(1530) 2GB Dell RAM beats 4GB Corsair RAM in Startup Times

This is utterly messed up, but I just tested it myself and it is true. I have to ship back my old one soon, so meanwhile I'm just doing random tests to MAKE SURE my replacement beats it or is at least equal. They have equal specs and hardware except for Optical drive, one is Optiarc, one is Teac (the one I loaded with 4GB Corsair initially). In each case, both identical systems recognized the full 2GB from the 2GB RAM and 3.5GB from the 4GB RAM.

So on my brand new replacement M1530 I put in the 4GB of Corsair RAM. On the other older one loaded with a bunch of games, I keep the 2GB Dell RAM in it.

BOTH have a Vista Rating of 5.1 for RAM despite myself expecting 4GB to make a difference since there is an additonal 1.5 GB that is recognized after all. So... here is the first test.

SHUTTING DOWN
I pressed the shutdown button on both. The victor, is the M1530 with the 4GB RAM beating the other by 5 seconds.

STARTING UP
I pressed the startup button on both and after attempting all 3 trials... the Dell with 2GB RAM beat it by 10 seconds. The Loading Bar is the part where the 2GB ram beat the 4GB of RAM.

----------------------------------

So suspecting its the RAM, I switched both so that my old one had the 4GB, and the new one had the 2GB Dell RAM.

STARTUP
The startup of the Dell with 2GB RAM, the new one that I had previously put 4GB in, beat the old one with 4GB Ram by 10 seconds.

SHUTDOWN
The shutdown of the old one with 4GB Ram beat it.

-------------------------------------

CONCLUSION:
Clearly there is something strange going on. The results were exact opposites of each other and the RAM is clearly the key. Perhaps the Vista Rating for normal 4GB ram is higher than 5.1? Regardless, both had equivalent RAM scores for the Vista experience index. Very very strange indeed...

 

Hmm...SuperFetch at work here? More RAM means more HDD access at boot.

 

That makes me wonder whether my 4GB CORSAIR is not as good as my 2GB Asus RAM???

 

Yeah that's what I was thinkin'. It's probably using the extra RAM to cache/prefetch stuff. Still, 10 secs is a lot.

The Vista RAM rating only tests RAM speed, not the amount (as long as it's over 1.5 gb or something like that). It's explained here: http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/pages/458117.aspx
So it's kind of a silly benchmark. So the fact that you get the same rating tells me that the RAM speed is probably at least close to the same.

Try running with just a single 2gb stick and see if that's faster than the 2x2gb. You might get a lower Vista RAM rating due to it being single-channel, but it might still beat the 2x2gb configuration in startup time.

 

Bingo. Vista is sticking more stuff in your cache so your system runs faster during normal operation. Don't get so hung up over bootup times, just worry about how your computer works when you are actually using it.

 

Have you tried testing them both at 2GB? On a 32 bit machine, 4GB won't actually perform better. That plus it'l only be able to use 3.1GB of it

4GB will be better for huge ram consuming applications, and 2GB will be better for speed.

Personally, I'd go for the 4GB. I always have several apps running at the same time and the speed difference is barely noticable

 

Have they both the same version of Vista?

 

Try using the same computer. Test with 4gb, pull some RAM, and try it with 2gb.

 

I must admit that my 1530 seemed a little slower during startup when I upgraded from 2GB to 3GB but I thought that was down to them not being matched.

 

Mine starts up really fast with 4gb...but then again, I have nothing to compare it to.

The initial startup when I booted it for the first took about a week. Damn, that was slow. All I wanted to do was play with it...

 

The question is... does it really matter? Interesting comparison though.

 

1) Memtest86+ the RAM

2) Do a clean install of Vista with 4gb installed (if you can)

 

Yes, they are both Vista home premium.

I've always been under the impression that the more RAM you have, the faster it starts up, shuts down, and the better it is at multitasking. Never expected the 2GB RAM to affect startup by 10 seconds after 3 trials of shutting down and starting up... What I was looking for is to check to ensure my replacement matches or beats out my initial unit in terms of operation, and strangely, RAM is the cause.

The old one I had while I was waiting for my replacement, I basically went all out in installing games, applications, played games, apps, etc. The replacement one is a brand new computer that I havnt installed anything on except for assassins creed. (The old one had it too.) Then I loaded the new one with the same windows updates that were loaded on the initial computer. Logically speaking, you'd think a computer with loads of apps installed on it + 2GB of ram, would start up slower than a fresh computer with 4GB. However, it is clearly not the case.

