What I'd be interested in seeing is on the last test, where the dual 2ghz took 2 seconds to rotate an image when the RAM was bumped up to 2gb--how does the 1.8ghz compare when you bump up the RAM?
No they didn't add the RAM to all of the machines. I don't understand the point of that last test. How can you compare four computers when one of them has 4x the RAM the others do??Originally posted by Genie
Yeah- did they add the extra rsam to all the machines (probably not) - the graphs aren't comparing "apples to apples".![]()
Originally posted by MattG
No they didn't add the RAM to all of the machines. I don't understand the point of that last test. How can you compare four computers when one of them has 4x the RAM the others do??
Originally posted by Kiwi-Todd
Yeah I reckon it's still an interesting (and somewhat relevant) test to jack up the RAM.
I for one would never have imagined a performance jump like that - I have doubled the RAM in my 17 inch PB and saw barely noticeable incremental performance whereas you would have to notice that sort of performance jump!
p
Originally posted by Vlade
You are probably dealing with small files, try getting a hundred meg file, then benchmarking, with your average digital photo you won't notice much of a difference from RAM, but BIG resolution photos thrive on more RAM