI-favoring listings be as broadly practical.
    Fact is, anyone can build a bullet list to favor any of them. (Just look at the sides of the boxes, or each vendor's self-serving "competitive comparisons" on their respective websites.) Fact is, all of them are really rather mediocre; mostly 20+ years-old technology.
    You really should have no axe to grind in this, unless you can state something specific to your work that strongly favors the relatively few functional advantages of AI.
    JET

  • Is there a way that i can downgrade my iOS 7.1 on my iPhone 4 to iOS 6xx? battery life not good, and performance isn't better than iOS 6.. Please apple i am really disappointed with iOS 7 on my iPhone 4

    Is there a way that i can downgrade my iOS 7.1 on my iPhone 4 to iOS 6xx? battery life not good, and performance isn't better than iOS 6.. Please apple i am really disappointed with iOS 7 on my iPhone 4, it can runs great on iPhone above 4 such as 5/5s/etc.. iPhone 4 just good with iOS 6...

    No.

  • Why does a DVI or VGA look better than HDMI for 2nd Monitor

    Why does a DVI or VGA connection for a program monitor look better than HDMI. I've tested this on several systems with CS5x and CS6. The full screen output from premiere definitely looks worse with HDMI.
    I can often see visual differences with the Windows GUI as well, over sharpening of text and lines, harsh rendering of gradients. It looks like a VGA signal displayed on a television.
    I've looked at the NVidia stetting and it appears to be set to 1920x1080 at 60hz either way, DVI or HDMI. On one Acer 20 inch monitor the was VGA, HDMI, Composite, Component, and Digital Tuner, but no DVI. The program monitor has always looked blah from the HDMI. So I recently switched the connection to a DVI to VGA adaptor, and now the video looks so much better.
    Any thoughts or explanations?

    Just because the monitors accept a 1080P signal doesn't mean their native resolution is 1920x1080. At 20 inch they very likely can scale that signal down to the native resolution of the panel which may be 1600 x 900 or another resolution that is 16 x 9 resolution. That scaling can be done by the GPU or firmware on the Monitor depending on the video driver options and the firmware options. That scaling is also the most common cause to text and icon blurriness you are talking about. As an example there are Pro monitors that accept a 4K signal but scale it down to 2.5K or 2K on the actual panel. You might try going into your video card settings such as Nvidia control panel and look for the scaling options. Select GPU scaling and see if the preview is better. If that doesn't work select no scaling and see if it's better if the monitor firmware handles the scaling.
    Eric
    ADK

  • Open DNS better than Comcast xfinity DNS?

    Is OpenDNS better than using Comcast/xfinity's DNS? If yes, how do I switch over?
    I go to into Airport Utility and enter in the 2 openDNS numbers, something like 222 and 220, but at the bottom of the page right now (because I am using Comcast's DNS) there's a web address something.comcast.net  Do I need to change that info too? If so, what do I put in that field?
    Thanks!

    How did you add them?
    If you are using a single computer: Open System Preferences/Network. Double click on your connection type, or select it in the drop-down menu, and in the box marked 'DNS Servers' add the following two numbers:
    208.67.222.222
    208.67.220.220
    (You can also enter them if you click on Advanced and then DNS)
    Sometimes reversing the order of the DNS numbers can be beneficial in cases where there is a long delay before web pages start to load, and then suddenly load at normal speed:
    http://support.apple.com/kb/TS2296
    If your computer is part of a network: please refer to this page: http://www.opendns.com/start/bestpractices/#yournetwork and follow the advice given.
    (An explanation of why using Open DNS is both safe and a good idea can be read here: http://www.labnol.org/internet/tools/opendsn-what-is-opendns-why-required-2/2587 /
    Open DNS also provides an anti-phishing feature: http://www.opendns.com/solutions/homenetwork/anti-phishing/ )
    Wikipedia also has an interesting article about Open DNS:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDNS

Maybe you are looking for