Possible fix for stuttering....worked for me anyway :D
- Thread starter snedie
- Start date
I have no idea, in the BIOS I set the controller to AHCI and then I have access to the onboard RAID controller configuration.
Also I would love to know how you have not heard of the JMicron controller given it is the most popular with nearly every SataII board using it.
As for performance, the reason I don't get super fast speeds is because the controller sucks major ass.
This isn't a RAM issue in the slightest bit, don't post in threads unless you actually understand them all you do is confuse readers who stumble on this thread later on. Also for those who don;t realise this, you will never see your RAM 100% full as Windows will always reserve a percentage for itself. Under task manager, in the processes tab enable the collumb for hard faults, as you will see that game you thought was entirely in RAM is actually residing in the Pagefile all along.
Just to clarify this is an issue with the Windows Pagefile, and the "Fix" is to place the Pagefile into a RAMDISK. Now as I stated right at the start, this is a "possible" fix, and chances are it may not work for everyone. Unless you are contributing to the thread in a constructive manner do not post, I doubt the mod's will help clean up your comments but if one of you guy's feel generous please delete all posts from #18 - #26
Last edited:
You misread. I have heard of Jmicron plenty.
What I actually said was:
But as I suspected, it sucks.
SUPPOSED issue with the PF.
Nobody has proof otherwise, it could just be an issue with your drives/controllers/configuration that is highlighted when the PF is accessed.
If it was a PF problem it would be universal between all those who used a PF. This is clearly not the case.
Do a Google search for putting the page file on a RAMDISK and then tell me it doesn't alleviate stuttering in a whole raft of applications.
Also how you can say it would be universal is beyond me, there are half a dozen version of Windows 7, and hundreds of patches and hotfixes, not to mention the countless numbers and versions of drivers AND hardware, all of which COULD play a role in how the entire system works at the kernal level.
Hell, a sound card driver which likes to constantly buffer audio into the pagefile could cause enough of a delay to make a noticeable impact in game.
Just as an example, lets say BF3 tried to load the textures for the environment 10 meters in front of me (the high res textures not the low res long distance ones) and they happened to total 50MB (not that much considering the game will chomp up well over 1.5GB of them), from the page file on my ssd's which will read at 450MB/s, that would take 111ms to load. Tell me you wouldn't notice that......
Last edited:
Certainly can, I'm actually considering upgrading to 24GB so I can get BF3 onto one, I'll be able to watch more waiting timer than any one else
You are missing my point.
If it was an inherent PF issue everyone would have it and everyone would have stuttering in the scenario you depict.
But not everyone does, in-fact I would go out on a limb and say that the people with stutter issues are in the minority.
I am not saying using a PF in a RAMDISK does not resolve your issues. What I am saying is that the issue is not intrinsically linked to the PF.
I understand that stuttering is a common issue, and I also understand that it being related to the page file is not as common but certainly a well documented occurrence. You can find dozens of forums detailing that disabling the page file all together has resolved stuttering issues, the whole point of this thread is to highlight a POSSIBLE fix that isn't destructive, doesn't put people's data at risk and takes less than 5 minutes to implement and another 5 minutes to remove if it doesn't work.
There has already been one post in this thread from someone who tried this fix, and it worked. I would appreciate it if we could try and keep the thread relevant to the topic for sheer ease of reading for people trying to find answers.
Im still running XP (yeah, yeah I know) but I also have Vista 64 on a dual boot. Only because so many games these days are still DX9, if they are DX10/11 then I just load Vista at boot.
As I only have XP Ive never got more than 4GB Ram over the years as XP cant utilise any more than that. I must admit I'd never considered the RAM much when upgrading my gaming rig over the years, I've always focused on the gfx card mainly as thats where most of the power comes from for games.
I found this thread really interesting, you mentioned in the first post that it 'could' work with less RAM, in laymans terms, how would this RAMDISK method work on 4GB compared to 12GB, would having too little RAM have a reverse effect in performance?
As I only have XP Ive never got more than 4GB Ram over the years as XP cant utilise any more than that. I must admit I'd never considered the RAM much when upgrading my gaming rig over the years, I've always focused on the gfx card mainly as thats where most of the power comes from for games.
I found this thread really interesting, you mentioned in the first post that it 'could' work with less RAM, in laymans terms, how would this RAMDISK method work on 4GB compared to 12GB, would having too little RAM have a reverse effect in performance?
From what I can read you seem to have stuttering issues in skyrim/bf3 and the benchmark u-heaven at least, right? While I understand it's a quick fix, I always hate band-aid fixes that ignore the problems underneath.
But I guess if it works, it works, but it sounds like you have some conflicts on your system, I guess with the myriad of software/hardware out there it's a roulette if you're going to have issues.
If you were going to do this I do not see why you would set a 4GB RAMDISK/Pagefile.
You should not be touching much of the PF at all with enough memory while gaming, 1-2GB seems MORE than sufficient to me.
I don't even set a 4GB PF on my SSD. I've capped it at 500MB and while this might be too low, I experience no issues.
You should not be touching much of the PF at all with enough memory while gaming, 1-2GB seems MORE than sufficient to me.
I don't even set a 4GB PF on my SSD. I've capped it at 500MB and while this might be too low, I experience no issues.
I would doubt that you could actually get away with creating a RAMDISK on only 4GB without running into some issues with Windows complaining. Also, Windows XP Pro comes in a 64bit package too which does support more than 4GB, it can be had quite cheap these days.
If you upgraded to 8GB it might be worth a try, but given that XP only supports DX9 I don't think games are intensive enough to warrant trying. If you use photoshop or editing software which requires scratch pads (they work in a similar fashion to the page file) you might find these may perform better when used with a RAMDISK.
Having 1.8PB of RAM wouldn't stop Windows using the page file. Although Windows 7 has been coded to utilise more available RAM than any other OS previous by Microsoft, it still uses the page file to store old chunks of data.
Setting task manager to show hard faults will show you this in action, you might be surprised to learn that your games are still using the pagefile regardless of the amount of memory available.
And just to top it off, all the user is doing with this fix is changing the location of the pagefile to a faster location, they are not doing anything detrimental in the slightest bit to their machines or operating system.