FSX - Better To Have More Memory Or Fast Memory

Hi,

To explain the question in the title, I have 2GB of fast memory (DDR 500),
and also have retained the old 1GB of DDR400 I used to have before.

I've been using the fast memory as DDR 400, but this allowed me to squeeze
the latency settings right down. I could add the 1 GB RAM back in to give me
a total of 3 GB - but this means that I would:

a. Have to run at the longer latency settings for both sets of RAM.

b. Drop to a 2T Command Rate on my Athlon 64 X2 4400 instead of 1T.

Bottom line - will FSX run better with 3 GB in the slower configuration, or
should I stick to 2GB at the faster speed.

Thanks in advance,

"Bob Huntley" <bob.huntley.DeleteThis@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:BpedncuyYYuIkKTYRVnygw@bt.com...
> Hi,
>
> To explain the question in the title, I have 2GB of fast memory (DDR 500),
> and also have retained the old 1GB of DDR400 I used to have before.
>
> I've been using the fast memory as DDR 400, but this allowed me to squeeze
> the latency settings right down. I could add the 1 GB RAM back in to give
me
> a total of 3 GB - but this means that I would:
>
> a. Have to run at the longer latency settings for both sets of RAM.
>
> b. Drop to a 2T Command Rate on my Athlon 64 X2 4400 instead of 1T.
>
> Bottom line - will FSX run better with 3 GB in the slower configuration,
or
> should I stick to 2GB at the faster speed.
>
> Thanks in advance,

You also need a beeifer graphics card as well as more
RAM. I am running my FS machine with 1.5 GB
of RAM, and I find that I will still have to spend
$300 on a new graphics card. I boosted the RAM
from 1 to 1.5 GB, using a memory module out of
an old machine that went ka-put some time ago.

Even at 1.5 GB, I find that I still need to get a new
graphics card, which will be around $300.
>
>
>
>