I'll try out this test.

In terms of RAM recognition, clearly when I tested initial tests with replacement at 4GB, and old unit at 2, as well as swapping them, the 2GB was always recognized and for the 4GB 3.5GB is recognized. I think it depends as with my Vista 32-bit Penryn T9500 tablet it recognized 2.99GB of RAM. I havn't tested both at 2GB, I will try it later today and see what happens.




I'm not doing a clean install of Vista on both computers. I like my current partitions.

 

Yes, they are both Vista home premium.

I've always been under the impression that the more RAM you have, the faster it starts up, shuts down, and the better it is at multitasking. Never expected the 2GB RAM to affect startup by 10 seconds after 3 trials of shutting down and starting up... What I was looking for is to check to ensure my replacement matches or beats out my initial unit in terms of operation, and strangely, RAM is the cause.

The old one I had while I was waiting for my replacement, I basically went all out in installing games, applications, played games, apps, etc. The replacement one is a brand new computer that I havnt installed anything on except for assassins creed. (The old one had it too.) Then I loaded the new one with the same windows updates that were loaded on the initial computer. Logically speaking, you'd think a computer with loads of apps installed on it + 2GB of ram, would start up slower than a fresh computer with 4GB. However, it is clearly not the case.

I'll try out this test and update the thread once I do so.

In terms of RAM recognition, clearly when I tested initial tests with replacement at 4GB, and old unit at 2, as well as swapping them, the 2GB was always recognized and for the 4GB 3.5GB is recognized. I think it depends as with my Vista 32-bit Penryn T9500 tablet it recognized 2.99GB of RAM. I havn't tested both at 2GB, I will try it later today and see what happens and and update the thread once I do so.

 

Btw ignore the Vista WEI score. The testing parameters/criterea for it is innacurate, you might aswell roll a dice.

Also run memtest86+ for at least 2 hours or so. Run the BIOS ram diagnostic and windows memtest too if you have the spare time

 

I don't see how more ram would help it boot faster? How could it possibly affect the speed of boot up? Unless you have the bios set to do a full POST in which case it would take twice as long to check the 4gigs of ram and make it boot slower.. The super fetching is probably the main reason its slower though, Vista always tries to use about 50% of your ram for caching, if you have twice as much ram, it has to copy twice as much crap from the HDD to cache it in ram

 

Above a certain minimum amount, I also don't see more RAM helping the bootup process. However, AFAIK, the Superfetch process doesn't kick in until the desktop appears and computer becomes "more idle". I'm puzzled as to why it would slow down the bootup sequence.

I also have 4GB of RAM on my 1530. Superfetch uses about 95% of if for caching. Not 50%. After the superfetch service is done caching, I have only a few MB left available.

Also, Forte, what was the startup time for the 4GB machine? From the power on button to the Vista Orb/Login? Mine is about 35 seconds now (Vista Ultimate with the 250GB 7200 Samsung), with some tweaking.

 

Standard or SP1?

 

RAM has little to do with the boot up because everything is being read off of the hard drive. However, if you store everything in RAM like in sleep mode it is an instant boot. The more RAM you have the more addressing space the system has to go through and the more the hard drive has to load onto your RAM due to Superfetch.

 

They are both Vista Home Premium NON-SP1.

I have booted up my computer and timing with stopwatch, the startup time is exactly 34 seconds for the 4GB RAM in replacement. Since its basically close to 35... I think its safe to say that its not because Corsair made bad RAM, but all 4GB are like that probably.

 

Thats from the moment you hit the power button 'til you see the Vista Orb? If so, this is extremely good. Many others, in this very forum, report 45-60 seconds bootup times (although with maybe a little less powerful configs).

I get about 35 seconds (but I have Vista Ultimate, a bit heavier,but I tweaked the hell out of it). We have the same 1530 config, other than battery. So our timings are on par with each other.

 

For your startup tests, at what point in the startup did you consider the "end of startup?" I would hit firefox and as soon as it pops up and I can start typing in the address bar is what I have considered the end of startup.

I get about 30 seconds from cold boot to login screen.

 

What confuddles me is how my older one with 2GB Dell RAM can beat it by so much...

