Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.comp.os.windows-11 > #18482
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | alt.comp.os.windows-11 |
| Subject | Re: memory usage vs fan usage |
| Date | 2025-04-18 14:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <o0s9dlxtvf.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> (permalink) |
| References | <m6cgr0Fa4thU1@mid.individual.net> <e0soeyu4gp7i$.dlg@v.nguard.lh> <lm48dlxubq.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> <1dqvnjtw9l7d2$.dlg@v.nguard.lh> |
On 2025-04-18 02:30, VanguardLH wrote: > "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > >> IMHO, memory compression should not be active while there are lots of >> free ram available. >> >> Unless, unused memory can be powered off. Can it? I have not heard of >> such a feature, but it might exist. :-? > > Considering how addressing accesses across modules, I doubt it. Having > to power back up would severely slow memory access speed. Takes time to > wake up, and these days it's even longer for me. > > You can adjust clock rate voltage, CAS latency, and some other timing > tweaks all of which are for overclocking. I don't overclock outside > what the module specifies itself via XMP Profile. I just let SPD from > the chip decide the memory settings in BIOS. I didn't think XMP Profile > was enabled, but after investigating how it works, and how the chip > maker specifies those tweaks within the module which should be stable, I > went into BIOS to enable XMP Profile only to find that is the default, > so it was already enabled. My mobo only supports one XMP Profile (XMP > 2.0 only since I have DDR4, no XMP 3.0 since I don't have DDR5), so my > choice was on or off, not which one to use. Since I had been running > for several years with it unknowingly enabled, I kept running it that > way. You can use CPU-Z's SPD tab to check if a memory module is using > XMP, and which version. Pick a "slot" (memory module), and look at the > "SPD ext." setting. It's either on or off for all memory. > > https://www.crucial.com/articles/about-memory/what-is-xmp > https://www.pcgamer.com/what-are-xmp-profiles-and-how-do-i-use-them/ > > Other than XMP Profile, I don't don't do overclocking. I use the > optimal setting (default) specified by the SPD in the memory module. > When I first built the box, I tested with some overclocking to see how > much of a boost I'd get in performance. In a couple video games, the > frame rate when up a little, like 5 fps, but it was already more than > high enough to show a smooth display during game play. The extra heat > wasn't worth the tiny boost, and I didn't like upping the voltage. Heat > is the nemesis of silicon. > I never overclock. My board is designed for overclocking, but I just use one of the defaults. > I don't recall ever seeing some power management scheme that would power > off or put into low-power mode whatever modules did not have accessed > addresses after some threshold of idle addressing. How would memory > know it didn't have something written to it by some process that would > expect immediate access, but after some timeout threshold? However, I > did find: The operating system would know, and decide not to use part of the memory. Switch it off, no contents to worry about losing. But I suspect the power saved would be minimal. > > https://edc.intel.com/content/www/us/en/design/ipla/software-development-platforms/client/platforms/alder-lake-desktop/12th-generation-intel-core-processors-datasheet-volume-1-of-2/009/memory-power-savings-technologies/ > > RAM doesn't retain its content, so it cannot be powered off; else, you'd > lose everything stored in RAM. Low-power mode might work, but it would > still have to exceed the minimal voltage needed to operate the RAM to > ensure bits weren't lost. > > https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000006619/processors/intel-core-processors.html > > That mentions the C3 and C4 power states, but for mobile platforms. > Saving battery power is crucial to up-time for mobiles. The first Intel > article mentions having to keep cycling the memory through refreshes to > keep alive its content during C3 (deep sleep). Right. > Okay, but it takes a > moment to come out of sleep mode, and that would be highly impactful to > the performance and responsiveness of the OS and apps if the computer > were constantly diving into deep sleep to immediately come out of it. Not important, because switching a memory module on would happen when loading more software, or when some application demands a lot more memory. This would be a rare event. It might be interesting for phones and other battery operated devices. You make me wonder: mobile phones use dynamic ram, or static ram? I think calculators use static. -- Cheers, Carlos.
Back to alt.comp.os.windows-11 | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-17 15:16 +0100
Re: memory usage vs fan usage Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-17 12:09 -0400
Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-17 19:57 +0100
Re: memory usage vs fan usage Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-18 03:15 -0400
Re: memory usage vs fan usage VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-17 11:59 -0500
Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-17 19:40 +0100
Re: memory usage vs fan usage Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-04-19 12:04 +0000
Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-19 13:36 +0100
Re: memory usage vs fan usage Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-19 09:25 -0400
Re: memory usage vs fan usage Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-04-19 14:54 +0000
Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-19 16:16 +0100
Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-24 08:17 +0100
Re: memory usage vs fan usage VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-24 05:14 -0500
Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-24 11:30 +0100
Re: memory usage vs fan usage Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-24 09:08 -0400
Re: memory usage vs fan usage VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-24 20:59 -0500
Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-25 07:40 +0100
Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-25 19:13 +0100
Re: memory usage vs fan usage VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-25 22:29 -0500
Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-26 10:31 +0100
Re: memory usage vs fan usage VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-26 15:05 -0500
Re: memory usage vs fan usage "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-19 14:36 +0200
Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-19 13:56 +0100
Re: memory usage vs fan usage Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-19 09:28 -0400
Re: memory usage vs fan usage VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-17 15:07 -0500
Re: memory usage vs fan usage "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-17 22:25 +0200
Re: memory usage vs fan usage VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-17 19:30 -0500
Re: memory usage vs fan usage "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-18 14:09 +0200
Re: memory usage vs fan usage VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-18 11:13 -0500
Re: memory usage vs fan usage "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-18 21:33 +0200
Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-17 22:12 +0100
Re: memory usage vs fan usage VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-17 20:07 -0500
Re: memory usage vs fan usage Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-18 05:24 -0400
Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-18 12:08 +0100
Re: memory usage vs fan usage Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-04-18 18:09 +0000
Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-18 19:36 +0100
Re: memory usage vs fan usage "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-17 22:29 +0200
Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-17 22:17 +0100
Re: memory usage vs fan usage "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-18 02:19 +0200
Re: memory usage vs fan usage Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-18 05:52 -0400
csiph-web