As for my startup tests, I considered end of startup when the desktop shows up.

Clearly the difference in startup time is before the logging in part as when I started both from off position (no passwords set on either), the older one with 2GB RAM beat the new replacement with 4GB RAM loading the entire thing including desktop. HOWEVER, when I timed the both starting from the login screen after the orb (password set to make it possible to stop after orb), the loading time for all the serivices, desktop, and to the point where the cursor stops having the blue circle thing above it disappears is the same.

 

I see. Mine is password protected, so my timings are from power button to orb (1 sec or less b4 login screen). I've never tried with no password/login screen. Maybe even faster due to no security, etc. I'd have to try it.

As for the 2GB vs. 4GB difference, I really have no plausible answer to give you. I'm stomped too. Why on earth would it make such a difference? Hmm.

 

With a T7500 and a 5400 drive?? Are you talking about XP or Vista Premium here?

Not that I'm doubting you (err, wait a minute, I am! ) but I'm curious on how you were able to achive this score? Any tips to share?

 

Im pretty sure its the 2GB of RAM. Dang. I know my inital unit with the 2GB of RAM like I tested, beats the 4GB in startup time by 10 seconds so... Im not surprised.

 

Benchmark both sets of memory.

 

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=27&threadid=2128835 here is a similar discussion taking place.

Someone over there says (FWIW):

"it has something to do with RAM amounts and cache, with too much RAM installed, the BIOS was disabling some of the cache, thus the long boot times. If you've tried an updated BIOS, then I don't know what to say other than consider a different motherboard. "

 

How did I achieve this score? Simple. I didn't I just timed my bootup. 42 sec from cold boot to login screen So it has been a while since I've booted my machine. I had to reboot it a few times too. The first time, I went into my closet and it went straight from the shutdown screen to the login screen in the time it took for me to find my wallet.

My first thought was.... "Did I hit Logoff on accident?"

 

Alright, so I can breathe again, you're NOT booting in 30 secs

Although, 42 secs is very respectable!

 

My going-to-be-shipped-back 2GB M1530 beats all you alls! Even my own

 

Ok, Ive done the tests and the verdict....

All RAM is fine, no defects whatsoever, the 2GB boots up faster than the 4GB because of 4GB ram having larger cache so its able to store more stuff onto it at initial startup. So for those of you who want faster startup times regardless of hard drive... get the 2GB ram. Though for the actual multitasking thats done once the OS is launched... the 4GB is the way to go for that. Also if you do a lot of sleep mode vs power off.

Difference in startup time is between 7-10 seconds between 2GB and 4GB. Hopefully this will help all of you potential buyers or RAM upgraders while you are considering whether to stick with 2GB or upping to 4GB.

As for me, I'm sticking with the 4GB just because I don't mind the extra seconds saved in startup time as the shutdown time is faster with 4GB and besides, you can multitask better with 4GB opposed to 2GB.

 

Good think I sleep my computer.

Yeah, 42 secs isn't bad at all. I sure did fool me. I had to reboot TWICE cause I kept turning around and watching TV. I heard that something about Shania Twain got seperated. Honestly, how do you screw someone else when you could screw Shania Twain for the rest of your LIFE. I'd give both my balls to be with her!!!

 

Yeah, but really celebrities, you never know what they might be thinking. They act all graceful on the outside, but... you really never know.

 

Funny thing... I tested this more last night.. and you know what? I was able to go down from 35 secs to.. 25 secs! Same system! Wanna know how? Well... I simply turned off the Bluetooth radio and.. BAM! 10 seconds less in booting my 4GB 1530

Try it Forte and let me know! (I dont know if you're using BT or not, but I got it on mine, but not using it currently, so I turned it off)

 

Bluetooth radio? Is that preinstalled on the M1530? If so, how did you disable it? Did you just disable the whole Bluetooth device? I'll try it later tonight and see what happens.

 

Not radio per say.. I mean the BT adapter itself. If you got BT on yours, then you must have this little blue BT icon in your tray. Right-click on it, chose "Turn off BT adapter". Reboot. Enjoy

No sh*t, it really shaved 10 secs off my boot time, consistantly.

 

Still, it doesn't explain the whole 2GB vs 4GB thing, but its interesting to know that the BT adapter alone is responsible for what... 1/3 of the total boot time?? Wow..